Who out numbers who? Those that believe in a creator or those that believe only in science? The later is a very small minority in this discussion.

Irrelevant - doesn't matter who outnumbers whom. There was a time where those who believed the Earth was flat vastly outnumbered those who thought otherwise.

Did he create the tornado that hit Moore like he created the nice beautiful weather on other days?

The answer to that is no then. He did create the universe and everything and set it in motion, but men (and probably a woman or two) built the town where they did. Some days are nice and some days aren't. I often hear false teachers say "Group X is being punished for reason Y". We know that doesn't happen because that would require God to judge people, and we know there is only going to be one judgment and it hasn't happened yet.

God promised a safe landing, not a smooth ride. Of course, if you live life the way you are instructed it can definitely be a pleasant ride. Likewise, you can have a pleasurable life not living the way God instructed, but that landing is going to be a doozy.

The answer to that is no then. He did create the universe and everything and set it in motion, but men (and probably a woman or two) built the town where they did. Some days are nice and some days aren't. I often hear false teachers say "Group X is being punished for reason Y". We know that doesn't happen because that would require God to judge people, and we know there is only going to be one judgment and it hasn't happened yet.

God promised a safe landing, not a smooth ride. Of course, if you live life the way you are instructed it can definitely be a pleasant ride. Likewise, you can have a pleasurable life not living the way God instructed, but that landing is going to be a doozy.

Thank you for your answer. Very interesting.

Holy crap man, what in the hell are you talking about?
Apparently, you've lost the bubble on what I'm talking about. Here's a recapitulation.

I find it odd that when there is a beautiful morning then god made it........but the f5 tornado that causes tremendous death and destruction? Not a chance.

So god made the f5 tornado?

So god allowed someone to set down an f5 tornado that killed people? Who is it he allowed to do such a thing?

So why exactly is it ok to mock and denigrate what other people believe? ...
That last one wasn't directed at you, but you must have felt it was because you responded with:

Wait a second......... So asking a completely legit question is now mocking? Maybe you can answer for me since pp dodged the question. People will say god made the beautiful morning, but won't say he made the f5 tornado that kills people? Why is that?

I'll happily dodge the question, too, as I doubt its anything more than a fishing expedition for more ammunition. If you really wish to become educated about the nature of God, don't go to a chat forum. Study a well-reviewed text or discuss it with a reasonable, educated person in person, instead. If you wish to see the Old Testament Christian exposition of the concept, read the book of Job.

Lol. Ammunition? really? It's a very straight foreword question. It's sad how Christians always feel like the victims. Always mistreated and defensive.

So you're saying you'd go to OKC Talk and ask honest questions for spiritual or philosophical advice, medical advice, legal advice and / or financial advice? I'd say a genuinely interested person in answers about any of those topic should find their way to a book store or professional.
I'm no victim, by the way. Just not interested in jumping into an argument that is clearly unwinnable (from either side).
It's sad how so many haters can't resist the chance to mock those they don't agree with. Always obstreperous, aggressive and closed-minded.

Holy crap man, what in the hell are you talking about?
That's what I was talking about.

I simply ask the believers a question. Are we not allowed to ask a question here at okctalk?
Of course, you're allowed to ask questions. Ask all you want. My response is that you're going to the wrong source if you genuinely want an answer that you can trust.

Again, do you believe god created f5 tornadoes that produce death and destruction or does he only create the good things?
My response remains the same:

I'll happily dodge the question, too, as I doubt its anything more than a fishing expedition for more ammunition. If you really wish to become educated about the nature of God, don't go to a chat forum. Study a well-reviewed text or discuss it with a reasonable, educated person in person, instead. If you wish to see the Old Testament Christian exposition of the concept, read the book of Job.

When science can create life from thin air or even a blade of grass for that matter the idea of a God and creation is going to be my personal belief. And that shouldn't offend anyone its my belief.

Can you see the wind? So just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. How do you know there aren't scientists in the universe who have created life from thin air?


:tiphat:

You can't see the wind you already know that. So you now believe in scientists that live out in the universe? Little green men also ? Not sure i can get on board with that.

When science can create life from thin air or even a blade of grass for that matter the idea of a God and creation is going to be my personal belief. And that shouldn't offend anyone its my belief.

Other than what you read as text from The Bible, did you see God create man from the dirt of the earth? Did you see him take a man's rib and create a woman from that? At this rate, I may as well believe in Ancient Astronaut theory--aliens adding their genes into our DNA to create a more intelligent species. Also, science has created life....years ago. I don't doubt that man can clone man right now. We just don't because of the religious issues.

