|
|
|
Denwash
New Member
USA
18 Posts |
 Posted - 01/04/2007 : 17:06:58 [Permalink]
|
Religion aside, it seems that this has turned into yet another semantic analysis thread. 
The word "Faith" seems to have a very negative connotation on the threads here. I can certainly say that i have been burned in the name of faith more than once, so it is easy to understand this reaction. However, I don't believe all faith is bad. I learned quite a while ago, that I was never going to be able to learn everything. (much to my chagrin) It seems to me that common faith is a placeholder for our brains, which gives us a sense of confidence when we do not have available data or control of a situation. For example - How many of you have read your automobile insurance policy? I would suspect that the majority of you take your coverage on faith. This is understandable, since prolonged reading of insurance policies can cause madness and bleeding from the ears. (I should know, I work in insurance) This common type of faith allows us to accept certain things without having to research every little fact that we come across. It can be argued that we can calculate the odds of most of our actions, and take the most advantageous route, but there is still enough of a lack of data (Or computation power) that we have to accept some things - continued in a bit |
 |
|
|
Denwash
New Member
USA
18 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 17:40:38 [Permalink]
|
| Anyway - it has been my experience that most of the time, faith can help us greatly in our everyday lives. There are 2 downsides to this: 1. Laziness: Faith can become such a habit that we start using it in place of thought, and end up using it for situations where we could have easily done the necessary research to make an informed decision. 2. Faith Blindness: Faith can become so compelling, that it actually replaces thought, and we deny an obvious fact despite evidence to the contrary. As long as those 2 pitfalls can be avoided, I personally don't see anything wrong with faith. As always, these musings are my opinion only, and I welcome rebuttals to my semi-coherence |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 19:59:12 [Permalink]
|
I think it's important, Denwash, to note that there really are two kinds of faith, and to not conflate the two.
You're right that because nobody can learn everything, some things are "taken on faith." However, my "faith" in, for example, the latest materials and electronics science to get a better, faster computer on my desktop than last year's model is based upon two easily verifiable facts. One is that what the scientists claim to be true really does work, as shown by the fact that my new computer is measurably better (in several ways) than my old one, and two is that the scientists aren't arguing amongst themselves about basic points.
That last is very important. An obvious way to get worldwide fame and attention as a scientist is to overturn previous knowledge. Doing so has garnered many Nobel Prizes in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. So the fact that all over the world, scientists tend to agree upon the basics of computer chip-making tells me that those basics really are true (or as close to it as we'll ever know).
To use a much more clear example, 99.99%-plus of working biologists consider the basics of evolutionary theory to be correct. Evolution has actually occured and is still occuring. The agreement on this is overwhelming, despite the fact that finding it to be false would ensure many life-long careers and celebrations of scientists a hundred years from now (like our current "Darwin Day" stuff). So even if I knew nothing about biology, I could see that if there were a real controversy about the fact of evolution, I should see lots of argument among biologists about it, since the motivation exists for such argument. There is none.
This sort of agreement among competitors (for fame and research money) is, in my opinion, actual evidence in favor of the truth of certain questions, especially the bedrock notions upon which entire fields of science are based.
For a silly example, I don't need to "have faith" in any sense of the word that the index of refraction of sapphire is 1.77, because even without knowing (like I do not) how such a thing is measured and/or verified, the simple fact that scientists aren't arguing about it tells me that it's true (at least to that many decimal points).
Now, contrast the above sorts of things with religion. Look at Christianity's two largest divisions, the Catholics and the Protestants, and see how they both tell me to have "faith" in the exact same thing (the ressurection of Jesus), they can't agree on some very major points. They should agree, but they cannot. While scientists do agree, but should not.
Consensus among scientists replaces faith. There's no need for faith in science. Religious folks want us to have faith in spite of there being no consensus. It's a very different sort of "faith."
The common meaning of faith ("trust me on this") is also worthless in a scientific sense. Science is all about not trusting others, or even ourselves. The methods of science are designed to help us avoid fooling ourselves by ensuring that we do not take things on faith, whether in the common sense or in the religious sense. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 21:01:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
They [religious folks] should agree, but they cannot. While scientists do agree, but should not.
Damn well put.
