This is what atheist believe? Atheist believe that nothing created everything

[ding]

What is is that you are suggesting "sounds like abuse"?

As a young boy my Lutheran Grandmother constantly harped to me that "all things are predetermined".

I suppose it could be - but I don't remember it that way.

I believe you may be confusing predetermination with predestination. Of course even then, I don't believe that's what Lutherans teach.

Predestination - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

"...Unlike some Calvinists, Lutherans do not believe in a predestination to damnation. Instead, Lutherans teach eternal damnation is a result of the unbeliever's rejection of the forgiveness of sins and unbelief...."​

 

[ding]

Gotta go with ding on this one.
fatalist

I gather the argument boils down to metaphysics vs. physics which I no longer see any point in pursuing. Semantics.

Fatalists think they can choose any behavior they like, and it will make no difference.

Believing humans are deterministic physical systems subject to the same laws as any other still does not mean all outcomes can be predicted, forever. Chaos plays a factor, as does quantum mechanics.

Could it be that what we see as chaos is simply a process too complex for our intellects?

I don't see how it could be any other way. People mistakenly believe that quantum mechanics means the universe is entirely random but in reality it's just statistical outcomes which are constrained by the laws of nature which is why we see uranium atoms decay into other elements and eventually into lead instead of into dogs and cats.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

ding wrote:

I don't see how it could be any other way. People mistakenly believe that quantum mechanics means the universe is entirely random but in reality it's just statistical outcomes which are constrained by the laws of nature which is why we see uranium atoms decay into other elements and eventually into lead instead of into dogs and cats.

Are the laws of nature constant? If they are, despite the refrain that "change is the only constant", the opposite might be true, that repetition is the constant. However, the complexity of the repetition may be too great for our limited senses.

I want to clarify that when I invoked "the illusion of free will" it was not to suggest that I buy it, but rather, that I appreciate the possibility of its effectiveness.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I don't believe I suggested that atheist were more magically inclined to fatalism. Hence, I'm also not sure for what I am suppose to supply quotes?

before:

As a young boy my Lutheran Grandmother constantly harped to me that "all things are predetermined". How does that religious belief differ from Denison's science and atheism?

You ascribed "religious belief" to your "Lutheran" Grandma's expressed fatalism, then asked how that differed from one individual's "science and atheism."

My turn. Just genuinely curious. Why not put an "s" on atheist where, from the context it's clear, you mean it to be taken as plural?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Are the laws of nature constant?

If there were no possible exceptions there'd be no point in calling them laws, even if the only exception turns out to be our inability to put our finger on any. Laws are made to be broken because we recognize that we can neither be all knowing nor infallible. There can be no "natural" (real, non abstract) absolutes.. only man-made-up ones.. or.. like geometry and probability.. discovered abstractions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Could it be that what we see as chaos is simply a process too complex for our intellects?

Hmm, i am not totally clear on your meaning, but we actually have a pretty good mathematical understanding of chaos. That is the version of this word to which i was referring.

 

[rddean]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

When you start off making accusations like that, don’t be surprised if the other side comes back saying the right wing believes in the occult and Magic and ghosts and spirits.

better to understand what everybody has to say and make your own personal decision

pointing and laughing means there’s three fingers pointing back at you

 

[ding]

ding wrote:

I don't see how it could be any other way. People mistakenly believe that quantum mechanics means the universe is entirely random but in reality it's just statistical outcomes which are constrained by the laws of nature which is why we see uranium atoms decay into other elements and eventually into lead instead of into dogs and cats.

Are the laws of nature constant? If they are, despite the refrain that "change is the only constant", the opposite might be true, that repetition is the constant. However, the complexity of the repetition may be too great for our limited senses.

I want to clarify that when I invoked "the illusion of free will" it was not to suggest that I buy it, but rather, that I appreciate the possibility of its effectiveness.

There may be some who believe the laws of nature aren't constant but I'm not in that camp.

 

[Dusty]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

When you start off making accusations like that, don’t be surprised if the other side comes back saying the right wing believes in the occult and Magic and ghosts and spirits.

better to understand what everybody has to say and make your own personal decision

pointing and laughing means there’s three fingers pointing back at you

Welll Golle Geee

 

[Grumblenuts]

Could it be that what we see as chaos is simply a process too complex for our intellects?