You can't see the wind you already know that. So you now believe in scientists that live out in the universe? Little green men also ? Not sure i can get on board with that.

I don't know if their little or green but to assume we are the only intelligent living being in this universe is ignorant and small minded at best.

No. But I believe based on all the observable evidence, it is more likely there are green scientists out there than a god.

I agree with this. Of course, I suppose then one *could* call the green scientists, "God" if they so choose. But versus the "God" of the Christian bible? Yes, far more likely to have green scientists in their lab 14 billion light years away.

What would be the response if the creator was just another species from a distant galaxy or something?

What would be the response if the creator was just another species from a distant galaxy or something?

From me, it'd be "doesn't surprise me". I honestly hope this world is like the end a movie called 'The Thirteenth Floor', which was highly overshadowed by 'The Matrix' cause were released at the same time.

I don't know if their little or green but to assume we are the only intelligent living being in this universe is ignorant and small minded at best.

So now you are open to God?

So now you are open to God?

I thought you left, lol.

Yeah - but I saw an opportunity here to maybe give someone an alternate view. Plus, work has been real slow today, it's cold outside, my car is still in the body shop, and the Thunder game doesn't start for a few more hours. What else is there to do?

On edit, getting ready to bike over to BestBuy and pick up some Christmas gifts.

Yeah - but I saw an opportunity here to maybe give someone an alternate view. Plus, work has been real slow today, it's cold outside, my car is still in the body shop, and the Thunder game doesn't start for a few more hours. What else is there to do?

On edit, getting ready to bike over to BestBuy and pick up some Christmas gifts.

OMG, you own a car? Couldn't resist. This thread is totally off track anyway...

Other than what you read as text from The Bible, did you see God create man from the dirt of the earth? Did you see him take a man's rib and create a woman from that? At this rate, I may as well believe in Ancient Astronaut theory--aliens adding their genes into our DNA to create a more intelligent species. Also, science has created life....years ago. I don't doubt that man can clone man right now. We just don't because of the religious issues.

Scientist can't even make a blade of grass , much less a human this is laughable.

Yeah - but I saw an opportunity here to maybe give someone an alternate view. Plus, work has been real slow today, it's cold outside, my car is still in the body shop, and the Thunder game doesn't start for a few more hours. What else is there to do?

On edit, getting ready to bike over to BestBuy and pick up some Christmas gifts.

On a side note...... You have to be one of the best posters here.

Scientist can't even make a blade of grass , much less a human this is laughable.

...and you don't think your argument is laughable...

On Edit: of course you don't, you believe in unprovable things you can't see, like wind, which is God touching you.

Scientist can't even make a blade of grass , much less a human this is laughable.

If you can't offer any sort of proof that god exists, your position is laughable. Jesus's likeness appearing on a slice of toast in Portugal is not proof, by the way.

What would be the response if the creator was just another species from a distant galaxy or something?

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjEwOTk4NjU2MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMDA3NzI3._V1_S X214_.jpg

Scientist can't even make a blade of grass , much less a human this is laughable.

You are confusing scientists with nature. And whats laughable is your awful analogies, comparisons and if/then statements.

We can grow ears in petri dishes. :)

Without starting with living tissue first? Or is the ear made out of thin air?

All this thin air stuff...how is air not fat? Must have an image issue.

As far as body parts from air? You could definitely argue that...

Human body is 65% Oxygen, 18% Carbon, 10% Hydrogen, and 3% Nitrogen among other things.

Air is 78% Nitrogren, 20% Oxygen, as well as a fraction of Hydrogen and you could argue Carbon by breaking down Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide.

In a round about way...yes, everything is made out of air. :) Though we can take it to a higher level and say we are all made out of the results of stars exploding.

Without starting with living tissue first? Or is the ear made out of thin air?

I dedicate this video to you Garin:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfYJykSizIk

This is the perfect time for this video...which goes along with what Venture just posted.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej8u-gU

Ooooooo, I'm gonna have to watch that when I get home to the wifi! Tyson wrote a book that is an awesome read.

This is the perfect time for this video...which goes along with what Venture just posted.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej8u-gU

Sad that Garin and PP won't take this to heart, sometimes the truth is more fantastic and amazing than any myth.

This is the perfect time for this video...which goes along with what Venture just posted.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej8u-gU

One of my favorite youtube videos.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is great. He was on one of the late night shows a few months back and told this super cute story about how he was telling a big auditotium full of grade school kids about how we REALLY ARE stardust and gave them the simple explanantion. At Q&A time one little girl about 7 walks up to the microphone and asks, "If we're made of stardust, why don't we twinkle?" He said he laughed, gathered himself quickly and said, "Sweetheart - you DO twinkle - we're just not far enough away to see it. You just keep on shining."