I don't know if you're still doing the Post of the Month, but this gets my vote.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Denwash
New Member
USA
18 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 21:43:11 [Permalink]
|
| I completely agree - very well put! Trusting an authority, or a consensus of authorities on a specific subject, seems like a very valid shortcut to me. Especially on something that is agreed upon by virtually every expert on the subject - such as evolution. But it is still a shortcut. Those of you whom have read my introduction know that I have personally validated evolution to myself (as much as is possible for a non-scientist), and it is certainly not practical to recreate eveyone else's research so that I can be sure of it. I think my point is that faith is a slippery slope, and it is easy for me to see how somebody could slide down. Thinking is hard work (at least for me), and how easy it is to let a mechanism that I already use on a daily basis take on more and more of the thinking responsibility. I understand the attraction: Faith is easy, skepticism is hard. Although I have chosen the more difficult path, I try to be tolerant of those who are not yet up to the task. Reading through what I have just written, I seem to view faith as I would a drug addiction. I continue to hope that rehabilitation is possible for most users. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 22:18:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Denwash
Religion aside, it seems that this has turned into yet another semantic analysis thread.
The word "Faith" seems to have a very negative connotation on the threads here. I can certainly say that i have been burned in the name of faith more than once, so it is easy to understand this reaction. However, I don't believe all faith is bad. I learned quite a while ago, that I was never going to be able to learn everything. (much to my chagrin) It seems to me that common faith is a placeholder for our brains, which gives us a sense of confidence when we do not have available data or control of a situation. For example - How many of you have read your automobile insurance policy? I would suspect that the majority of you take your coverage on faith. This is understandable, since prolonged reading of insurance policies can cause madness and bleeding from the ears. (I should know, I work in insurance) This common type of faith allows us to accept certain things without having to research every little fact that we come across. It can be argued that we can calculate the odds of most of our actions, and take the most advantageous route, but there is still enough of a lack of data (Or computation power) that we have to accept some things - continued in a bit
It is interesting how your example is an illustration of how faith can screw you (as in, you believe your covered and you ain't), but not of how faith can help. I certainly am aware of my insurance policy and how and when I am covered. If I were a more responsible man I would definitely read everything within my policy down to the letter.
However, in the case of faith about things which we could investigate further and have little stock knowledge to insure us, I think that we should definitely investigate to the furthest of our abilities. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 22:21:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Denwash
Anyway - it has been my experience that most of the time, faith can help us greatly in our everyday lives. There are 2 downsides to this: 1. Laziness: Faith can become such a habit that we start using it in place of thought, and end up using it for situations where we could have easily done the necessary research to make an informed decision. 2. Faith Blindness: Faith can become so compelling, that it actually replaces thought, and we deny an obvious fact despite evidence to the contrary. As long as those 2 pitfalls can be avoided, I personally don't see anything wrong with faith. As always, these musings are my opinion only, and I welcome rebuttals to my semi-coherence
How can faith ever help, other than to sooth our minds. Some people can't handle not knowing, they should work on that character flaw rather than build faith houses of straw to later be blown away. That is certainly a blow that will be harder taken by the overconfident than the slightly unsure. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 22:30:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Denwash
I completely agree - very well put! Trusting an authority, or a consensus of authorities on a specific subject, seems like a very valid shortcut to me. Especially on something that is agreed upon by virtually every expert on the subject - such as evolution. But it is still a shortcut. Those of you whom have read my introduction know that I have personally validated evolution to myself (as much as is possible for a non-scientist), and it is certainly not practical to recreate eveyone else's research so that I can be sure of it. I think my point is that faith is a slippery slope, and it is easy for me to see how somebody could slide down. Thinking is hard work (at least for me), and how easy it is to let a mechanism that I already use on a daily basis take on more and more of the thinking responsibility. I understand the attraction: Faith is easy, skepticism is hard. Although I have chosen the more difficult path, I try to be tolerant of those who are not yet up to the task. Reading through what I have just written, I seem to view faith as I would a drug addiction. I continue to hope that rehabilitation is possible for most users.