Hmm, i am not totally clear on your meaning, but we actually have a pretty good mathematical understanding of chaos. That is the version of this word to which i was referring.

So, backing up I find:

Believing humans are deterministic physical systems subject to the same laws as any other still does not mean all outcomes can be predicted, forever. Chaos plays a factor, as does quantum mechanics

Then after I had mostly facetiously agreed:

We can't accurately predict all future choices, even if we knew the current state of every atom in the universe.

Which I also can't help agreeing with, but as Fort Fun knows or should by now, aside from obviously getting the math right, I fundamentally disagree with any notion of "quantum mechanics" truly explaining anything. I think, or perhaps just hope we've established a sort of truce, agreeing not to continue arguing about that though. Neither one of us desiring to go there having gotten nowhere fast attempting to do so repeatedly in the past. And I accept that it's my problem, not his, since he's just sticking exceedingly well to the mainstream script while I'm being the weirdo. We tend to agree completely otherwise.

Anyways, ignoring mention of quantum mechanics just leaves "chaos" which is all you started out with. Beyond "complete disorder and confusion," Google's quick Oxford Languages definition strikes me as a nice, terse summary of our current usage vs our previous understanding:

• PHYSICS
  behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions.
• the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe.

The first expressing this modern sort of fearful, fatalistic, resignation to being permanently beyond our understanding or control . So unpredictable it "appears" random, but is it? We'll sure as hell never know.. That much is clear.. Far too complicated.. Oh well, I guess we best leave it to the egghead theoretical physics community to endlessly work it out at tremendous public expense with their differential equations, atom smasher data, and so forth.. Add in not even yet mentioning entropy, Heisenberg uncertainty, thermodynamics, virtual particles.. I mean, forget it man, game over! Game over!!

Meanwhile, the second simply says: It's obviously just the Aether, stupids. Very simple, uncomplicated, reassuring, comforting, makes perfect sense, effectively saying, Hey, yes ma'am, we can deal with this! Not a problem! Can't really have any of that now, can we? I mean, that almost sounds as simple as goddidit! No, it was good enough for the Greeks, Newton, Tesla, Maxwell, even Einstein for most of his life.. But no, we can no longer go there. Sorry!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Could it be that what we see as chaos is simply a process too complex for our intellects?

Hmm, i am not totally clear on your meaning, but we actually have a pretty good mathematical understanding of chaos. That is the version of this word to which i was referring.

So, backing up I find:

Believing humans are deterministic physical systems subject to the same laws as any other still does not mean all outcomes can be predicted, forever. Chaos plays a factor, as does quantum mechanics

Then after I had mostly facetiously agreed:

We can't accurately predict all future choices, even if we knew the current state of every atom in the universe.

Which I also can't help agreeing with, but as Fort Fun knows or should by now, aside from obviously getting the math right, I fundamentally disagree with any notion of "quantum mechanics" truly explaining anything. I think, or perhaps just hope we've established a sort of truce, agreeing not to continue arguing about that though. Neither one of us desiring to go there having gotten nowhere fast attempting to do so repeatedly in the past. And I accept that it's my problem, not his, since he's just sticking exceedingly well to the mainstream script while I'm being the weirdo. We tend to agree completely otherwise.

Anyways, ignoring mention of quantum mechanics just leaves "chaos" which is all you started out with. Beyond "complete disorder and confusion," Google's quick Oxford Languages definition strikes me as a nice, terse summary of our current usage vs our previous understanding:

• PHYSICS
  behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions.
• the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe.

The first expressing this modern sort of fearful, fatalistic, resignation to being permanently beyond our understanding or control . So unpredictable it "appears" random, but is it? We'll sure as hell never know.. That much is clear.. Far too complicated.. Oh well, I guess we best leave it to the egghead theoretical physics community to endlessly work it out at tremendous public expense with their differential equations, atom smasher data, and so forth.. Add in not even yet mentioning entropy, Heisenberg uncertainty, thermodynamics, virtual particles.. I mean, forget it man, game over! Game over!!

