tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post6014018395558087924..comments2024-02-18T01:56:38.508-06:00Comments on M.D.O.D.: Tag, M.D.O.D. Contributors! Answers Please...911DOChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06466669111561150174noreply@blogger.comBlogger145125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-22384178823902778462008-03-20T16:49:00.000-05:002008-03-20T16:49:00.000-05:00almost agree with all.i think i was forced to jump...almost agree with all.<BR/><BR/>i think i was forced to jump one direction or the other, but to me i did it on the best understanding i could come to and based on what i learned both in life and in science and school etc... i prayed for an answer, there were no 'signs', the options were scary, all of them, so it wasn't a least resistance path, it was, in fact, a very difficult path, but one i felt, was going to lead to long term, and, perhaps, eternal 'rightness'. <BR/><BR/>so, in that respect it was not 'blind' but was certainly a leap. <BR/><BR/>agree 100% with your last paragraph. i think the money is in those situations, i think the money, for many, comes 'in the foxhole'. <BR/><BR/>fear? wish fulfillment? perhpaps, but the Chrisian 'wish fulfillment' is a hard pill compared with, say, bhuddism. you can, in fact, lose in my game, and contrary to the eastern religions, there is no 'do over'.911DOChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466669111561150174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-1555517042414959652008-03-20T16:03:00.000-05:002008-03-20T16:03:00.000-05:00agree completely with your last paragraph. The opt...agree completely with your last paragraph. The options come down to : god explains things vs. some other 'god-like' thing explains things (infiine matter / time / universe whatever)... I think we agree here.<BR/><BR/>The fact that you can point to a specific crisis makes me believe that you DID have a sort of epiphany... this is something I HAVE NOT experienced and maybe this type of thing, like you said, forces the issue (and maybe is necessary to take the 'leap of faith')<BR/><BR/>interested to see your margin notes in GING...<BR/><BR/>one other thing: in this last post you accept that you are forced into a circular argument. Here's the rub. To accept a circular argument you are forced to step outside of 'reason'. therefore, ultimately, this IS a blind leap of faith. you have claimed to come to god through reason - but when it REALLY comes down to it it's a blind leap... I don't say this to belittle it, I say it to point out that you (i think) have previously REJECTED the 'blind faith' approach. <BR/><BR/>Maybe ANY 'ultimate question' requires a blind leap of faith, and maybe I'm doing it to. Were just leaping to different spots while looking at the same evidence. Fascinating...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-5492640851680399392008-03-20T14:35:00.000-05:002008-03-20T14:35:00.000-05:00dude, it has been month or so since i read it so i...dude, <BR/><BR/>it has been month or so since i read it so i can't say you are wrong but you are very 'yes' or 'no' oriented. that sucks, i wish it were that simple.<BR/><BR/>the Bible is very difficult and i know this explanation will not satisfy you and i've offered it before...<BR/><BR/>the Bible is not a history book though part of it is history. the Bible is not a textbook. it is not a rule book. it is a compilation of the word of God. part of it is poetry, there are many parables, there are songs, there are portions that absolutely do NOT make sense if read as a text or as history. <BR/><BR/>taken as a whole it either stands or falls. the Christian position is that it is inspired by God and written by man. so, if an all knowing God inspired the Bible it is as he wants it and there are no different versions and no 'lost books'. <BR/><BR/>yes, this is circular, however, the circularness of the argument centers on whether God exists or not. <BR/><BR/>if he does, and the Bible is his word then no amount of human scholarship will ad or subtract from it. <BR/><BR/>there are certainly different translations and new 'versions' but, as opposed to the book of mormon, which has been changed almost 200 times with the 'mormonism is bunk' crowd and even mormons aware of this, the Bible, in its revisions, has not changed in substance. <BR/><BR/>this is an area in which i can provide some citations and references and as i've told you before the Old Testament is very hard for me. <BR/><BR/>and finally, my beliefs are supported by the Bible but i didn't read the Bible and have an epiphany. i certainly read it and read it again and studied it in high school. <BR/><BR/>i think i would always have defaulted to agnostic/Christian from age twelve up but in the summer and fall of 1995 a crisis where i had no way out forced me to come to grips with core beliefs or at least form them and to act accordingly. i have not been disappointed by God, only by myself and by other folks.<BR/><BR/>obtw, since you can appreciate the concept of infinity in mathematics and how we 'can't wrap our minds around it' i do not believe it's much of a step to believe in God, the step is to believe in the Christian God.911DOChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466669111561150174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-86774836540315097862008-03-20T13:16:00.000-05:002008-03-20T13:16:00.000-05:00I'm now not sure you actually read sproul's book. ...I'm now not sure you actually read sproul's book. He sets TWO TASKS, one of which is to make a case for biblical reliability. I will search for the Cliff Notes version for you...<BR/><BR/>Absolutely agree that one of my 'hangups' is biblical reliability. Since you did not read sprouls several chapters solely dedicated to EXACTLY THIS, I'm not even sure where to start... Look, if, as you claim, archeology is confirming biblical history (where is that ark by the way?), then good. I'm a logical person. This gives more credence to biblical reliability ("BR" from here out). Does it matter to you that there is evidence of mistakes in the bible? (eg timing of christ's life and herod's reign - biblical history seems to contadict archeology.) That DOES matters to me. <BR/><BR/>Look, your beliefs are based on the bible. Christ himself accepted the Old Testament as the word of God. I think BR is absolutely critical, not to the existence of a deity, but to acceptance of christianity. If the bible (btw, we haven't even approached the question of 'what bible' since multiple versions exist) can be shown to be contradictory, then your Xian belief should be questioned. I think it is totally wrong to dismiss the (at least apparent to me) inaccuracies of, for example, the OT. according to jesus, the OT is the word of god. (sproul points this out but i guess you didn't read that part).