Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[sealybobo]

why do you believe scientists who don't see proof of a god, are smart?.....

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

Smart people who know this and still believe believe because they want to believe. Even they would have to admit that there is no proof.

Just look at who we take seriously on USMB. Do we take anyone who takes the bible literally seriously? No. We blow them off as nuts. So the only people who we even debate with here are people who have philosophical reasons for believing in god(s).

Because we can't prove there is no god, that is why they have FAITH. Because they were brainwashed with fear and hell. Because they want to believe, no other reason.

so in essence, the test of whether someone is "smart" is whether or not they agree with what you've chosen to believe....

No. The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

Sir Isaac Newton, one of history’s greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

 

[sealybobo]

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

so you would then concur that since the only explanation for the inception of everything which is physical had to be something non-physical, that inception would have to be a non-testable hypothesis and unworthy of serious consideration, at least on a scientific basis?.....

Is that true that inception of everything which is physical had to be something non-physical?

Can you provide a link from a scientist that confirms what you just said? I don't know if you are right or wrong on that one. And what do the scientists say about that? Do they say this proves a god exists or are you just trying to prove that everything we see was created by something non physical?

What about a rip in our solar system? Where do black holes end? Maybe the stuff our universe came from came out of the back end of a black hole? I don't know. Do you?

 

[sealybobo]

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

so you would then concur that since the only explanation for the inception of everything which is physical had to be something non-physical, that inception would have to be a non-testable hypothesis and unworthy of serious consideration, at least on a scientific basis?.....

You may be right.

We are starting to recognize that non-physical properties govern the universe, and we are turning our attention towards consciousness and the role it plays with regards to the physical make up of our reality.

The Illusion of Matter Our Physical Material World Isn 8217 t Really Physical At All Collective-Evolution

How does this prove god exists?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Meh, they are playing semantic games.



To say that the 'universe as we know it' somehow does not include the Cosmic inflation period is an odd take on 'as we know it'. The universe has gone through changes and will go through more, and nothing about the change in and of itself makes it alien to, before, after or parallel to our universe.

The Big Bang in common parlance is from T0 to the end of the Cosmic inflation, so to say that the Big Bang occurred AFTER the Cosmic inflation is to simply deny what the original theory proposed and described. It is saying that the Big Bang doesn't have a Bang to it at all.

It is semantic bullshit. The Big Bang is from the start of time and the measurable, calculable universe, not some convenient time point for a emo physicist and his opinion.

With all due respect Jim, I"m gonna take the word of physicists and astronomers employed in those fields over you who only knows whatever he's read on wiki.

I asked someone why the universe has to have a creator but the creator doesn't.

1) because an eternal object or being by definition has no 'before it'.
2) because you are an idiot and a liar.

 

[JimBowie1958]

why do you believe scientists who don't see proof of a god, are smart?.....

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

Smart people who know this and still believe believe because they want to believe. Even they would have to admit that there is no proof.

Just look at who we take seriously on USMB. Do we take anyone who takes the bible literally seriously? No. We blow them off as nuts. So the only people who we even debate with here are people who have philosophical reasons for believing in god(s).

Because we can't prove there is no god, that is why they have FAITH. Because they were brainwashed with fear and hell. Because they want to believe, no other reason.

so in essence, the test of whether someone is "smart" is whether or not they agree with what you've chosen to believe....

Dude that is how it is with all leftists; havent you been paying attention?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

so you would then concur that since the only explanation for the inception of everything which is physical had to be something non-physical, that inception would have to be a non-testable hypothesis and unworthy of serious consideration, at least on a scientific basis?.....

You may be right.

We are starting to recognize that non-physical properties govern the universe, and we are turning our attention towards consciousness and the role it plays with regards to the physical make up of our reality.

The Illusion of Matter Our Physical Material World Isn 8217 t Really Physical At All Collective-Evolution

How does this prove god exists?

Lol, you are an idiot, your own article points out;
"We can no longer ignore the fact that our beliefs, perceptions and attitudes (consciousness) create the world.
Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual."

So whoever Created the universe and observed the Big Bang is God, dude.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I just tend to use logic, a little faith, and science.

everything is in motion.

we also know that an object will either stay in motion, or stay at rest.

