Do Atheists Have Faith?
January 12th, 2007 by 
soulster
UPDATE: My view here is conditional on my definition of faith. Due to comments on this and other posts, I have added My Definition of Faith as a separate post to clarify the definition given here.
I would like to give my opinion on this idea which has appeared on this blog, primarily in back-and-forth comments on Me Arguing with No One in Particular, especially between Dave Armstrong (who recently departed this blog) and beepbeepitsme (the charming lady from Down Under) (numbers 42-44). Drunkentune already responded to this assertion and several others in his post Red Dust, which is worth your reading.
Some people, believers especially, would like to think or to be able to say that all humans have faith, but differ in what they have faith in or upon. This is applied especially to atheists, and in particular in those conversations when atheists assert that they do not need or wish to resort to living by faith, as believers do (sometimes, blindly some atheists might also add). I disagree with this idea that atheists have faith and here’s why:
First, I don’t think atheists have faith because atheists themselves say that it’s not true. They look at the processes and features of faith and say, “nope, that’s not me.” Now we all have certain thoughts on things, atheists included, but there’s a big difference between simply thinking and faith. Faith is trust in something and requires active consent, and you would think from that definition, someone cannot have faith unbeknowst to them. For believers to keep insisting that atheists have faith even after they say they do not is, in my opinion, the equivalent of forcing a racial stereotype on someone. Even if they claim the stereotype is not accurate, insistence continues and can intensify into mistreatment. It is something irrational and insensitive and the only purpose can be the maintainance of the prejudice or justification for dismissal.
Second, I think such insistence cheapens the meaning of faith and plunges us into an ambiguity that makes dialogue nearly impossible. I equates thought and belief, which, though common in the vernacular, should not be done. Simply thinking something or holding an opinion with some certainity does not mean you have faith. Faith is relational trust, at least in the original Judeo-Christian tradition, defined from Abraham who believed the promise given by God face-to-face and in so doing became “the friend of God.” While this kind of trust influences and includes thoughts, it is much more than just thinking certain things. It is about accepting the revelation of one being to another and acting on that intimate knowledge.
Unfortunately, ‘faith’ in West has been corrupted and hallowed out as a concept as much as ‘love’ (I love pizza). It has come to mean mental assent of certain doctrines, but a “thinking-only” faith is not really faith, in my opinion. Perhaps the reason believers say atheists have faith reflects more the shallowness of what that has come to mean to us, rather than how much we have come to understand the meaning of atheism and humans in general.
On the other hand, I think that this topic between believers and non-believers is missing a more productive key issue: how to deal with uncertainty. Regardless of belief or non-belief, all humans do not know all that could be known, nor will we likely ever. So we must respond in some way to the uncertainity that surrounds us like a fog. Faith is just one response to uncertainity in the context of relationship. Finite beings know other’s self-revelation finitely (whether God or each other), so we trust revelation in relationship — that is the response of faith by my definition, drawn for the narratives of my religion. But there is also the response of confusion, question, boubt, assumption, inference, educated guess, theory, imagination, model, symbol, and many other responses that deal with uncertainity. So simply living with uncertainity does not equal faith. While believers use faith in the context of a relationship with God, they may use other responses as well in regards to science, and even how they discover the Bible. Conversely, atheists may use faith in human relationships, but that does not mean that they use it in science, or when driving their car, or in regards to questions concering the existence or non-existence of God.
We differ mostly in our degree in which we use these responses and in their appropriate context, and we would do better to explore this in our dialogue. To narrow eveything down to one response is not helpful in this case, and we would benefit from some distinctions in terminology and continued descriptions of who is using what when. What do you think?
Posted in atheism, belief, definitions and descriptions, how to dialogue | 
January 12th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
You beat me to it! I’ll post my response soon, along with a response to the assertion: ‘atheism is a religion.’
January 12th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Re soulster:
RE: “especially between Dave Armstrong (who recently departed this blog) and beepbeepitsme (the charming lady from Down Under)”
Shouldn’t “charming” have been in inverted commas?
I will also, hopefully, get around to making a comment - busy today.