<BR/><BR/>there was a recently published book by a rabbi who is an OT scholar setting out the postive and negative evidece for OT accuracy... I read the review which said that he tears the OT a new asshole (but he, of course, ultimately concludes that this doesn't matter...go figure). It was well reviewed - I'll see if I can track it down, might be interesting. Remember, you actually have to read it though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-9461022601040893442008-03-20T11:35:00.000-05:002008-03-20T11:35:00.000-05:00i will just hand you hitchen's book with my margin...i will just hand you hitchen's book with my margin notes. <BR/><BR/>i think the archaeological evidence IS compelling and the deeper we dig the more we understand this. for instance, solomon's temple was just disovered in jerusalem on a dig site. <BR/><BR/>the way archaeology gives me comfort re the Bible is that as time progresses the cities mentioned are discovered and, while certainly not exhaustive, the empires and leaders mentioned in the Old Testament are confirmed. <BR/><BR/>oppose this with, say, mormonism, where there is not a scintilla of evidence that anything in the book of mormon ever existed. <BR/><BR/>and no, if the prayer study had showed significant POSITIVE correlation with better outcome that would be my best evidence for disbelief, though i agree it would be seized upon as 'proof of God' by a whole bunch of people. <BR/><BR/>the reason i say this is that a God that could be proved by his creation would be nothing more than a super-human... not nearly the omniscient/omnipotent creator. <BR/><BR/>in defense of sproul he does not, if recall correctly, set out to prove Biblical reliability, rather to make a philosophical case for the existence of God. he does, in fact, have a whole bunch of stuff that deals with Biblical reliability which seems to be your major hangup. i'll see what i can find that is written on your level with pictures, large type, and diagrams. <BR/><BR/>more later.911DOChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466669111561150174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-46755320444185834632008-03-20T11:01:00.000-05:002008-03-20T11:01:00.000-05:00finished Sproul.Here's my take: he sets out to do ...finished Sproul.<BR/><BR/>Here's my take: he sets out to do two things: show proof of god's existence and show proof of biblibal reliability.<BR/><BR/>His first task he does reasonably well - I was convinced by his arguments regarding 'chance' for instance. But at the end of the day you are left with 'something has always existed' - he calls this god. Fair enough. I think it's also reasonable to call it something else 'the universe', 'matter' or whatever. I think this is a dead end to try to 'prove' anything further. I think neither side has a 'provable' answer. You can say (reasonably) 'god makes the most sense'. I can't really argue that and think it is ultimately UNarguable.<BR/><BR/>His second point is tough: 'prove' the bible is reliable. He sites 'intrinsic' and 'extrisic' proofs. The 'intrinsic' are, in my opinion, undefendable. You certainly CAN say, jesus is either god or insane, fine. But to calim that the "beauty of the writing" and the "sense that it feels right" (he overtly makes these claims)constitute 'proof' is absurd. He then goes on to claim that 'archeology' etc.. has borne out the claims of the bible. I'm certainly no expert but I have read some (devout) sources that claim the opposite. Ultimately, sproul fails in his second task (in my opinion). He sets a very high bar ('we must prove the bible is inerrant or we are dead wrong') and then fails to clear it. I want to hear your take on these two points and how you felt he did...<BR/><BR/>Another subject: you claim that god is not testable. If the prayer study had shown a powerful, reproducable effect of prayer would you discount that? I don't think so, and neither would I.<BR/><BR/>I admit that I approch these readings with a 'god does not exist' bias (although I also freely admit not to KNOW anything for sure - ie I too question my "faith", like you). The stated task of the sproul book is to convice a skeptic - or at least to reasonably address a skeptic's critisisms using apologetics or logic. I think his logic is flawed and it calls his arguments into question - for example, he sites biblical passages as 'proof' for certain claims; he then fails to offer a compelling case for biblical reliability - this destroys his case. Looks like Mark Twain would agree.<BR/><BR/>want to hear why you think Hitchen's is a crank. I completely agree that he is intentionally iconoclastic / inflammatory for effect. but what specifically about his arguments do you find failing???<BR/><BR/>Why can't we all just get along?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-89248743670398088282008-03-20T09:26:00.000-05:002008-03-20T09:26:00.000-05:00here's one for your side by my favorite author...W...here's one for your side by my favorite author...<BR/><BR/>WITCHES<BR/> <BR/><BR/>During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumb-screws, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.<BR/>Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry.....There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.<BR/><BR/>- Mark Twain, "Bible Teaching and Religious Practice," Europe and Elsewhere911DOChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466669111561150174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-23260543783199160932008-03-19T14:50:00.000-05:002008-03-19T14:50:00.000-05:00we have free will and when you have it you can cho...we have free will and when you have it you can choose to do wrong. hard to understand? you know that masturbation causes blindness but you wax the dolphin 8times a day. <BR/><BR/>i'll have to take you at your word that sproul's argument is wrong as you are clearly more objective than i am. one thing i will say though that you yourself are guilty of the same mistake in starting from a God does not exist standpoint. <BR/><BR/>here we get to liberal punk ass problems with language and predispotions and whether two people can actually communicate in a meaningul way. <BR/><BR/>God can not be tested in a lab. again, if he exists he's outside our ability to 'test him' and 'do not test the Lord your God' etc...