At the very beginning of time and space....there was nothing. No motion at all.

Then in an instant................................

What does all this prove?

There wasn't nothing. There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG. At least that is the theory.

No, ignoramus, before the Big Bang there was NOTHING in our universe. Anything prior to the Big Bang is just nonscientific supposition and speculation.

And I remember reading how theists didn't like the big bang theory at first because Stephen Hawkins said something like it proved that there was a time when the big bang happened.

The Big Bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest, you idiot.

So what was happening the billions of years before the big bang? Theists said the universe was always here. Because of the big bang we know that not to be true.

Lol, so now you are just lying. Theists have never claimed that the universe was always just here; that was the atheist claim. Theist have always claimed that the universe had a starting point.

Wjhy do pig-headed atheists like you always lie?

Lets say you are right though. What does any of that prove? The answer is nothing. We don't know. So keep looking. To say "god did it" is not a logical answer that you have proof of, right?

We do know. We know that time and space ant this universe had a start, and whatever started it all was an eternal object, not something that is presently solely within our universe.

Show me a link that says it was an eternal object and not something that is already presently in our solar system please.

Doofus, science cannot prove an eternal object outside our universe. Anything a scientist says about anything prior to the Big Bang is speculation.

Planck epoch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

When science discovered when the big bang happened, it contradicted religion. I saw the whole story on public tv. Stephen Hawkins that guy in the wheelchair

Again, the Big Bang was written by a Catholic Priest who saw no contradiction with Catholicism and the Pope himself at the time hailed it as the scientific form of Genesis. It was atheists who claimed the eternal universe with the steady state theory. BTW, you are a liar.

I just tend to use logic, a little faith, and science.

everything is in motion.

we also know that an object will either stay in motion, or stay at rest.

At the very beginning of time and space....there was nothing. No motion at all.

Then in an instant................................

What does all this prove?

There wasn't nothing. There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG. At least that is the theory.

No, ignoramus, before the Big Bang there was NOTHING in our universe. Anything prior to the Big Bang is just nonscientific supposition and speculation.

And I remember reading how theists didn't like the big bang theory at first because Stephen Hawkins said something like it proved that there was a time when the big bang happened.

The Big Bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest, you idiot.

So what was happening the billions of years before the big bang? Theists said the universe was always here. Because of the big bang we know that not to be true.

Lol, so now you are just lying. Theists have never claimed that the universe was always just here; that was the atheist claim. Theist have always claimed that the universe had a starting point.

Wjhy do pig-headed atheists like you always lie?

Lets say you are right though. What does any of that prove? The answer is nothing. We don't know. So keep looking. To say "god did it" is not a logical answer that you have proof of, right?

We do know. We know that time and space ant this universe had a start, and whatever started it all was an eternal object, not something that is presently solely within our universe.

Show me a link that says it was an eternal object and not something that is already presently in our solar system please.

Doofus, science cannot prove an eternal object outside our universe. Anything a scientist says about anything prior to the Big Bang is speculation.

Planck epoch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What is your theory about before the big bang? Just curious.

I just remember watching a piece on Stephen Hawking and his theory went against the church's belief and so he said his theory concluded that

Heaven is a ‘fairy story for people afraid of the dark’, Professor Stephen Hawking suggestd yesterday.

As well as saying there is no heaven or afterlife, the renowned scientist said that our brains switch off like ‘broken down computers’ when we die.

His comments upset some religious groups, already angry at his statement last year that the universe was not created by God.

Professor Hawking’s latest remarks came in an interview in which the theoretical physicist told how he had learnt to live in the shadow of death since being diagnosed with motor neurone disease aged 21.

The disease, which is incurable, was expected to kill him within a few years. Instead, he said, it ultimately led him to enjoy life more.

The 69-year-old Cambridge University academic said: ‘I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years.

‘I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first.

‘I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail.

‘There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.’

There is more of that gullibility you were talking about earlier. A scientist has no more authority to speak on things outside of the natural, of this universe than a theologian has to speculate on the theory of evolution or how to build a bridge.

You science worshipping morons need to take a step back and reacquaint yourself with the scope of legitimate scientific authority, and this goes way beyond that.

What I recognize is that organized religions have zero authority or credibility because they argue/deny common sense.

You libtards only appeal to 'common sense' when you think it helps you to support your lies.