January 12th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
beepbeep:
No. I meant it. You can be charming, especially if people read your wit as you write it — even as you let us believers have it.
January 12th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
I gather that believers equate the word ‘faith’ synonymously with religion. As an atheist I have a strong faith in myself, not in an egotistical sense, but as the captain of my own fate. I do not know another human being as well as I know myself. I cannot fool myself, lie to myself, or cheat myself. I face each day with my eyes wide open and take full responsibility for my own actions and admit that I am not willing to suffer the severe consequences for not abiding by the secular laws that govern us. Because I don’t believe in any grand divine plan I accept the fact that sometimes bad things happen to good people. I don’t hate or discriminate against whole groups of people for any reason, nor do I blindly embrace any form of dogma without question. Without expectation of heavenly reward I enjoy volunteering my time to help others who are less fortunate and hope I have made a difference. And when my ashes are scattered on the San Gabriel Mountains overlooking Santa Anita I hope not to have left behind any woulda, coulda, shouldas.
January 12th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
“For believers to keep insisting that atheists have faith even after they say they do not is, in my opinion, the equivalent of forcing a racial stereotype on someone.”
In what way is it equivalent?
Believers are saying that atheists have faith because they are trying to point out that–if “faith” means believing in the unproven–then atheists too have faith.
If you keep straight the sense of words as people are using them you will have an easier time understanding the contentions behind the statements “Atheism is a religion” and “Atheists have faith.” It is semantic obtuseness to say “Well, where are our rituals? Therefore, not a religion!” or “Faith in nothing isn’t faith, therefore, no faith!”
What is being said by those two statements is simply this: That atheists as much as believers have a world-view that is their basis for their approach to life (metaphorically speaking, a “religion”) and that foundational to that world-view are certain unsupported presuppositions which they believe to be true (metaphorically speaking, “faith.”)
I don’t think that it is indicative of a cheapening of the meaning of the word “faith,” nor is is a confusion about the meaning of religion. It is, rather, an attempt to point out that–if the believers’ “supersitious” belief in something beyond the material is unfounded–then so too is the atheists’ supposedly “scientifically objective” denial of it. That’s all.
January 12th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
ben,
My ‘denial’ is tentative. Show me how to gain any knowledge beyond metaphysical naturalism, and I’ll jump on that bus faster than David Koresh.
January 13th, 2007 at 1:11 am
Hmmmm , do atheists have faith? A loaded question if I ever heard one. First you tell me what you mean by faith.
Do you mean…
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing?
Then yes, an atheist is confident in truth that science reveals about the world we live in.
Do you mean…
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence?
Then no, an atheist does not believe things that do not conform to known properties of the world we live in.
Do you mean…
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance?
Then the answer to that one is solely based on the individual. Is it unreasonable to have loyalty to ones family, friends or country even if that person doesn’t believe in a ‘god’?
Do you mean…
The body of dogma of a religion?
I think you know the answer to that one.
Or do you mean…
A set of principles or beliefs?
Are principles and beliefs only possible if a person believes in a ‘higher’ power?
If you first tell me what you mean by having ‘faith’, THEN I will tell you if I have ‘faith’ or not.
January 13th, 2007 at 1:15 am
“My ‘denial’ is tentative.”
Well, except that it sort of isn’t. You yourself once said, in response to a question I asked, that if your alphabet soup suddenly spelled “HELLO ITS ME GOD,” that you still would not believe. Can you give me a situation wherein you would believe in God? Without chalking it up to hallucination? Or wishful thinking? Or coincidence? Or as-yet-unexplained natural phenomena?
“Show me how to gain any knowledge beyond metaphysical naturalism,”
Am I right in guessing that I would have to prove this new method only by metaphysically naturalistic means?
“and I’ll jump on that bus faster than David Koresh.”
Because anyone who doesn’t believe in strict materialism is an intellectual-suicide case?
January 13th, 2007 at 3:20 am
This critique scarcely applies to me at all, since I was using “faith” in this context with a specific, narrow meaning (clarified over and over), viz.: “belief in unproven axioms.”