<BR/><BR/>circular? if he doesn't exist, yes. do you believe love exists? prove it. <BR/><BR/>finally, yes, i question my beliefs every day. as i said at the start, my faith is not rock solid, in fact, the folks i have met with rock solid faith tend to be asswipes (my in-laws a notable exception), so reading hitchen's was hard but he turns out, in GING to be a bit of a crank with a fluid pen. dawkins next. <BR/><BR/>out bitch.911DOChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466669111561150174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-52658707294674597352008-03-19T14:02:00.000-05:002008-03-19T14:02:00.000-05:00you say in the same breath: free will causes evil ...you say in the same breath: free will causes evil AND that we have a 'sense' of right and wrong. to restate: we have free will, but wait, no we don't. I kick ass. <BR/><BR/>also, I read your punkass into the ground. sproul claims to be be critical, but if you actually read it in an unbiased way, see that he has started from a forgone conclusion. he constantly sites scriptural passages as 'proof' of god. this is the ultimate circular reasoning. nonetheless, my critisism of xtianity being uncritical of itself refers more to (and i keep coming back to this) situations like the prayer study. I accept as evidence a positive OR negative outcome. The xtian ONLY accepts one outcome as valid and explains a negative result away. I would truly question my core beliefs with a positive outcome. I do NOT hear the same questioning from xtians. You can't have it both ways, B.<BR/><BR/>I think it's important to reasonably answer the 7/8ths question above. you admit your answer is unsatisfactory. does this force you to question your belief? If so, kudos. If not, you have proven my point.<BR/><BR/>I'm like the John Holmes of philosophy - exept for the gay porn thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-69247742225348072192008-03-19T13:44:00.000-05:002008-03-19T13:44:00.000-05:00i think we may be arriving at a point of agreed up...i think we may be arriving at a point of agreed upon disagreement and a position where we understand and respect each other's opinions. i promise not to laugh at you from heaven. of course, you will probably enjoy hell so that's cool. <BR/><BR/>i understand your problem with the Bible but i do not think the Bible is an 'either believe it all literally or don't believe any of it'. <BR/><BR/>i think you have to satisfy yourself about who Christ was. i think Lewis here makes the most powerful argument about Christ in Mere Christianity. i don't think you would say, nor do i hear even critics of Chrsitianity claim that Christ did not live, so therefore you must answer who or what he was. <BR/><BR/>you yourself are arguing for free will by not believing in God. <BR/><BR/>i do not say, again oh reading challenged friend, that a belief in God is 'universal' in the sense that everyone believes in God, merely that religion is a part of every culture that has ever existed and when it's been punished (as in communist regimes) or forced in one direction or the other from above then it stubbornly holds. <BR/><BR/>i don't say, nor does Lewis, that God put the belief in God 'in us', but that we all have a sense of right, wrong, and fair play, and, to this extent, it argues FOR an author of this sense. evolution can explain this with back flips and twists and turns and over the rest of our lifetime 'science's' explanation will twist and turn and, if you are correct, eventually explain it all without the need for God. <BR/><BR/>i believe, since these things are not yet testable then science will never explain the things that are outside its scope. <BR/><BR/>one thing you are forgetting about the free will thing is that the New Testament, and Old, does speak of an evil being who is the author of disease and evil and tempts humans to separate them from happiness and God. so, add this to your equation and scoff at the devil (or shout at him if you are a motley crue fan or whatever shit metal band had an album had an album called that) or not, but you are missing this point. <BR/><BR/>i must disagree that Xianity lacks the ability to look at itself critically. the books you have read, 'mere christianity' do NOT, in fact, start as you say, nor does sproull, but whatever, you can't read worth a shit. <BR/><BR/>finally, i can't answer your criticism as to why '7/8 of the world' gets it wrong. probably because they aren't as smart as i am. in all seriousness, this is the most troubling of all Christian theology. the answer is not satisfying and it goes something like this... 'that is why you are called to spread the word, so that all may here and decide for themselves'. many are called, few are chosen. you, however, have no excuse, bitch. <BR/><BR/>bullshit call, I won the game.911DOChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466669111561150174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-39744672584222636102008-03-19T12:52:00.000-05:002008-03-19T12:52:00.000-05:00the law of large #s you refer to as 'the monkey pr...the law of large #s you refer to as 'the monkey problem' certainly is debateable. It rests on the nature of infinity. Infinity itself is god-like: it is outside our experience - so to say: infinte #s of monkeys + infinite time = Moby Dick, is not testable or 'provable' really, dick.<BR/><BR/>I think you would agree that a billoin monkeys banging on typewriters would, given say a billion years, maybe bang out "Ca".. another billion maybe "Call m", another billoin "Call me Ish"... etc...<BR/><BR/>The 'problem' is that without INFINTE time, the infinitely unlikely thing will never happen. Is writing Moby Dick 'infinitely' unlikely? Probably not.