Common sense says that there is a Creator and that intelligence is required for the easily observed design in the universe.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

so you would then concur that since the only explanation for the inception of everything which is physical had to be something non-physical, that inception would have to be a non-testable hypothesis and unworthy of serious consideration, at least on a scientific basis?.....

Is that true that inception of everything which is physical had to be something non-physical?

Can you provide a link from a scientist that confirms what you just said? I don't know if you are right or wrong on that one. And what do the scientists say about that? Do they say this proves a god exists or are you just trying to prove that everything we see was created by something non physical?

What about a rip in our solar system? Where do black holes end? Maybe the stuff our universe came from came out of the back end of a black hole? I don't know. Do you?

obviously its true.....if the cause is physical then the inception of things which are physical has already occurred.....

only something which is not physical can pre-exist the inception of things which are physical......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

so you would then concur that since the only explanation for the inception of everything which is physical had to be something non-physical, that inception would have to be a non-testable hypothesis and unworthy of serious consideration, at least on a scientific basis?.....

Is that true that inception of everything which is physical had to be something non-physical?

Can you provide a link from a scientist that confirms what you just said? I don't know if you are right or wrong on that one. And what do the scientists say about that? Do they say this proves a god exists or are you just trying to prove that everything we see was created by something non physical?

What about a rip in our solar system? Where do black holes end? Maybe the stuff our universe came from came out of the back end of a black hole? I don't know. Do you?

obviously its true.....if the cause is physical then the inception of things which are physical has already occurred.....

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

so you would then concur that since the only explanation for the inception of everything which is physical had to be something non-physical, that inception would have to be a non-testable hypothesis and unworthy of serious consideration, at least on a scientific basis?.....

You may be right.

We are starting to recognize that non-physical properties govern the universe, and we are turning our attention towards consciousness and the role it plays with regards to the physical make up of our reality.

The Illusion of Matter Our Physical Material World Isn 8217 t Really Physical At All Collective-Evolution

How does this prove god exists?

nothing "proves" that God exists, nor am I attempting to prove it.....my goal is simply to prove that your claims about science are wrong......

 

[sealybobo]

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

so you would then concur that since the only explanation for the inception of everything which is physical had to be something non-physical, that inception would have to be a non-testable hypothesis and unworthy of serious consideration, at least on a scientific basis?.....

You may be right.

We are starting to recognize that non-physical properties govern the universe, and we are turning our attention towards consciousness and the role it plays with regards to the physical make up of our reality.

The Illusion of Matter Our Physical Material World Isn 8217 t Really Physical At All Collective-Evolution

How does this prove god exists?

Lol, you are an idiot, your own article points out;
"We can no longer ignore the fact that our beliefs, perceptions and attitudes (consciousness) create the world.
Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual."

So whoever Created the universe and observed the Big Bang is God, dude.

Inarguable?

 

[sealybobo]

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

so you would then concur that since the only explanation for the inception of everything which is physical had to be something non-physical, that inception would have to be a non-testable hypothesis and unworthy of serious consideration, at least on a scientific basis?.....

Is that true that inception of everything which is physical had to be something non-physical?

Can you provide a link from a scientist that confirms what you just said? I don't know if you are right or wrong on that one. And what do the scientists say about that? Do they say this proves a god exists or are you just trying to prove that everything we see was created by something non physical?

What about a rip in our solar system? Where do black holes end? Maybe the stuff our universe came from came out of the back end of a black hole? I don't know. Do you?

obviously its true.....if the cause is physical then the inception of things which are physical has already occurred.....

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

so you would then concur that since the only explanation for the inception of everything which is physical had to be something non-physical, that inception would have to be a non-testable hypothesis and unworthy of serious consideration, at least on a scientific basis?.....

You may be right.

We are starting to recognize that non-physical properties govern the universe, and we are turning our attention towards consciousness and the role it plays with regards to the physical make up of our reality.

The Illusion of Matter Our Physical Material World Isn 8217 t Really Physical At All Collective-Evolution

How does this prove god exists?

nothing "proves" that God exists, nor am I attempting to prove it.....my goal is simply to prove that your claims about science are wrong......