The atheist often claims that he doesn’t do this and that the Christian, in contrast, lives in blind faith, and gullible infantile ignorance (not to mention the common insinuation that we’re mentally ill).
Note, e.g., above, “Closet Atheist” provides a textbook example of the first clause in the above paragraph:
Do you mean: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence? [Yes]
Then no, an atheist does not believe things that do not conform to known properties of the world we live in.
I say this (his assertion and the general attitude and opinion) is hogwash. If anyone doesn’t like the word “faith” applied to this sort of analysis, fine. It’s dispensable, since my point is that every atheist accepts unproven axioms and is no more epistemologically “solid” in that sense than a Christian (let alone vastly superior, as they often arrogantly suppose).
I never even got to the heart of my argument because the responses were so filled with non sequiturs and insults that I figured, “what’s the point?”
I only respond now because even the resident Christian blogmaster misunderstood my intent in using the word “faith.” This called for a clarification, so that soulster and other Christians can understand exactly what I was driving at (Ben gets it, so it is possible, and I don;t think it is rocket science to correctly perceive my limited definition in a limited context). The original argument along these lines is made in my paper:
The Atheist’s Boundless Faith in Deo-Atomism (”The Atom-as-God”)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/12/atheists-boundless-faith-in-deo.html
Now, remember, this is parody, sarcasm, and polemics, but in my opinion, entirely justified as a “turn-the-tables” exercise, in reaction to constant atheist invective about our supposed blind faith and their supposed purely scientific and evidential viewpoint.
And it is dead-serious at bottom (like all effective satire strives to be). It’s not mere frivolity or provocation for its own sake. It has a point to make. Atheists react in a knee-jerk way because the critique hits so deeply upon their cherished first premises that they just can’t deal with it; hence the usual mockery and irrelevancies in reply.
Sarcasm and satire have a long Christian history (e.g., Jonathan Swift, Cardinal Newman, G.K. Chesterton, the evangelical magazine, The Door, Jesus, Paul, Elijah). I didn’t invent it.
Whether atheists are unable to stand criticism of their presuppositions and accusations against Christians is another matter, beyond my purview. But as a Christian apologist, I sometimes deal with that and try to show where the fallacies and falsehoods lie.
January 13th, 2007 at 5:06 am
Quick answer to the question - “Do atheists have faith?”
Obviously they do NOT have faith in the existence of a god or gods.
Probably safe to say that most atheists do not have faith in “the truth of religions” and they probably don’t have faith in the existence of the supernatural either.
Aparts from the issues of religious faith, an atheist may, or may not have faith in other concepts. But it wouldn’t be BECAUSE they were an atheist that they had these faiths.
There are no prescriptive faiths for atheists.
I may have faith that mankind will eventually create an improbability drive (I don’t by the way), but this faith isn’t particular to me being an atheist. My being an atheist has nothing to do with it.
On the otherhand, religious faith is prescriptive for theists, it is required. Religious faith is necessary for someone to call themselves a theist.
There is no faith required (religious or otherwise), as the result of calling oneself an atheist.
Not many atheists I know use the word “faith” outside of a religious context. I think that is because atheists see religious faith as a belief in something regardless of the evidence or the lack of it.
Maybe because atheists are not convinced that faith that something is true regardless of evidence or the lack of it, is the best determinant of truth.
Theists appear to consider evidence in a subjective light. I am not convinced that a theistic test (if one exists), for veracity is unflawed.
When it comes down to it, I think their test for truth is faith. As mentioned in Hebrews 11:1.
“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)
So faith becomes evidence of things not seen, but hoped for. (In other words, - Preserve your faith and faith becomes the evidence that what you believe is true, IS true.)
Not many atheists are going to consider faith as evidence of the truth.
Faith under these circumstances is non-negotiable. And I think that it is this non-negotiable aspect of religious faith, which makes it unreasonable.
January 13th, 2007 at 10:17 am
ben,
‘I ask God to unlock a sealed box as evidence for his existence.’ (From Faith and the Bible)
It’s still locked.