Meanwhile, the second simply says: It's obviously just the Aether, stupids. Very simple, uncomplicated, reassuring, comforting, makes perfect sense, effectively saying, Hey, yes ma'am, we can deal with this! Not a problem! Can't really have any of that now, can we? I mean, that almost sounds as simple as goddidit! No, it was good enough for the Greeks, Newton, Tesla, Maxwell, even Einstein for most of his life.. But no, we can no longer go there. Sorry!

Quantum Mechanics is a useful model that yields accurate descriptions and predictions. I don't know what you expect it to "explain", otherwise. So go ahead and search for an explanation, or make one up. But it needs to be consistent with the Standard Model , or it's wrong.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Could it be that what we see as chaos is simply a process too complex for our intellects?

Hmm, i am not totally clear on your meaning, but we actually have a pretty good mathematical understanding of chaos. That is the version of this word to which i was referring.

So, backing up I find:

Believing humans are deterministic physical systems subject to the same laws as any other still does not mean all outcomes can be predicted, forever. Chaos plays a factor, as does quantum mechanics

Then after I had mostly facetiously agreed:

We can't accurately predict all future choices, even if we knew the current state of every atom in the universe.

Which I also can't help agreeing with, but as Fort Fun knows or should by now, aside from obviously getting the math right, I fundamentally disagree with any notion of "quantum mechanics" truly explaining anything. I think, or perhaps just hope we've established a sort of truce, agreeing not to continue arguing about that though. Neither one of us desiring to go there having gotten nowhere fast attempting to do so repeatedly in the past. And I accept that it's my problem, not his, since he's just sticking exceedingly well to the mainstream script while I'm being the weirdo. We tend to agree completely otherwise.

Anyways, ignoring mention of quantum mechanics just leaves "chaos" which is all you started out with. Beyond "complete disorder and confusion," Google's quick Oxford Languages definition strikes me as a nice, terse summary of our current usage vs our previous understanding:

• PHYSICS
  behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions.
• the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe.

The first expressing this modern sort of fearful, fatalistic, resignation to being permanently beyond our understanding or control . So unpredictable it "appears" random, but is it? We'll sure as hell never know.. That much is clear.. Far too complicated.. Oh well, I guess we best leave it to the egghead theoretical physics community to endlessly work it out at tremendous public expense with their differential equations, atom smasher data, and so forth.. Add in not even yet mentioning entropy, Heisenberg uncertainty, thermodynamics, virtual particles.. I mean, forget it man, game over! Game over!!

Meanwhile, the second simply says: It's obviously just the Aether, stupids. Very simple, uncomplicated, reassuring, comforting, makes perfect sense, effectively saying, Hey, yes ma'am, we can deal with this! Not a problem! Can't really have any of that now, can we? I mean, that almost sounds as simple as goddidit! No, it was good enough for the Greeks, Newton, Tesla, Maxwell, even Einstein for most of his life.. But no, we can no longer go there. Sorry!

Quantum Mechanics is a useful model that yields accurate descriptions and predictions. I don't know what you expect it to "explain", otherwise. So go ahead and search for an explanation, or make one up. But it needs to be consistent with the Standard Model , or it's wrong.

I don't expect to explain much of anything... I simply asked a pointed question born of common sense.

That same common sense suggest to me the legitimacy of the following yes or no question. There is either a firm set of rules upon which all things ultimately rest their existence or there is not. Where do you fall on this question - or do you have a third alternative?

 

[Colin norris]

See WHAT?

God's presence. His works. The universe. His creation. It's all around you and within you. You are his creation. Why do you reject him? He gave you life. He wants you to believe in and follow him and live forever with him. Seek and you will find.

You take all of the above in faith. Look that last word up in a dictionary and have a little respect for what others believe and disbelieve.

There is neither proof, nor disproof, of a God. For every good you see in the world, there is pain and suffering and misery.

"Whence comes evil"? If God is all powerful, how is it that she is unable to achieve what is good without the presence of evil?

There's literally nothing.

And those people who say "there is a God" or "there isn't a God" are silly because they're literally making it up.