<BR/><BR/>Now, the 'cause and effect' issue that you are talking about is the most basic point in the Sproul book. No effect can be without a cause. seems reasonable. God certainly is one answer to this. Fine. I accept that. I think another very reasonable possibility is that the 'cause' of the present universe is simply that matter itself has always existed. The concept of infinity, again, is not graspable by humans. Call that "god" or "matter" or whatever. I accept both explanations as reasonable possibilities. <BR/><BR/>Getting from this point to accepting Xanity is very tough to me. to belabor the point - the only way to get to a xtian belief is to take the bible as reliable and as the word of god. you HAVE TO believe these stories as reality or I think you are fooling yourself. Nothing in my experience leads me to believe that the bible is reliable - therefore I can't accept it as the word of god. period. There are so many events depicted that do not jibe with history or with my own personal experience that it becomes non-believable. I dont believe in, for example: miracles, raising from the dead, people who live to 1000 years old, parting a sea, an ark, etc, etc... I also think 'free will' is bullshit in a xtian philosophy: it is used to explain bad stuff. This is crap because, for example, if we have TRUE 'free will' then we all wouldn't have the so-called universal belief in god (which I don't believe, btw, but this is what christians use as 'proof' of god). The claim is that basically, we must believe in god because god 'put' that belief in us. That sounds like the opposite of free will. Free will is used, again, as positive evidence, but not negative evidence: THIS is my real problem with religion.<BR/><BR/>Religion (xanity) lacks the ability to look at itself critically. It STARTS at 'god exists, the bible is fact,let me show you why'. Not "god either exists or does not" here are the possibilities and here are the reasons xtian, buddhist, muslim etc. faiths have contradictions. <BR/><BR/>the universal belief in god is bullshit BTW. It seems unlikely that this so-called universal belief would lead the VAST MAJORITY of the world to be WRONG (according to your beliefs). Xtians are a minority of the world's population. Why do 7/8ths of the world get it wrong if we supposedly ALL have this universal belief? <BR/><BR/>Bullshit call, win the game.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-57680849536519850452008-03-19T10:42:00.000-05:002008-03-19T10:42:00.000-05:00duck, dodge, repeat. fuck you. jk (sunshine, spark...duck, dodge, repeat. fuck you. jk (sunshine, sparkle). <BR/><BR/>yes, under my definition there are probably no atheist martyrs. <BR/><BR/>dictionary.com<BR/>mar·tyr <BR/>–noun 1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion. <BR/>2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice. <BR/>3. a person who undergoes severe or constant suffering: a martyr to severe headaches. <BR/>4. a person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc. <BR/>–verb (used with object) 5. to make a martyr of, esp. by putting to death. <BR/>6. to torment or torture. <BR/><BR/>so perhaps we can both be correct here. i agree that it is a sidebar but let me try one more time to explain my point in bringing it up in the first place. <BR/><BR/>if we are to take 'morality' as a product of evolution and uprbringing, and that's all it is by your definition, then the Germany example serves a purpose. it shows that we could easily evolve a morality that is upside down from what you and i agree is 'basic human goodness'. again, that's why i chose the convenient example of nazi morality. we all think it was wrong, but if they had won the war then, by your thinking, Jews would now, and should be, extinct.<BR/><BR/>Re the origin of the universe you are close to my point and I'll have to read up a bit, but you are perilously close to believing in a sort of God if you believe that the Universe is either a. static or b. continually expanding and contracting. <BR/><BR/>The reason I say this is that you seem to be arguing for a singularity, something that has always been, though in different forms, this is what I call God, though my God is outside the system and therefore not proveable by hard science. <BR/><BR/>I know of nothing else in our human experience that has 'always been' or is 'perpetually renewed'. one thing that hard science folks like you can not accept, and, quite frankly, i understand why, is that there might be something outside the system, like God. <BR/><BR/>but back to your question. you would probably say that science is reliable because it is reproducible. okay, given, but WHY is it? <BR/><BR/>that gets to my point, which is, again, a philosophical and epistemologic one. let's face it, if you don't care about why we know or how we know what we DO know then my line of argument is not going to be convincing to you .<BR/><BR/>in other words... if the universe had a beginning, which i believe it did (and no, i don't believe in a 'young earth' nor does the human genome guy that you read), and that beginning was a 'big bang' caused by nothing in particular, or a prior universe that contracted, and on and on, and there was no initiator or planner, then we are faced with making logical deductions from an illogical beginning. <BR/><BR/>every cause has an effect, and every effect a cause. every THING does not have a cause, but all EFFECTS do. so, if the universe's expansion (the effect of something) has no CAUSE then you are talking about something outside of human experience. <BR/><BR/>agreed re 2nd law, but again, increasing order is due to an application of energy. where does the energey to create order come from. in what other thing does increasing order happen without the application of an intelligence? <BR/><BR/>you may say that we see it all the time with evolution and the formation of planets etc.. and i agree. but why? trace it back to the beginning of it all and again, why? and who? or what?