January 13th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Please understand that I state that my views are conditional on my definition of faith which is given in the post. Some of the comments here seem to miss my agruement by saying, “well that depends on what you mean by faith”. Exactly my point! And I am arguing for a particular definition. To clarify, here it is: My Definition of Faith.
Internet Infidel:
My definition of faith is primarily relational and not exclusively religious. Your point that you have faith in yourself maintains my relational defintion.
ben:
Yes, of course I understand this. As is clear in the post, I am arguing for a particular definition which is not common usage, and that is the pivot upon which my agruement rests. I am clearly saying I disagree with the popular definition as much as I am saying atheists should object to that definition as well.
Closet Atheist:
I am famous on this blog for using loaded questions as a rhetorical device. Also, what I mean by faith is declared in the post, and to make thing more clear, I posted a separate definition (please see link above).
Dave:
No, I got your exact meaning or how else could I be agruing for a alternate defintion in this post. Ben agrees with your definition and I do not, that does mean I don’t get it. It just means that we are two Christians that define an important word differently, which is probably very informative for our readers.
beepbeep:
Please see the post on my defintion of faith linked above where I address the meaning of Hebrews 11:1 in context, including some hints as to how I believe it is misused by presupposing our current arguements upon it.
January 13th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
“I ask God to unlock a sealed box as evidence for his existence.”
Why that particular test?
“There are no prescriptive faiths for atheists.”
Except the prescriptive notion that no matter what, there is no God.
If I rolled dice, and rolled a seven every single time, 777 thousand times in a row, you would say “The dice are rigged.”
If we were to live in a universe, in a galaxy, in a solar system, on a planet with chemicals that all along the way seem increasingly fine tuned for life, you would say “Well, that’s the anthropic principle. It’s like that because if it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here.”
This was the entire point of Dave Armstrong’s “Deo-atomism” post that so many so completely misunderstood. This point: That atheists have complete faith that, given about 14 billion years or so, a collection of atoms could write all the works of Shakespeare. There is no proof that this is possible, it is a faith-based presupposition of atheism.
January 13th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
ben,
I chose that test because it cannot be done other than by supernatural means. The only key is lost, and it’s still locked.
If you can demonstrate to me the existence of God, I will become a believer. If you did roll dice and got 7 every time, I’d take you to Vegas. It would not logically be proof that your god exists, only that it is highly unlikely for this to occur by natural means, and very likely for this to occur by supernatural means.
Who says this? Of course 13.7 billions years ago, the universe wasn’t anything like it is today, so atoms could not write all the works of Shakespeare. The Big Bang at t minus 0, quarks and glutons at 10-18 seconds, the particle era at 0.01 seconds, the automic nuclei form at 3 minutes, the era of atomic nuclei at 38,000 years, and the era of atoms at 1 billion years. (Jeffrey Bennett et al., The Cosmic Perspective, from fig. 23.3, p.688)
That is not faith; that is the current scientific fact, always willing to be proved wrong, and to say otherwise would be ignorance on your part. You can either accept the empirical scientific data or reject it.
January 13th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Soulster,
You continue to miss the point. We don’t necessarily disagree on the definition of “faith” from a Christian perspective. It’s not either/or. There is no need for you to suggest an “alternate” definition. It’s a “both/and” scenario.
I was simply using an additional definition of the word that is also permissible, in a particular context (atheist polemical claims).
It’s much ado about nothing. Either I have every (linguistic / philosophical) “right” to use the word in this additional meaning, as the dictionary defines it (indeed, as even drunkentune defines it; even the “charming” beepbeep agrees, for heaven’s sake), or I do not.
So it becomes pretty silly. I’m not denying that you could and should use the word in your sense (since I do so myself in a totally Christian context), but you seem to be denying that no other meaning of the word is permissible (or polite) or conducive to dialogue, which is highly strange, in my opinion.
Moreover, you have added unhelpful (and uncharacteristic) polemical baggage to the discussion by implying that simple use of this secondary sense adds up to all sorts of undesirable outcomes:
“forcing a racial stereotype on someone. . . . It is something irrational and insensitive and the only purpose can be the maintainance of the prejudice or justification for dismissal.”