Where does evil come from? It comes from our minds.

Get this. 6 million Jews were killed in a period of say, 10 years. "evil" (and I'm not saying this isn't evil).

But every year billions upon billions of animals are slaughtered for food and other products. "not evil", apparently.

Which proves that "evil" is merely in the eye of the beholder. Not some God given thing. Hell is merely a human construct.

Yes, I'm familiar with "Beyond Good and Evil" and it is a fair point. However, I might muddy the water with the suggestion that our constructs are reality.

Well, if we're saying God exists only because we exists, then how could God have created the universe?

That's an excellent point. Our reality cannot be God's reality. God's reality must be our reality. God does not share in our existence. We share in God's existence. In fact, as near as I can tell God is existence.

The question is can existence come from non-existence. And if it can't then logically there must be an eternal and unchanging source for existence. Otherwise, it's turtles all the way down.

Existence did not come from non existence. That's absurd.
We came from evolution which came from the oceans about 200 million generations ago.
It doesn't matter that people believe some big sky daddy clicked his fingers and it all appeared. That's an insult to rational intelligence.

I think the point here is that if there were a Big Bang, and everything was just energy and not atoms, at what point did atoms constitute "life"? And what is "life"? Are we really "alive" or just we think we are because we've been programmed like that? Does a computer think it's "alive"?

You're as if Not as by as a stump.
That's is not a comparison of evolution and you know it. You're being childish to reference that.
That's a very poor rebuttal.
But remember you believers think Jesus came from an immaculate conception and virgin births yet you speak with authority about the beginning of life.
Don't make me vomit.

Sigh.

Is that your best excuse for justification of a god? You an easy target.

Bye

As I said, very poor rebuttal supported by another similar one.
You don't have anything to support you hideous claims. Try again.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I simply asked a pointed question born of common sense.

That same common sense suggest to me the legitimacy of the following yes or no question. There is either a firm set of rules upon which all things ultimately rest their existence or there is not. Where do you fall on this question - or do you have a third alternative?

I'll take the third. We may have come a lot closer to a yes by now, but that appears distant thanks to Einstein temporarily rejecting the Aether as superfluous, thereby inviting in a new era of idiots preaching "quantum mechanics" with their "Standard Model" comprised vastly of pixie dust and rainbows, just to "get the math right." That is, the purpose of quantum physics was and remains to deny the very existence of the Aether, thereby planting a huge fork square in the guts of the previously accepted electrical science model. Make no mistake. We've been snookered by assholes who've profited by maintaining this new status quo, just as Westinghouse and Edison did when Tesla threatened to vastly improve technologies soon after they'd figured out how to skim huge profits from ("meter") his previous notions. Threw him under their bus in a nanosecond. We can't possibly answer conclusively until we shake this giant monkey off of our collective backs and return to a saner understanding of how things fundamentally work. For instance, a medium is still required to propagate light. Think about it.

There are atoms, protons, and neutrons. That much is real. A single proton defines the atomic element hydrogen. More protons define the other elements sequentially or by "atomic number." There are no other "subatomic particles." There are states of electrical charge having varying apparent mass. Electrons are "probability clouds" of charge and apparent mass. Electrical fields, in other words. Photons are linear electrical fields having no apparent mass. How can something be said to have momentum without mass? Does that suggest "a firm set of rules"? "Chaos"?

 

[Dusty]

Could it be that what we see as chaos is simply a process too complex for our intellects?

Hmm, i am not totally clear on your meaning, but we actually have a pretty good mathematical understanding of chaos. That is the version of this word to which i was referring.

So, backing up I find:

Believing humans are deterministic physical systems subject to the same laws as any other still does not mean all outcomes can be predicted, forever. Chaos plays a factor, as does quantum mechanics

Then after I had mostly facetiously agreed:

We can't accurately predict all future choices, even if we knew the current state of every atom in the universe.