Which claims? I make a lot of them.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

so you would then concur that since the only explanation for the inception of everything which is physical had to be something non-physical, that inception would have to be a non-testable hypothesis and unworthy of serious consideration, at least on a scientific basis?.....

Is that true that inception of everything which is physical had to be something non-physical?

Can you provide a link from a scientist that confirms what you just said? I don't know if you are right or wrong on that one. And what do the scientists say about that? Do they say this proves a god exists or are you just trying to prove that everything we see was created by something non physical?

What about a rip in our solar system? Where do black holes end? Maybe the stuff our universe came from came out of the back end of a black hole? I don't know. Do you?

obviously its true.....if the cause is physical then the inception of things which are physical has already occurred.....

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

so you would then concur that since the only explanation for the inception of everything which is physical had to be something non-physical, that inception would have to be a non-testable hypothesis and unworthy of serious consideration, at least on a scientific basis?.....

You may be right.

We are starting to recognize that non-physical properties govern the universe, and we are turning our attention towards consciousness and the role it plays with regards to the physical make up of our reality.

The Illusion of Matter Our Physical Material World Isn 8217 t Really Physical At All Collective-Evolution

How does this prove god exists?

nothing "proves" that God exists, nor am I attempting to prove it.....my goal is simply to prove that your claims about science are wrong......

Which claims? I make a lot of them.

concentrate on the ones I'm currently arguing with......

 

[sealybobo]

Meh, they are playing semantic games.



To say that the 'universe as we know it' somehow does not include the Cosmic inflation period is an odd take on 'as we know it'. The universe has gone through changes and will go through more, and nothing about the change in and of itself makes it alien to, before, after or parallel to our universe.

The Big Bang in common parlance is from T0 to the end of the Cosmic inflation, so to say that the Big Bang occurred AFTER the Cosmic inflation is to simply deny what the original theory proposed and described. It is saying that the Big Bang doesn't have a Bang to it at all.

It is semantic bullshit. The Big Bang is from the start of time and the measurable, calculable universe, not some convenient time point for a emo physicist and his opinion.

With all due respect Jim, I"m gonna take the word of physicists and astronomers employed in those fields over you who only knows whatever he's read on wiki.

I asked someone why the universe has to have a creator but the creator doesn't.

1) because an eternal object or being by definition has no 'before it'.
2) because you are an idiot and a liar.

The spot 2 feet in front of your nose has always been there. There may not have been a wall in the background, a planet, a sun to shine on that spot, etc.

But the spot 2 feet in front of you was there 2 billion, 2 trillion, and even infinity years ago. It may have been just a point in dead empty black space, but it was there and will be there in 2 trillion years even in Infinity years.

So is that spot 2 feet in front of your face god?

And since you are going to heaven for eternity, are you a god? Fucking idiots.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Meh, they are playing semantic games.



To say that the 'universe as we know it' somehow does not include the Cosmic inflation period is an odd take on 'as we know it'. The universe has gone through changes and will go through more, and nothing about the change in and of itself makes it alien to, before, after or parallel to our universe.

The Big Bang in common parlance is from T0 to the end of the Cosmic inflation, so to say that the Big Bang occurred AFTER the Cosmic inflation is to simply deny what the original theory proposed and described. It is saying that the Big Bang doesn't have a Bang to it at all.

It is semantic bullshit. The Big Bang is from the start of time and the measurable, calculable universe, not some convenient time point for a emo physicist and his opinion.

With all due respect Jim, I"m gonna take the word of physicists and astronomers employed in those fields over you who only knows whatever he's read on wiki.

I asked someone why the universe has to have a creator but the creator doesn't.

1) because an eternal object or being by definition has no 'before it'.
2) because you are an idiot and a liar.

The spot 2 feet in front of your nose has always been there. There may not have been a wall in the background, a planet, a sun to shine on that spot, etc.

But the spot 2 feet in front of you was there 2 billion, 2 trillion, and even infinity years ago. It may have been just a point in dead empty black space, but it was there and will be there in 2 trillion years even in Infinity years.

So is that spot 2 feet in front of your face god?

And since you are going to heaven for eternity, are you a god? Fucking idiots.

no, there was no "dead empty black space" an infinity of years ago....space is a part of our physical universe.....it can be observed, measured, studied scientifically.......