C’mon! Is all that melodramatic fluff necessary? If you consistently take a Christian position, you will inevitably be unpopular with some (not all) atheists. It is impossible not to. And so that happened to me here. Big wow. Jesus didn’t exactly say that we would be loved by one and all, did He? You know what He said. And if no one you can think of “hates” you [Jesus’ term, not mine] because
of your Christianity, then something is not right, because He said it was fully to be expected.
You can try the “ultra-diplomatic approach” and it has its place and its merits and it’ll work with some, but if it entails warring with the dictionary and fighting useless fights over words then is it really worth it?
You know as well as I the sort of claptrap (mentally ill, anti-scientific, anti-evidence, and the whole nine yards) that has been thrown towards Christians in this very forum (and this is one of the better ones), yet you would rather quibble with a dictionary-confirmed secondary meaning of faith, than condemn in no uncertain terms what is said about Christians. The Christians are “prejudiced” but the atheists have none of that at all?
I continue to respect what you are trying to accomplish, and admire your patience, but surely diplomacy and so-called “open-mindedness” has some limits somewhere.
January 13th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Dave,
It’s good to hear from you again.
Who is saying this, other than you?
January 13th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
No matter which side of the debate between theists and non we fall I don’t believe any of us who are posting here came to our differing conclusions without examining and researching the pros and cons of the subject in great detail. And like so many of those who came before us we have come to differing opinions. This quote from Sir Francis Bacon sums up for me the journeys all of us here have made:
“If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.”
January 13th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Who is saying this, other than you?
Just read my post: soulster did:
“forcing a racial stereotype on someone. . . . It is something irrational and insensitive and the only purpose can be the maintainance of the prejudice or justification for dismissal.â€
January 13th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Dave,
Point taken. I find it a poor analogy, but I fail to see the connection as soulster saying ‘atheists don’t have prejudices.’ I say we ask him.
soulster,
Do you think atheists have prejudices, just like everyone else?
January 13th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
That’s easy to answer, but beside the point. I want to know if he agrees that atheist prejudice has been expressed HERE, in this forum.
That’s where the rubber meets the road, and diplomacy faces its limits.
January 13th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Dave,
Then are you willing to agree that there has been Christian prejudice expressed HERE too?
January 13th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I don’t know if it has or not because I didn’t read all the posts (didn’t have the time to; i.e., when I was hanging out). It hasn’t come from me. Just because I disagree with someone doesn’t make me think they are fundamentally lesser than me.
Generally, speaking (beyond this forum), of course there is tons of prejudice (and folly) on both sides of the “aisle.” Only a fool or an idiot would ever deny that.
January 14th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Only a fool or an idot would deny dave’s proclamation that there is folly and prejudice on both sides of the aisle. Why? Because dave says so.
And if you disagree with dave, that is obvious evidence that you are a fool or an idiot.
January 14th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Internet Infidel:
Good point. That’s a great quote.
drunkentune:
To answer your question: yes.
Perhaps my analogy is poor, but that is the closest thing I could come up with in my experience. When studying theology in college, I became a student leader. There were African-Americans in the theology program as well, but the whites held the positions of influence in the campus ministry, programs, etc. We (the whites) claimed that the African-Americans held a questionable theological position based largely on a racial stereotype of African-American churches, preachers, and their portrayal in media. They claimed they did not. We insisted, and since they weren’t ‘honest’ about it, we felt confirmed in holding our position. This became justification for not allowing them access to the spiritual leadership on campus, even when they asked politely. In our discussion of their request, it would always turn that matter of theology, and then we would dismiss their request and them without much ado.
I’m not attempting to throw out some cheap manipulative trick: if I liken it to something racial, believers will panic and drop it. But I’ve been a part of a lot of conversations with believers where they quote “well, there are no atheists in foxholes”, “you gotta serve somebody”, “come on, atheist have to have more faith than believers” or something similar. Right after, the conversation usually turns to, “well, that’s why there’s no point in talking to an atheist” and other justifications of dismissal. Now, if you are a believer, this may not apply to you, and I am not trying to make the claim that using the ‘ahteistic faith’ arguement makes you a bigot. If you read my post carefully, it is the consistent insistence over and over again that atheists do have faith even though they claim they do not that is questionable. Regardless of any absolute truth, it fails to engage someone’s self-definition and therefore cannot be productive in dialogue.