<BR/><BR/>why should the second law be abrogated? and, for that matter, if there are laws, who authored them. from randomness comes laws. from an inexplicalbe beginning or an inexplicalbe 'always was' comes order. that part is very confusing to me. <BR/><BR/>this is where i think you take the same leap of faith you say that i do. i see the same data, you say that it was just always this way and needs no master's touch, i say the opposite. i think, in these terms, that God is a much better explanation, especially when you must either then explain the universal human belief in God (universal as 'in all cultures at all times in history... not every person) as either a glitch in evolution, a convenient pipe dream or wish-fulfillment fantasy, or delusional. <BR/><BR/>and yes, collins is an evolutionist but he has the same problem i do as he is not comfortable with an effect without a cause. <BR/><BR/>and really, i'm not missing the point of evolution, i understand that the mantra is 'enough time and enough mutations' etc... and i get it... really. <BR/><BR/>now you can teach me something though, and i'm typing this at work neglecting my patients, tell me about the 'theory of large numbers' because i think it bears on the 'monkeys at a typewriter' saw... i have read some stuff in the academic literature re mathemiticians are coming to doubt if those monkeys really could type up 'romeo and juliet'.<BR/><BR/>as to something in my experience that contracdicts the 'it always was here and there is no explanation' i guess i would have to say my whole life. not being a smart ass, mentioned this above in more detail, don't know of anything that has always existed without a beginning (except God), don't know of any cause without an effect or vice versa. <BR/><BR/>a Christian answer to the 'problem of pain' you have read and didn't like. free will. don't know why this doesn't, at least, make logical sense to you whether you like the answer or not. if there is a game then there are winners and losers and people can cheat. if not, then we are merely robots and there is no free will. <BR/><BR/>at least the Christian answer does provide a place for the cheaters and provides for justice. i think, at least, that that must seem satisfying, but that the rest of Christian theology is distasteful for you. <BR/><BR/>socrates is my boy.911DOChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466669111561150174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-11471995513194591652008-03-19T08:25:00.000-05:002008-03-19T08:25:00.000-05:00My point is twofold:1. the idea of an "atheist mar...My point is twofold:<BR/>1. the idea of an "atheist martyr" is self contradictory according to your definition. you consider martyrdom as dying for a religion. Atheism is not a religion. Therefore no atheist martyrs are possible according to you. What I am pointing out is that there are doubtless atheists who have died for a 'cause'. By THIS definition then ther are certainly atheist "martyrs".<BR/>2. i think martyrdom is bad "proof" for god or a christian god. You state: "i think that without a God that you just kill everyone you can and protect yourself and others. this is just natural law, tooth and claw. i believe that humans are different and that Christians martyrs, and martyrs even of other belief systems put a hole in this and one must either call them saints or insane". In other words you use specific individuals who have martyred themselves in the name of god are somehow 'proof' that god exists. to you they "put a hole in" the theory of atheism. But you yourself have stated over and over and over and over (and I agree) that we CAN'T look at individuals who have taken action in the name of god or espousing to be christians and conclude anything of the rightness or wrongness of Xanity (e.g. christian Nazis or christian martyrs "put a hole" in this).<BR/><BR/>I think all this martyrdom talk is a sidebar and not even that relevant to our discussion.<BR/><BR/>The critical point you state is this: "my hang up has to do with the origin of the universe. whether you believe it has always existed (the best option for you) or that it had a beginning then you can not know that you know anything if the process responsible for the universe was random". I'm not sure this is solid logic and maybe I don't exactly understand what you are saying. Are you saying that all of our knowlege is unreliable if the universe had a random beginning? I think this is what you claim and I don't get the logic of this. <BR/><BR/>First of all, you equate the absence of god with randomness. There is certainly, on a universal scale, increasing entropy. But LOCALLY there can be increasing ORDER. This allows for humans and human behavior via evolution (at least that is the theory which has been pretty well established and even the Collins book scoffs at "intelligent design" - here's a xtian who accepts so-called "randomness" (evolution) plus time as a reasonable answer for the order we see.<BR/><BR/>You are missing the entire point of evolution - it is not SIMPLY random - it is random PLUS time. Here is another place where the bible is dead wrong - I think only a moron believes the earth is ~6000 years old - but this is what the bible claims. So much for inerrancy.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you are getting at a different point which is (i think something like) 'if our origin is random then how can we be SURE that we are not Matrix-like pod people, or thetans, or some other being's fantasy, or something like that.'<BR/><BR/>i.e. If we don't accept a definitive explanation of the universe (god, that is) then we have no foundation to accept what is and what is not reality. <BR/>(BTW, I think you need to explain this better because I am struggling with how this is logical.)<BR/><BR/>But, just for argument, let's accept this premise (which, again, i don't fully agree with). All it does is offer a possible solution for existence (ie god did it). Here's another offer: matter has always existed though infinite big bangs and crunches. this cycle has resulted over billions of years in intelligent life that understands the importance of mutual interests which lead to morality and right and wrong... Now, how does this second theory have no basis in reality? This theory is certainly plausible and there is good evidence for it. There is absolutely NO REASON to think that our perceptions about what we experience or observe are unreliable if this second scenario is correct. What I would ask of you is, assume the second theory IS correct - NOW tell me something that you experienced or observed that contradicts this theory.