 

[JimBowie1958]

Meh, they are playing semantic games.



To say that the 'universe as we know it' somehow does not include the Cosmic inflation period is an odd take on 'as we know it'. The universe has gone through changes and will go through more, and nothing about the change in and of itself makes it alien to, before, after or parallel to our universe.

The Big Bang in common parlance is from T0 to the end of the Cosmic inflation, so to say that the Big Bang occurred AFTER the Cosmic inflation is to simply deny what the original theory proposed and described. It is saying that the Big Bang doesn't have a Bang to it at all.

It is semantic bullshit. The Big Bang is from the start of time and the measurable, calculable universe, not some convenient time point for a emo physicist and his opinion.

With all due respect Jim, I"m gonna take the word of physicists and astronomers employed in those fields over you who only knows whatever he's read on wiki.

I asked someone why the universe has to have a creator but the creator doesn't.

1) because an eternal object or being by definition has no 'before it'.
2) because you are an idiot and a liar.

The spot 2 feet in front of your nose has always been there. There may not have been a wall in the background, a planet, a sun to shine on that spot, etc.

But the spot 2 feet in front of you was there 2 billion, 2 trillion, and even infinity years ago. It may have been just a point in dead empty black space, but it was there and will be there in 2 trillion years even in Infinity years.

So is that spot 2 feet in front of your face god?

And since you are going to heaven for eternity, are you a god? Fucking idiots.

Hey, dumbass, a spot two feet in front of you cannot be an 'eternal' object. You apparently have no clue what the fucking word 'eternal' means. So trying to discuss the subject with you is like shooting fish in a barrel as you display your ignorance to the world.

I am total fine with continuing to give you these opportunities for the sake of lurkers, as your are the epitome of an ignorant, witless atheist who makes claims that he knows nothing about.

Oh, and now is where you tell me that you are not an atheist?

roflmao

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Wouldn't it be if there were "definitive proof" God exists that we wouldn't even be discussing it? It'd be like argueing whether the Sun exists wouldn't it? And yet, for millenia we've been having this debate with neither side apparently being able to once-and-for-all decisively win the debate (since we keep having it.)

Can't we then infer from that that a)there is no definitive proof for God existing, and b)there's no definitive proof God doesn't exist either.

 

[Hollie]

Meh, they are playing semantic games.



To say that the 'universe as we know it' somehow does not include the Cosmic inflation period is an odd take on 'as we know it'. The universe has gone through changes and will go through more, and nothing about the change in and of itself makes it alien to, before, after or parallel to our universe.

The Big Bang in common parlance is from T0 to the end of the Cosmic inflation, so to say that the Big Bang occurred AFTER the Cosmic inflation is to simply deny what the original theory proposed and described. It is saying that the Big Bang doesn't have a Bang to it at all.

It is semantic bullshit. The Big Bang is from the start of time and the measurable, calculable universe, not some convenient time point for a emo physicist and his opinion.

With all due respect Jim, I"m gonna take the word of physicists and astronomers employed in those fields over you who only knows whatever he's read on wiki.

I asked someone why the universe has to have a creator but the creator doesn't.

1) because an eternal object or being by definition has no 'before it'.
2) because you are an idiot and a liar.

1a) because the eternal being that Christianity stole from Judaism and earlier came from Canaanite polytheism is an invention of mankind deriving from all the tales, fables and superstitions that preceded your version of an eternal being.

 

[Hollie]

Wouldn't it be if there were "definitive proof" God exists that we wouldn't even be discussing it? It'd be like argueing whether the Sun exists wouldn't it? And yet, for millenia we've been having this debate with neither side apparently being able to once-and-for-all decisively win the debate (since we keep having it.)

Can't we then infer from that that a)there is no definitive proof for God existing, and b)there's no definitive proof God doesn't exist either.

Substitute "the Easter Bunny" for the term "god".

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Substitute "the Easter Bunny" for the term "god".

Ever hear of somebody killing somebody else over whether the Easter Bunny was a white bunny or a black bunny?

 

[Hollie]

Substitute "the Easter Bunny" for the term "god".

Ever hear of somebody killing somebody else over whether the Easter Bunny was a white bunny or a black bunny?

"Neupe". But I have heard of religionists killing other religionists because they were the wrong kind of religionist.