"How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? "

"How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? "

But then you're back to the question of.......is it any more outrageous to believe all of the above happened, than to believe that an intelligent designer (intelligent enough to do all of that with the proteins) managed to appear without itself having a designer? To me, that's way more fanciful, and takes way more leaps in logic, than the mysteries involving natural creation or even science-fiction type scenarios.

"How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? "

An invisible wizard in the sky did it.

So what you said made me think of...

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Sad+but+true.+Not+sure+if+repost_65c5f2_4445527.jp g

This will (most likely) be my last post in this thread. I'm not entirely sure why I'm posting this, but maybe it'll help explain where I come from (not that most of you have been anything but friendly with me). This is something I wrote last year. I'm no theologian, at all. I don't pretend to be. I know there will be some who will read it and think it crazy that I can believe in God; there will be others who will ridicule me for accepting the Big Bang Theory. The good news for me (and you, if you really think about it) is that I don't care because it is completely irrelevant. Maybe this will help some see how we can reconcile the two, maybe not.


And God saw that it was good… but what did He see? April 7, 2012
I have been thinking about this for several years but really made a connection a few nights ago when I was reading the Bible to my girls for bedtime. We were reading the book of Genesis (it is a children’s Bible, so not the full story). After we were finished, I asked if they understood what they were hearing. They said yes, but my five year old is my little theologian. This child has an amazing ability to understand religious ideas and concepts that shouldn’t even be on her playing field. She asked a very simple question: ”Daddy, were Adam and Eve real?” My policy as a parent is not to lie to them. We have Santa at Christmas, Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, etc. However, we don’t force them on the girls. When someone tells my kids they aren’t real, and they come to me for an answer, I ask, “[Whichever child], do you believe in it?” They will always say yes, to which I reply, “Then nothing else matters, and it is real.”

This one was a little different, though I can’t explain why. I felt I could answer it, in my eyes, truthfully and that my kids would understand it. After having the talk about not telling all their friends because it is up to their parents, I told them how the world was created.

I told them that Adam and Eve didn’t exist as the people they read about in the Bible.


Over the course of the last several centuries, science has moved from the province of religion to the antithesis of religion. In very general terms, scientists view religion as a superstitious remnant from man’s dark days, and the ultra religious view science as a heathen study that attempts to secularize and remove God from everything. While this is not a universal belief for either side, it is general enough that I can characterize it as such and feel confident.

Man’s view of the world (and its components) has evolved over the past few centuries. Most people are familiar with the young earth theory that states this planet and the universe was created by a deity within the past 7,000 or so years. This theory is that there was simply nothing in existence before (except the deity), and the universe and everything contained therein was made in an instant. The most familiar of these in the West is the Judeo-Christian example found in the book of Genesis. Taken literally, the universe was created in six days while the seventh (thus creating our calendar “week”) was a day of rest.



Conversely, the scientific community has largely agreed on the Big Bang model for the formation of the universe. Though not accepted by all, it is the standard theory. This explains, in short, that the universe existed in a space smaller than an electron before a rapid expansion about 13.7 billion years ago led to the current state of existence.



On the surface, these are two radically different creation models that have no business being compared. At the start, simply compare the time frame of each. The literal account of Genesis is less than 7,000 years old. This creates a world where God physically created everything, and it is as He made it (except for things that have died out/killed off since the creation). The Big Bang model accounts for 13.7 billions years of existence (that’s 13,700,000,000 years). Within that model, it is stated that the earth formed roughly 4.5 billion years ago from a collection of dust that had coalesced into a yellow star in a system with several other planets and bodies in orbit. Within that time frame, the earth was battered by meteors, cooled, formed oceans, evolved life, and then intelligent life. The standard model of life in the scientific community is evolution: that, over billions of years, life changed and adapted to new conditions until we have reached our current state (and are continuing the process of evolution). This is how we get a 4 million year history of hominids and the development from simple primate to (somewhat) advanced, (mostly) intelligent man.

However, if you can remove any preconceived notions about these ideas and think about them freely, things might look slightly different to you. Take Genesis 1:1-5:

(1) ” In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, (2) the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. (3) Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. (4) And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. (5) God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” NRSV

The universe went, very suddenly, from nothing to something. In a proverbial snap of God’s fingers, He transformed the void into light and existence as we know it. Genesis 2, the other Biblical account of creation (yes, there are two and no, they are not identical. That’s another post.) says that God simply made the earth and the heavens (Genesis 2:4).