The thing about having faith in scientists is that its not faith at all. Any one anywhere at any time could investigate for themselves any conclusion reached by the scientific community provided they have enough education. Most people would, as Dave illustrated, rely on the others who are capable of doing this and their consequent agreement on the conclusions be evidence of the validity of the claim or conclusion. This is belief/trust with evidence and is thus, not faith. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 08:28:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
The problems with definitions is that the english language is so frekin bastardized, it can apply equally to both:
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
So I again assert that agnostiiscm should be the honest default position, and that atheism is an oxymoron as one cannot be without theology as that is a theology itself....
ANd no, I don't proof read near enough.....
It not only can refer to both O.I, it does refer to both. Atheism is but is not limited to one who does not belief in a god.
Agnosticism is not a position that covers belief, it covers knowledge and one cannot believe in something one has no knowledge about. To do so is to have faith.
Exactly.. Faith.
quote:
quote:
I am not trying to "refrain" from naming my diety. I could call him "Bob" if I wanted, though I like "Teddie" better. Hell, his name could be CRTSDWESD, and he was a scientist for the Qwerty empire. The Qwerty empire was the ruling power of the multiverse. The scientists in the multiverse were experimenting with something we would call "Twinkies", dropped one in their Quantum reactor and Kablooie..... destroyed themselves while making the biggest damn bang.......
My point is, it is not known, and is at this time, unknowable. You can theorize the hell out of it all you want. Theories have been wrong, science is not perfect.
Joe
So... Anyone can theorize anything. If they have no evidence, we should assume that theory is wrong not right. Sure it could be right, but probably not and it certainly doesn't matter until the evidence is in. Just because anything could be right doesn't mean everything should be considered plausible.
Do you think that fairies holding us fast to the ground is a plausible explaination for gravity? Are you agnostic toward it. Before you say you are agnostic toward it answer this, would you spend any government money on finding out if it is true? After all if it is possible and you don't know for sure you should at least investigate shouldn't you?
Governmet money is a whole difirent issue. The government needs to stay the hell out of science. The elected officials need to be scientifically informed, but to give them the power to hand out money just partisans the money.... But that is another issue we can discuss more in a difirent thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Do you think that fairies holding us fast to the ground is a plausible explaination for gravity?
"Fleebledorps are able to grumfig" is an assertion. And while it is possible that fleebledorps can really grumfig, in the most technical sense of the term 'possible' and based upon no more knowledge than I've provided so far, an attempt to guage the plausibility of the claim will depend upon the evaluation of actual evidence both in favor of the claim and against it.
Obviously, in this example, the evaluation of evidence must begin with the question, "what the hell is a 'fleebledorp'?" And then, of course, "what is 'grumfigging'?" Once we get that sort of data, we can begin to assess the plausibility of "fleebledorps are able to grumfig." Until such a time, not only should we not waste resources trying to investigate the claim, we shouldn't even waste resources entertaining the notion that the claim is true. Without knowing what the words mean, the claim isn't necessarily false, it's just meaningless.
Original_Intent has, unfortunately, shown that in his opinion, there is no definition for the word 'God' from which we can begin to assess the plausibility of the claim, "God exists." He has asserted the "unknowability" of God. And so, while "God exists" isn't necessarily false, it is meaning-free, and thus completely unworthy of contemplation.
Technically, this isn't the same thing as defaulting to false, but for all practical purposes, the end result is the same: "God exists" is tentatively assigned a "truth value" of zero along with all the other known nonsense (like "balls are square" or "purple smells like oatmeal") until more evidence (or even just a definition) is put forth by those who might claim that "God exists" should have a truth value closer to one (even those "fence sitters" who think it should be precisely 0.5 and call themselves agnostics).
Your simplification is great. Faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
O.I. said:
quote:
So I again assert that agnostiiscm should be the honest default position, and that atheism is an oxymoron as one cannot be without theology as that is a theology itself....
I'll be kind and just call this for the straw-man it is.
You wrongly conflate the concept of theology with the concept of atheism. Theology, in it's basic meaning, is the study of religion. You can be an atheist and also be a theologist. Religion is unquestionably real and present in the world today. It is possible to study religion without believing in any god/s.
Atheism does not mean to be without theology. It means to be without belief in god/s.
All atheism means is that an atheist does not believe in the existance of any god/s.