<BR/><BR/>I can offer you alot of reasons for the (possible) non-existence of god (war, hate, poverty, suffering, dead children, mutant infants, the Olsen twins) We know these things to exist and these to me bespeak for either no god, a non-benevolent god, or a non-interested god. <BR/><BR/>Waiting for your response but realize that I have pretty much gone Socrates on your ass. (he was greek so probably would be into that)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-73140927848155096922008-03-19T08:19:00.000-05:002008-03-19T08:19:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-31328269397716267382008-03-18T15:22:00.000-05:002008-03-18T15:22:00.000-05:00FUCK! remind me never to type a response on blogge...FUCK! remind me never to type a response on blogger on my apple again. <BR/><BR/>no, no, no. <BR/>carl sagan was not an atheist martyr, he did not die by execution when he refused to accept Christ, or bhudda, or mohammet or gaiai.<BR/><BR/>infidels are Christians killed because they don't accept mohammet, heretics are folks of other religions killed for not accepting the Catholic version of Christianity etc... i'm still waiting for the example of the person willing to die for atheism itself... maybe the Va. Tech or columbine shooters?<BR/><BR/>i'm also not using martyrdom as a criterion on which to judge religion, i'm merely pointing out that martyrdom seems to be unique to religion. martyrs are, therefore, either right, sadly deluded, fucking idiots, or insane. that's what they must appear to be to anyone, including atheists, who do not share their beliefs. <BR/><BR/>i am not hung-up on randomness in the way you think i am. my randomness hang up does not have to do with evolution. i do not believe on a gut level that evolution by itself is responsible for humanity, but i do understand that logic can lead you there.<BR/><BR/>my hang up has to do with the origin of the universe. whether you believe it has always existed (the best option for you) or that it had a beginning then you can not know that you know anything if the process responsible for the universe was random. GIGO. <BR/><BR/>again, i must remind you not to confuse declared adherents of a religion or philosophy with the thing itself. the Christian Germans who sat silently while the Jews got exterminated were wrong to do so. so was everyone there. the German defense at nuremberg is that they were following their law. the convictions were based on universal law and universal morality, and, unless i'm way off here, probably on judeo-Christian principles of morality. <BR/><BR/>there were some in Germany, some notable Christians, who went to prison and were killed and also put in the camps for their opposition and a little research will show you this. but it is, indeed, correct to point at the rest and say they were shitty examples of what a Christian should be. but hey, i don't point to your kids as an example of what a shitty father you are (jk ;) )!<BR/><BR/>now you know how it feels to be bitch-slapped.911DOChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466669111561150174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-2492726643498161362008-03-18T14:31:00.000-05:002008-03-18T14:31:00.000-05:00oh. you are obsessed with 1939 germany. You know w...oh. you are obsessed with 1939 germany. You know who DID go along for the ride? There were many people who went along with hitler who were christians. Actually, christians helped validate the regime in many ways.<BR/><BR/>How do you respond to the fact that the majority who jumped on the bandwagon were christian? According to you, this would be proof that god does not exist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-50291813815934060332008-03-18T14:26:00.000-05:002008-03-18T14:26:00.000-05:00Maybe one example of many many many like him is Ca...Maybe one example of many many many like him is Carl Sagan who was an atheist to the end and asked on his deathbed to accept god said basically fuck you. Not really a 'martyr' but dying with the 'opportunity' to hedge his bets...<BR/><BR/>Probably a better example would be (probably thousands of)'infidels' <BR/>killed - maybe atheists maybe not.<BR/><BR/>really, martyrdom in itself is a bad criterion to judge the validity of any belief system so really it doesn't matter whether someone happened to martyr themselves or not. Proof: you would claim a buddhist martyr is a fucking idiot. In your world, this bozo goes to hell. Bad deal.<BR/><BR/>Another issue, I think you are way to hung up on 'randomness'. You look at the world, see order, and assume god must have made it so. You liken the absence of god to the likelyhood of buying a winning powerball ticket. I would liken it to buying a winning powerball ticket if you bought a powerball ticket every second for 15 billion years. If this person won the powerball, is this unlikely? NO.<BR/><BR/>I'm a genius. Eat my nutsack.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-29758232679448164392008-03-18T13:20:00.000-05:002008-03-18T13:20:00.000-05:00to be clear about my 'martyr' comment above, there...to be clear about my 'martyr' comment above, there have been plenty of Chrisitan martyrs who refused to renounce their belief, plenty of muslim martyrs who refused to renounce theirs, plenty of 'witches' burned at the stake etc... iow, plenty of folks with a belief in their god who refused to renounce him. i want an atheist martyr, one who said, i refuse to believe in any god, so kill me. i'm not saying there aren't any, i just don't know of any. socrates? maybe, but he did believe in a god.911DOChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466669111561150174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-81405302217070970572008-03-18T13:16:00.000-05:002008-03-18T13:16:00.000-05:00DAMN! Typed a whole response and lost it. Maybe Go...DAMN! Typed a whole response and lost it. Maybe God didn't like it. <BR/><BR/>No, without God there is still 'right' and 'wrong' but you can't get there with logic. <BR/><BR/>humanism doesn't fail when challendge by war, i merely meant that if you were a child, for instance, in 1939 Germany, and everyone around you including your parents told you that the Jews were subhuman then what cause would you have to believe they were wrong? i see this happening in our current society as what's 'right' and 'wrong', especially in academic circles, does, indeed, 'evolve'. you may see this as good, i do not. <BR/><BR/>evolution has many answers to altruism. as an ev. biol major in college i heard many. none were as compelling to me as the creator God explanation.