Now, let’s look at how science explains the beginning of the universe:

“According to the standard Big Bang model, the universe was born during a period of inflation that began about 13.7 billion years ago. Like a rapidly expanding balloon, it swelled from a size smaller than an electron to nearly its current size within a tiny fraction of a second.” Greatest Mysteries: How Did the Universe Begin, <http://www.livescience.com/1774-greatest-mysteries-universe.html>

The universe went, very suddenly, from nothing to something. In the course of less than a second, the universe expanded from a space subatomic in size to something beyond human comprehension.

What we have are two completely different theories that are at odds with each other, yet they share the same fundamental principle. In the span of a second, an instant of measurable time, the universe we live in became. I see that science has explained creation, and its beauty lies in the fact that God snapped His fingers, and here we are.

I know that not everything can be married together and form a “Grand Unified Theory of Science and Religion.” I honestly don’t know how or if the theory of evolution and the Biblical account of creation can be reconciled. Nor do I particularly care. My religion does not have to explain everything. I devour articles on science. I can go from reading the Bible to reading a book explaining the Pre-Cambrian period and how life evolved without blinking. I don’t need one to override the other so it can fit in some neat little pigeon hole that I created. God does not fit in my pigeon hole, nor should I expect Him to.

This will end up as a separate post simply by the magnitude of it, but we as humans have an overwhelming need to know things (surprise!). Not just know things but understand them. It bothers us when there is some question hanging over us (I’m more guilty than most). My need for complete understanding is so intense, it surprised me when I first realized that I didn’t need to know the exact answer to this. Whether God created the universe 7,000 years ago or 13.7 billion, Christ still died for me. Whether Genesis is a literal explanation, or simply early man’s best attempt to explain something far beyond their understanding, is irrelevant.

To sum up my conversation with the girls that night, I said that Adam and Eve did not exist. I believe that Bible was inspired by God, written by man. How can it be otherwise when there have been countless revisions? Which version is correct? I use the NRSV, others the NIV, the ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, etc., and so forth. Those are just English versions (which are translations of other versions, which are often translations of other versions!). To get off my tangent, I asked the girls how God created the universe. We talked about how he said, “Let there be light” and that was his creation. I explained the Big Bang theory and how it postulates that the universe was infinitely dense and, in an instant, there was creation. As soon as I said that, my five-year-old knew exactly where I was going. She got it.

Maybe I’m wrong; I won’t know for sure unless God decides to reveal His knowledge to me. I’m not arrogant enough to think that I deserve an explanation. The peace I feel without knowing for sure, flying in the face of how I am about everything else, tells me that I get it. I don’t know how, I don’t know when, I only know that God created me.

I believe thinking about the existential things of life, and where we came from and why we're here, is something that everyone ponders at some time or another. More some than others to be sure. I also don't think you should have to apologize or feel mocked for your faith. We can all give the best we can for our own personal beliefs and - in the end - they're just that and that's all.

Idiocracy Brawndo's Got Electrolytes - YouTube (http://youtu.be/e1fKzw05Q5A)

This video sums up arguing this point.

Idiocracy Brawndo's Got Electrolytes - YouTube (http://youtu.be/e1fKzw05Q5A)

This video sums up arguing this point.

Great movie. Not sure what your point is, unless it's that Idiocracy is our future if we don't educate our children in real science.

"How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? "


Science is advancing everyday and only really started a few decades ago making advances, superstition has been around a few thousand years. Science guides us into the future with facts and advancement, superstition keeps us in the past believing in magical entities in the sky who get all the credit and none of the blame.

I find it somewhat sad and wrong that religion seems to equal superstition, to some. To me, religion is a constant investigation into spirituality, self awareness and ethics. If studied and investigated, why is it something akin to backwoods superstition? Why can't science and religion coexist?

Why can't science and religion coexist?

For two reasons.

1) Because some people fear the judgment so they pretend it won't take place. However, it isn't enough that they don't believe it, they don't want others to believe it either.
2) They turn to science as their 'religion' but science can't disprove the existence of God either - so they get even more disgruntled about it.

Why can't science disprove God? The answer lies in Einstein's 1st Postulate about Relativity. No experiment can be produced to either confirm or reject the hypothesis of God existence (which is Big Bang Theory 101 - Sheldon is a theoretical physicist and Leonard is an experimental physicist . Sheldon comes up with the ideas and Leonard tries to proves them wrong). In this case, there is no 'Leonard' (See Einstein Postulate 1 and the lack of an inertial frame of reference). To put it simply, to prove the existence/no existence of God you need 2 places, one with God and one without God, and since God exists everywhere (according to Christians) or nowhere (according to atheists) there is no conceivable experiment.