January 14th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Dave:
So here’s my answer to your question. Sure, I think I’ve encountered some atheist prejudice here. And there has been some believer prejudice as well. How do I know? Because I have been the offender. These prejudices are being reformed as I engage in dialogue, so I thank the atheists who are kind enough to educate my judgemental heart (meant figuratively, atheists. I really mean brain/psychology — see I’m learning).
January 14th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
soulster,
I like the extended explanation much more.
If you’ve had prejudices, you’ve been able to overcome them - that much cannot be said about me (at times) and other commentators. I think I’ve learned a good deal so far. This could well be a ‘culminating experience’ for many of us.
January 14th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Only a fool or an idot would deny dave’s proclamation that there is folly and prejudice on both sides of the aisle. Why? Because dave says so.
Right. There is no folly and prejudice to be found in atheist ranks at all (even as a broad generalization, as my statement was). I stand corrected. Anyone who denies this (like me) is an arrogant know-it-all. All the folly and prejudice lies on the Christian side. All atheists have the utmost integrity in intellguence, ethics and everything else.
January 14th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
intellguence = intelligence
LOL I need a new keyboard.
January 14th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Fixed! Every time a moderator fixes a spelling mistake, an angel gets his wings.
January 14th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
LOL but the funniest part is that your correction is itself a typo: “intellgence”
Donna Reed was a babe . . . esp. in that movie.
January 14th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Hah! I didn’t even notice it. I’ll leave it there for now. I was contemplating of misspelling ‘angel’ to ‘angle’, but I beat myself to the punch.
January 15th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Well, if we’re gonna leave mistakes, I thought “intellguence” was an absolute classic: one for the ages. LOL
January 15th, 2007 at 2:12 am
Here’s an angel, all right. It’s Donna Reed! I’m testing to see if I can do a photo too:
January 15th, 2007 at 2:15 am
Guess not! I picked a very sweet and innocent face photo: the third one down on this web page:
http://www.skylighters.org/sweethearts/drindex.html
Just having a little fun . . .
January 15th, 2007 at 7:58 am
This one?
Just do
<img src=”http=xx” width=”xx”>
You wanted intellguence? Well, you got intellguence!
January 15th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Now that is a sweet “round”-shaped face!
January 15th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Wow, from hot debate to checking out Donna. The blogosphere is ever surprising.
January 15th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Hey, it’s something me and drunken have in common . . . it merely went from hot debate to hot babes. LOL
January 17th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Dave,
The reason for my breakdown of meaning of the word faith and the possibility that atheists can have ‘faith’ in something, is this…
How many atheists out there have heard the counter “You say you don’t have faith but you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow or that the chair you are sitting in is going to hold you up” This is returned if the atheist says they have no faith. What I do have in this instance is reasonable knowledge that the sun will rise, based on an enormous amount of data that it has done so in the past. In this case the only valid use of faith would be faith that the sun would NOT rise tomorrow.
If the definition is not clearly stated, then this is the trap that many believers try to set.
So my answer to you is NO I do not have faith as you define it. By my answering your specific definition please do not try to apply that answer to any of the other definitions of the word.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:04 am
RE: dave
“Generally, speaking (beyond this forum), of course there is tons of prejudice (and folly) on both sides of the “aisle.†Only a fool or an idiot would ever deny that.”
What you basically said, dave, was that anyone who disagreed with your claim is a fool or an idiot.
Now, I know I can be kind of forthright, but I don’t usually go for the deliberate insult in such an overt fashion.
I understand that my very position as an atheist is insulting to many people before I even present any ideas; but I usually draw the line at telling people that they must be a fool or an idiot if they disagree with me.
You, however, do not. It must be that “peace and love” aspect of your religious belief that is showing.
And dave, anyone who disagrees with me, must be a fool or an idiot.
January 18th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
That’s an excellent point! Interesting read, for sure. You’re getting some link love at infinivert.com