<BR/><BR/>i do not say that our perceptions are unreliable without a belief in God, i say that we have no reason to suppose that they are. all advances in science have been made because we assume a logical form to the universe. it's hard to get to a logical universe from a random beginning. i do not think you are the Jewish Messiah, but you may be his alter-ego. <BR/><BR/>i don't know of any atheist martyrs offhand. while the bhuddist or hindu or muslim martyr (one who dies for their religion and only for their religion) are true martyrs i believe that they are sadly mistaken (not insane). my 'insanity' comment was in reference to how these martyrs MUST appear to people who are atheists.<BR/><BR/>plenty of atheists have died for causes but i want to know one who has been martyred for atheism. i can think of plenty who have been martyred because they wouldn't convert to Christianity, or Islam etc... but really, tell me one that has died for 'nothing'. <BR/><BR/>also, and i understand that this is a bit trite and anecdotal, i know plenty of folks right now who are over in the mideast flying into 50cal machine gun nests and offing towlies, but i don't know any atheists in the lot.<BR/><BR/>plenty of 'good societies' have developed worshipping other gods, and the roman empire or the egyptian pharoahs are good examples i think. major world religions have a lot in common (murder bad, charity good etc...) but Chrisitanity makes unique claims (the only way to the Father etc...) which are not made in most others. even islam reveres Christ as a 'prophet' and the Jews believe in a Messiah but don't believe it was Jesus. <BR/><BR/>But Christ did not come to 'trump' the Old Testament, he came to live perfectly accordingly to the law, in a way, to show everyone how it's done, He was the only one ever to do it. He was therefore the perfect sacrifice. none of us can keep the law because we are all flawed. the law was, and is, perfect. the Old Testament does indeed speak of polygamy, slavery, murder, and adultery (David) but i do not see it as condoning it, rather telling it like it was. would it not be a lot more unbelievable is all you read in the OT was about people you could not hope to compete with? they were all imperfect but through their faith in God were justified. the OT points to a Messiah, Christians believe is was Jesus. <BR/><BR/>I do believe that one might think the OT implied slavery was okay, it was certainly practiced, but I must point out that abolitionists were motivated by their Chrisitan beliefs.<BR/><BR/>not disagreeing that humanists can be 'good' and do 'right' but, as far as objectivism goes i must disagree. basing one's morality on experience and data gathered turns out to work just fine. but why? what possible reason does an objectivist have for believing that the experiences he has or the data he gathers is anything other than random shit? that's my point. you can start from an empirical/objectivist point, but why is the data good? my answer is because God designed it all and that we are made in His image with brains wired in such a way to make sense, as much as humans can, of a larger truth. <BR/><BR/>again, growing up in 1939 Germany etc... why not be a Nazi? <BR/><BR/>i know, as mentioned, that there are many explanations proferred from evolutionists for how 'morality' evolved but to me, they are about as believable as me walking into the gas station down the street, buying a 1$ powerball ticket, and hitting it big. <BR/><BR/>re sproul: our perceptions ARE reliable, with or without God's guidance. his point, agian, is on a deeper level. what reason do we have to trust them if the universe is a result of a random something that happened sometime wihout purpose? I'm interested as to why this line of reasoning 'goes nowhere'?<BR/><BR/>re why a good God would create a world with the possiblity of evil, and, as we know, its real existence i'm afraid the Christian answer is all about free will. i don't know why you dislike this answer so much because i believe that YOU believe in free will. the alternative is that God could have created robots. he did not. <BR/><BR/>the atheist alternative is that we are here, we don't know why, and we muddle through as we see fit. but even an atheist like yourself has the deep down need to explain it. and here we come full circle and back to the 'faith' issue. you and i seek to explain what we see around us, we both have a choice to see it as a logical world, flawed to be sure, but with a purpose and with a creator, OR, a random result of a random process that seems to make sense sometimes but it could also be an illusion. in this kind of world i have no reason to believe that you exist and i think, as a matter of fact, that you are just a bad dream. <BR/><BR/>bitch.911DOChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466669111561150174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-50491536098987944972008-03-18T09:22:00.000-05:002008-03-18T09:22:00.000-05:00Let me see If I get your premises: -without god th...Let me see If I get your premises: <BR/>-without god there is no right or wrong<BR/>-‘humanism’ fails when challenged (by war etc…)<BR/>-evolution has no answer for altruism<BR/>-without a set of rules (by which I assume you mean, in some way, ‘god’s rules’) our perceptions are unreliable.<BR/><BR/>I think you are wrong on all counts. I also think I may be the Jewish Messiah, but I’m not sure.<BR/><BR/>First premise - without god there is no right or wrong:<BR/>One piece of ‘proof’ for this that you offer is “Christians martyrs, and martyrs even of other belief systems put a hole in this and one must either call them saints or insane”. This is proof of NOTHING. You state yourself there are “martyrs of other belief systems”. Guess what, this includes atheists. Yes, there are atheists that have made the ‘ultimate sacrifice’ for the good of others. By your logic, a Christian who sacrifices himself is the pinnacle of goodness, while the atheist, Buddhist, Hindu or Zoroastrian who does it is insane. So, when two people do the EXACT SAME ACT, one is great, one is crazy. This is the definition of delusional thinking. <BR/><BR/>On the same subject, you say god defines what is right and wrong and this is the ultimate authority. So then what are you using as the word of god? I assume you would say the bible (unless you have had a personal ‘revelation’ which I do not think has happened – correct me if I’m wrong). Well, the god of the old testament (which, by the way, jesus certainly belives in), implied that some pretty horrific stuff was OK (slavery, etc…). You might then say (I think in a very poor logical step) that Jesus somehow ‘trumps’ the old testament (I guess he’s trumping himself…). This would therefore imply that all of society and humanity pre-jesus had no real ‘rule book’ for what was right and wrong. Guess what, in this “natural law” world, great societies developed with a moral structure – something you imply is impossible in a ‘tooth and claw’ world.