Now from the Christian side, both can and do exist. I go to church every Sunday since birth (with an occasional miss now and then) and I spent two years working as a Photogrammetric Scientist (actual job title). I like to think I did both with some basic level of proficiency.

I find it somewhat sad and wrong that religion seems to equal superstition, to some. To me, religion is a constant investigation into spirituality, self awareness and ethics. If studied and investigated, why is it something akin to backwoods superstition? Why can't science and religion coexist?

To me Spirituality has little to do with religion. I believe a person can have that " constant investigation into spirituality, self awareness and ethics" without having religion. Do you think they can't?

To me Spirituality has little to do with religion. I believe a person can have that " constant investigation into spirituality, self awareness and ethics" without having religion. Do you think they can't?

I think religion is the best vehicle for it, and it often becomes a religion (whether organized or not), but yes, it need not be religion.

I find it somewhat sad and wrong that religion seems to equal superstition, to some. To me, religion is a constant investigation into spirituality, self awareness and ethics. If studied and investigated, why is it something akin to backwoods superstition? Why can't science and religion coexist?

They can. But keep religion to your private lives. Its when religious people keep science classes from teaching science is when there is a problem. All science minded people do is maybe mock religious people, yet religious people actually try to control the teaching of science. They arent coexisting because of religious people, not because of scientists.

Not true and unfair to lump everyone like that.

I'm worried about a few things in life. A judgement day isn't one of them, that's for sure.

I'm not disgruntled at all. I don't have to prove anything. As we know, science at a micro level is about probabilities. That doesn't make me any less sure that if I jump in front of a moving train, physics isn't going to dash my body to pieces. Or if I jump of a building, gravity won't pull be down.

People who misuse scientific terms like theory and proof only show how little they actually paid attention when they were taught the scientific method. You go ahead and jump off of a building, but I'll stay firmly planted. Just like, I'm going to extrapolate that the laws of physics we can observe, test, and even sometimes replicate are the same ones that govern the whole universe. So sure, I can't be everywhere at once. But for so many conclusions in science, we need only be in a lab and monitor simple experiments. Thus far, we've yet to be able to observe or test conclusively any type of spirit, or god. Until that happens, I'm staying off the ledge and going to keep studying.

While I disagree with JTF that those may be the only two reasons science and religion won't (not can't) coexist (and he didn't say that they were the only two reasons), I don't think his statements are untrue (but perhaps unfair to lump everyone like that).

They can. But keep religion to your private lives. Its when religious people keep science classes from teaching science is when there is a problem. All science minded people do is maybe mock religious people, yet religious people actually try to control the teaching of science. They arent coexisting because of religious people, not because of scientists.

Not accurate. Just look at this thread and you'll see both "sides" (of completly different coins, I might add) trying to squelch the other. Very few voices acknowledging they are (IMO) completely different fields of thought.

People who misuse scientific terms like theory and proof only show how little they actually paid attention when they were taught the scientific method.

Not sure if that was directed at me or not but I know my physics pretty well. One of the great things about being a homeschool parent is that I get a constant refresher in things I might otherwise forget.

If we can't agree on what science is, the definition of scientific terms, and the scientific method is it little wonder we can't agree on God?


No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. - Albert Einstein on being right or wrong
Read more at No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. - Albert Einstein at BrainyQuote (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins100017.html#b4SJO6McUBtsbbt7.99)

Anyhow, there comes a point in every conversation when all the angles and ideas have been presented and final judgments have to be made, and I would say we are just about there with this topic. I've tried to present my views as clear and concise as I can and have nothing left to add so I will give someone else the last word.

Religion and science can co-exist in perfect harmony so long as you don't confuse one for the other.

Now what can't coexist in much of a working way is my fat fingers and this iPhone keyboard. That's indisputable fact.

To me Spirituality has little to do with religion. I believe a person can have that " constant investigation into spirituality, self awareness and ethics" without having religion. Do you think they can't?

That's how I am! So, therefore, anyone can. That's why they have separate genres of books at Barnes & Noble or where ever....Christianity to the right, New Age to the left. I go left... although, I have read a few books from the right because you can't be against either train of thought since none can be proven until we succumb to this world.

I think religion is the best vehicle for it, and it often becomes a religion (whether organized or not), but yes, it need not be religion.

I saw this and it reminded me of our posts...

https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1530395_728812683796379_1878864538_n.jpg