Point taken on the definition.
But as always, I seem to start arguing points, even after I put in my original posts on the matter that the arguement is futile. The rest, which is the important stuff, gets lost in the arguemnt.
Peace
Joe
|
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 08:54:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Exactly.. Faith.
No, not exactly. It takes faith to believe in something you know nothing about. It does not take faith to not believe in something. There are unlimited amounts of things that you do not believe in.
quote:
quote:
quote:
I am not trying to "refrain" from naming my diety. I could call him "Bob" if I wanted, though I like "Teddie" better. Hell, his name could be CRTSDWESD, and he was a scientist for the Qwerty empire. The Qwerty empire was the ruling power of the multiverse. The scientists in the multiverse were experimenting with something we would call "Twinkies", dropped one in their Quantum reactor and Kablooie..... destroyed themselves while making the biggest damn bang.......
My point is, it is not known, and is at this time, unknowable. You can theorize the hell out of it all you want. Theories have been wrong, science is not perfect.
Joe
So... Anyone can theorize anything. If they have no evidence, we should assume that theory is wrong not right. Sure it could be right, but probably not and it certainly doesn't matter until the evidence is in. Just because anything could be right doesn't mean everything should be considered plausible.
Do you think that fairies holding us fast to the ground is a plausible explaination for gravity? Are you agnostic toward it. Before you say you are agnostic toward it answer this, would you spend any government money on finding out if it is true? After all if it is possible and you don't know for sure you should at least investigate shouldn't you?
Governmet money is a whole difirent issue. The government needs to stay the hell out of science. The elected officials need to be scientifically informed, but to give them the power to hand out money just partisans the money.... But that is another issue we can discuss more in a difirent thread.
You missed my point entirely. My point was that you are not truly neutral about something unless you give equal time to it in study. You are not agnostic to my fairy theory because you would not even consider it unless I had some evidence, and that makes you more negative (a disbeliever) in my theory than a neutral. Unless of course, you are neutral in that you simply wait on the sidelines for someone else to handle all the dirty work and thinking for you. In that case, however, you are not the kind of skeptic I would even bother talking to.
quote:
Your simplification is great. Faith.
Perhaps you should define faith. Because you keep insisting that a lack of belief without evidence is faith when the definition is "belief without evidence".
quote:
Originally posted O.I.
So I again assert that agnostiiscm should be the honest default position, and that atheism is an oxymoron as one cannot be without theology as that is a theology itself....
Agnosticism does not concern belief. Also, a neutral position means that you must consider it worthwhile to study. Atheism is a lack of theism and is not an oxymoron any more than untied.
Do you think that it is worthwhile to entertain all statements ever made by anyone as equal? If someone claims to be abducted by aliens do you believe them? I ask because there is no possible way for you to prove that they were not. So according to your definition you must remain agnostic to it, and if you doubt them, you doubt it on faith alone. Yes aliens are material and testable, but they are also so far advanced in knowledge that we cannot test for them and they can fool us no matter what.
*Also, I don't see what your point is. Even if you win the semantecs and faith is any belief or non-belief, what does that prove? It still means that faith in something is more foolish and dangerous than faith that something does not exists until evidenced, and we still should require evidence before considering something. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 01/05/2007 08:58:30 |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 13:45:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Exactly.. Faith.
No, not exactly. It takes faith to believe in something you know nothing about. It does not take faith to not believe in something. There are unlimited amounts of things that you do not believe in.
Yes, exactly..... belief that is not based on proof.
quote:
You missed my point entirely. My point was that you are not truly neutral about something unless you give equal time to it in study. You are not agnostic to my fairy theory because you would not even consider it unless I had some evidence, and that makes you more negative (a disbeliever) in my theory than a neutral. Unless of course, you are neutral in that you simply wait on the sidelines for someone else to handle all the dirty work and thinking for you. In that case, however, you are not the kind of skeptic I would even bother talking to.
No, I don't believe in farries, and have not given consideration to their existence for quiet some time. I am an aferiest..... I find the idea that the physical actions you describe unbelievable. I might consider it if I had the evidence in front of me, depending on who and where the evidence came from, what the evidence entails, and the manner in which it is presented.
