ahem....(if you see my name, and your first reaction is "uh-oh", you'd best skip this...☺)


*begin semi-relevant practical rumination*

Consider the phrase "believe in". Implicit in the very construction is that you 'could' not believe in. That is, the type or degree of proof involved is not absolute, and the interpretation of supporting data and evidence is usually highly subjective.

*IF* such is the case, I usually avoid even using the words 'believe' or 'not believe' for my opinion. I prefer to refer to it all in terms of what I'd be willing to act on, bet on, 'trust' as a pretty reliable working model...etc. (Evolution might be a case in point...the evidence for it keeps getting stronger and the underlying model of 'how' it works becomes more complex AND coherent every day.)

Flamenco Ted, however, has shown me nothing that would make me accept purported messages from the fairies in his garden..☺

In between are some notions that sure are 'interesting', and worth examining....(UFOs and aliens, for example).....to me 'belief', is relevant only to the idea that I sure 'believe' that other life forms are obviously possible, but mathematically likely. This does NOT cause me to 'believe' that they come here....that remains 'interesting' and worth examining.

It's all in the personal attitude and proclivity to need to believe one way or the other.


*end semi-relevant practical rumination*


(oh...and of course, I DON'T believe that "for every drop of rain that falls, someone gets wet" TRILLIONS of rain drops fall on uninhabited areas every day... ipse faxit- quo demonstrandum est - Nil sine, numine - Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - illegimati non carborundum - Carpe Diem, and MAGISTER MUNDI SUM!)

back to our regualrly scheduled BS...as you were!