Which I also can't help agreeing with, but as Fort Fun knows or should by now, aside from obviously getting the math right, I fundamentally disagree with any notion of "quantum mechanics" truly explaining anything. I think, or perhaps just hope we've established a sort of truce, agreeing not to continue arguing about that though. Neither one of us desiring to go there having gotten nowhere fast attempting to do so repeatedly in the past. And I accept that it's my problem, not his, since he's just sticking exceedingly well to the mainstream script while I'm being the weirdo. We tend to agree completely otherwise.

Anyways, ignoring mention of quantum mechanics just leaves "chaos" which is all you started out with. Beyond "complete disorder and confusion," Google's quick Oxford Languages definition strikes me as a nice, terse summary of our current usage vs our previous understanding:

• PHYSICS
  behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions.
• the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe.

The first expressing this modern sort of fearful, fatalistic, resignation to being permanently beyond our understanding or control . So unpredictable it "appears" random, but is it? We'll sure as hell never know.. That much is clear.. Far too complicated.. Oh well, I guess we best leave it to the egghead theoretical physics community to endlessly work it out at tremendous public expense with their differential equations, atom smasher data, and so forth.. Add in not even yet mentioning entropy, Heisenberg uncertainty, thermodynamics, virtual particles.. I mean, forget it man, game over! Game over!!

Meanwhile, the second simply says: It's obviously just the Aether, stupids. Very simple, uncomplicated, reassuring, comforting, makes perfect sense, effectively saying, Hey, yes ma'am, we can deal with this! Not a problem! Can't really have any of that now, can we? I mean, that almost sounds as simple as goddidit! No, it was good enough for the Greeks, Newton, Tesla, Maxwell, even Einstein for most of his life.. But no, we can no longer go there. Sorry!

Quantum Mechanics is a useful model that yields accurate descriptions and predictions. I don't know what you expect it to "explain", otherwise. So go ahead and search for an explanation, or make one up. But it needs to be consistent with the Standard Model , or it's wrong.

Quantum mechanics explains nothing, all it raises is more questions that seem to undermine classical physics.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

don't expect to explain much of anything... I simply asked a pointed question born of common sense.

My comments were addressed to the other poster.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Quantum mechanics explains nothing,

*as vomited on his quantum mechanical device

It may not explain anything to people who don't understand it. Which is most people. Don't feel sad about it.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

don't expect to explain much of anything... I simply asked a pointed question born of common sense.

My comments were addressed to the other poster.

I have to confess that I have a great deal of difficulty following the structure of this site. I reply to people who my alert states replied to me, and yet (as with you), the alert seems to have misled me.

It appears that the Alert id's me simply if I'm in the chain. I hope I at least have that much correct.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Could it be that what we see as chaos is simply a process too complex for our intellects?

Hmm, i am not totally clear on your meaning, but we actually have a pretty good mathematical understanding of chaos. That is the version of this word to which i was referring.

So, backing up I find:

Believing humans are deterministic physical systems subject to the same laws as any other still does not mean all outcomes can be predicted, forever. Chaos plays a factor, as does quantum mechanics

Then after I had mostly facetiously agreed:

We can't accurately predict all future choices, even if we knew the current state of every atom in the universe.

Which I also can't help agreeing with, but as Fort Fun knows or should by now, aside from obviously getting the math right, I fundamentally disagree with any notion of "quantum mechanics" truly explaining anything. I think, or perhaps just hope we've established a sort of truce, agreeing not to continue arguing about that though. Neither one of us desiring to go there having gotten nowhere fast attempting to do so repeatedly in the past. And I accept that it's my problem, not his, since he's just sticking exceedingly well to the mainstream script while I'm being the weirdo. We tend to agree completely otherwise.

Anyways, ignoring mention of quantum mechanics just leaves "chaos" which is all you started out with. Beyond "complete disorder and confusion," Google's quick Oxford Languages definition strikes me as a nice, terse summary of our current usage vs our previous understanding:

• PHYSICS
  behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions.
• the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe.

The first expressing this modern sort of fearful, fatalistic, resignation to being permanently beyond our understanding or control . So unpredictable it "appears" random, but is it? We'll sure as hell never know.. That much is clear.. Far too complicated.. Oh well, I guess we best leave it to the egghead theoretical physics community to endlessly work it out at tremendous public expense with their differential equations, atom smasher data, and so forth.. Add in not even yet mentioning entropy, Heisenberg uncertainty, thermodynamics, virtual particles.. I mean, forget it man, game over! Game over!!