Of course, in all seriousness, I might still be missing the point.....
quote:
Do you think that it is worthwhile to entertain all statements ever made by anyone as equal? If someone claims to be abducted by aliens do you believe them? I ask because there is no possible way for you to prove that they were not. So according to your definition you must remain agnostic to it, and if you doubt them, you doubt it on faith alone. Yes aliens are material and testable, but they are also so far advanced in knowledge that we cannot test for them and they can fool us no matter what.
*Also, I don't see what your point is. Even if you win the semantecs and faith is any belief or non-belief, what does that prove?
AGH! That s why I said quote:
But as always, I seem to start arguing points, even after I put in my original posts on the matter that the arguement is futile. The rest, which is the important stuff, gets lost in the arguemnt.
in the last arguement.
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 22:35:38 [Permalink]
|
O.I. said:
quote:
Governmet money is a whole difirent issue. The government needs to stay the hell out of science. The elected officials need to be scientifically informed, but to give them the power to hand out money just partisans the money.... But that is another issue we can discuss more in a difirent thread.
Its OT but the vast majority of basic research is funded by governments. If it weren't, it would never be done.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2007 : 00:40:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Your simplification is great. Faith.
I must be misreading you, because otherwise by that response to what I'd written you seem to be saying that any acceptance of any empirical assertion amounts to nothing more than a belief, making the terms 'knowledge' and 'faith' synonymous (at least outside of formal logics). Please clarify. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2007 : 16:11:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Your simplification is great. Faith.
I must be misreading you, because otherwise by that response to what I'd written you seem to be saying that any acceptance of any empirical assertion amounts to nothing more than a belief, making the terms 'knowledge' and 'faith' synonymous (at least outside of formal logics). Please clarify.
Gladly :)
You said:quote:
Original_Intent has, unfortunately, shown that in his opinion, there is no definition for the word 'God' from which we can begin to assess the plausibility of the claim, "God exists." He has asserted the "unknowability" of God. And so, while "God exists" isn't necessarily false, it is meaning-free, and thus completely unworthy of contemplation.
Which is where my where my "faith" should have gone, as in "the existence of a diety is a matter of faith."
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2007 : 12:33:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Yes, exactly..... belief that is not based on proof.
Are you intentionally being dense? Lack of belief is a fair position. It is not based on anything (especially not faith) because no justification is needed.
quote:
quote:
You missed my point entirely. My point was that you are not truly neutral about something unless you give equal time to it in study. You are not agnostic to my fairy theory because you would not even consider it unless I had some evidence, and that makes you more negative (a disbeliever) in my theory than a neutral. Unless of course, you are neutral in that you simply wait on the sidelines for someone else to handle all the dirty work and thinking for you. In that case, however, you are not the kind of skeptic I would even bother talking to.
No, I don't believe in farries, and have not given consideration to their existence for quiet some time. I am an aferiest..... I find the idea that the physical actions you describe unbelievable. I might consider it if I had the evidence in front of me, depending on who and where the evidence came from, what the evidence entails, and the manner in which it is presented.
Of course, in all seriousness, I might still be missing the point.....
How can you be an Aferryist and not an Atheist then? You disbelieve in fairies because there is no evidence. That is the best position to be in until such evidence is available. Should one be criticised for lack of belief then? No. But for believing in fairies on faith? Yes.
quote:
quote:
Do you think that it is worthwhile to entertain all statements ever made by anyone as equal? If someone claims to be abducted by aliens do you believe them? I ask because there is no possible way for you to prove that they were not. So according to your definition you must remain agnostic to it, and if you doubt them, you doubt it on faith alone. Yes aliens are material and testable, but they are also so far advanced in knowledge that we cannot test for them and they can fool us no matter what.
*Also, I don't see what your point is. Even if you win the semantecs and faith is any belief or non-belief, what does that prove?
AGH! That s why I said "But as always, I seem to start arguing points, even after I put in my original posts on the matter that the arguement is futile. The rest, which is the important stuff, gets lost in the arguemnt." in the last arguement.
Peace
Joe
So why are you arguing that faith 'in' something is equal to faith 'against something' (which is not even in the definition of faith)? |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 01/11/2007 12:40:11 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