Meanwhile, the second simply says: It's obviously just the Aether, stupids. Very simple, uncomplicated, reassuring, comforting, makes perfect sense, effectively saying, Hey, yes ma'am, we can deal with this! Not a problem! Can't really have any of that now, can we? I mean, that almost sounds as simple as goddidit! No, it was good enough for the Greeks, Newton, Tesla, Maxwell, even Einstein for most of his life.. But no, we can no longer go there. Sorry!

Quantum Mechanics is a useful model that yields accurate descriptions and predictions. I don't know what you expect it to "explain", otherwise. So go ahead and search for an explanation, or make one up. But it needs to be consistent with the Standard Model , or it's wrong.

Quantum mechanics explains nothing, all it raises is more questions that seem to undermine classical physics

Could it be that what we see as chaos is simply a process too complex for our intellects?

Hmm, i am not totally clear on your meaning, but we actually have a pretty good mathematical understanding of chaos. That is the version of this word to which i was referring.

So, backing up I find:

Believing humans are deterministic physical systems subject to the same laws as any other still does not mean all outcomes can be predicted, forever. Chaos plays a factor, as does quantum mechanics

Then after I had mostly facetiously agreed:

We can't accurately predict all future choices, even if we knew the current state of every atom in the universe.

Which I also can't help agreeing with, but as Fort Fun knows or should by now, aside from obviously getting the math right, I fundamentally disagree with any notion of "quantum mechanics" truly explaining anything. I think, or perhaps just hope we've established a sort of truce, agreeing not to continue arguing about that though. Neither one of us desiring to go there having gotten nowhere fast attempting to do so repeatedly in the past. And I accept that it's my problem, not his, since he's just sticking exceedingly well to the mainstream script while I'm being the weirdo. We tend to agree completely otherwise.

Anyways, ignoring mention of quantum mechanics just leaves "chaos" which is all you started out with. Beyond "complete disorder and confusion," Google's quick Oxford Languages definition strikes me as a nice, terse summary of our current usage vs our previous understanding:

• PHYSICS
  behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions.
• the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe.

The first expressing this modern sort of fearful, fatalistic, resignation to being permanently beyond our understanding or control . So unpredictable it "appears" random, but is it? We'll sure as hell never know.. That much is clear.. Far too complicated.. Oh well, I guess we best leave it to the egghead theoretical physics community to endlessly work it out at tremendous public expense with their differential equations, atom smasher data, and so forth.. Add in not even yet mentioning entropy, Heisenberg uncertainty, thermodynamics, virtual particles.. I mean, forget it man, game over! Game over!!

Meanwhile, the second simply says: It's obviously just the Aether, stupids. Very simple, uncomplicated, reassuring, comforting, makes perfect sense, effectively saying, Hey, yes ma'am, we can deal with this! Not a problem! Can't really have any of that now, can we? I mean, that almost sounds as simple as goddidit! No, it was good enough for the Greeks, Newton, Tesla, Maxwell, even Einstein for most of his life.. But no, we can no longer go there. Sorry!

Quantum Mechanics is a useful model that yields accurate descriptions and predictions. I don't know what you expect it to "explain", otherwise. So go ahead and search for an explanation, or make one up. But it needs to be consistent with the Standard Model , or it's wrong.

Quantum mechanics explains nothing, all it raises is more questions that seem to undermine classical physics.

It certainly explains nothing to me. Hell, from what I read, there are many serious minded scientist who can't even define what it is. But then, perhaps those are simply naysayers taking a shot.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

don't expect to explain much of anything... I simply asked a pointed question born of common sense.

My comments were addressed to the other poster.

I have to confess that I have a great deal of difficulty following the structure of this site. I reply to people who my alert states replied to me, and yet (as with you), the alert seems to have misled me.

It appears that the Alert id's me simply if I'm in the chain. I hope I at least have that much correct.

Yeah, its because your quote is included. We all need to start just quoting the last post. But then the discussion can be harder to follow.