<BR/><BR/>Second: humanism fails when challenged.<BR/>Again, non-christian martyrs ‘prove’ this wrong.<BR/><BR/>The basis of humanist morality is roughly: “knowledge of right and wrong is based on the best understanding of one's individual and joint interests, rather than stemming from a transcendental truth or an arbitrarily local source”. This has obvious echoes of objectivism. Leaving a path of destruction, fucking anything that moves and drinking oneself into a constant stupor, although fun and roughly descriptive of my college experience, fails in this moral view. Again, the basis is a “best understanding of individual and JOINT interests”. We learn at a very young age that others’ interests are often also our own. This leads me to the third point:<BR/><BR/>Third: evolution has no answer for altruism.<BR/>Wrong. <BR/>In ‘god delusion’ Dawkins makes a compelling case via game theory for the evolution of altruism, and demonstrates how naturally occurring conditions can be shown, in a mathematical model, to give rise to altruism…. Now, I can feel your eyes rolling. Even if you are skeptical and dismissive of this idea, it at least shows that there is a plausible theory for evolutionary altruism.<BR/><BR/>Using just common sense, you would probably expect an atheist to sacrifice himself for his children. Maybe then, logically, you could see an atheist do the same for a busload of his friends’ children. Would he do the same for a random person that he would never meet, dying in some far off land? Would a Christian? Well, SOME Christians might. And some atheists might. But some Christians and some atheists would NOT. These actions or lack thereof, prove nothing.<BR/><BR/>Fourth: our perceptions are unreliable without god’s guidance.<BR/>Sproul’s book would beg to differ. One of his most basic points about apologetics or understanding god through reason (which I believe is the basis of your belief) is that perceptions are generally reliable. If not, then we could make no logical conclusions about anything. I think this strain of your argument goes nowhere.<BR/><BR/>Finally: One point for further thought: One of the weakest links in Christian philosophy, particularly when attempted to be put on a logical basis, is the acceptance of positive evidence and the concurrent rejection of valid negative evidence for god. Sproul points to the very existence of the world as ‘proof’ of god… uh, ok. This ‘proves’ nothing except that there is and always was, something. This proves nothing about god. There is constant pointing at good in the world as stemming from god, but somehow evil is written off to ‘free will’ or ‘the devil’ and not credited to the LACK of a benevolent deity’s existence. I’ve talked about the prayer study: prayer in a controlled experiment showed no effect on healing: if the opposite effect was shown and duplicated, I would really question my own beliefs. For a Christian, no result except a positive one holds any importance. The point is, when you decide to accept positive evidence while rejecting all negative evidence, then there is NO LOGIC for that belief. This brings us back to accepting based on blind faith. Something that you yourself have rejected.<BR/><BR/>QED Motherfucker!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-86309818728160131922008-03-08T00:41:00.000-06:002008-03-08T00:41:00.000-06:00a flaw. i agree that many folks live this way, do ...a flaw. i agree that many folks live this way, do unto others etc... this works pretty well i guess, until times or war or strife. in that circumstance, i think that without a God that you just kill everyone you can and protect yourself and others. this is just natural law, tooth and claw. i believe that humans are different and that Christians martyrs, and martyrs even of other belief systems put a hole in this and one must either call them saints or insane. <BR/><BR/>it would suck to try and 'lead by example' for instance, in soddom, or with a town full of seiral killers. this kind of reasoning reminds me of the stupid fuck mothers in blue state land who wont immunize their children, depending on 'herd immunity' to protect them. works well until everyone doesn't immunize their kids then you have a bunch of kids dying from diseases that should have been eradicated. not calling you stupid, just pointing out the connection my brain jumped to.<BR/><BR/>also, explaining why this 'evolved' to me is an insuluble problem because in a 'natrual law' world the first mutant who practiced this would have been killed and would not have reproduced. it would be hard to evolve a population of 'good' people, unless, of course, there was a preponderance of 'good people' to begin with, which is what the Bible claims. <BR/><BR/>objectivism was a powerful philosophy but, at least in philosophical circles, has been discredited. i do like ayn rand and i am struck by the many Christlike aspects of Howar Rourke. <BR/><BR/>the reason that objectivism is discredited, and this is according to frances schaeffer, is that they start with 'data', or information gathered by the senses, and build outward based on evidence. the critical issue is that an assumption is made that what is perceived is actually 'data' and that relying on our interpretations is reasonable. however, without a set of rules which precede our 'data' collection, there is no reason or ability to know that the data we gather means anything at all.<BR/><BR/>didn't get your point about pascal's wager.<BR/><BR/>your last point is intersting. it is something that lewis deals with at length in 'the problem of pain' i believe or maybe 'mere Chrsitianity', this 'ultimate rebel' that you describe certainly exists. lewis uses this person as an explanation for why hell is a necessity.<BR/><BR/>as to what it says about God i'm sorry to keep going back to this, but, in my belief system, and again, i think it's pretty mainline Christian, God chose to create men with free will and not robots. all flows from this. <BR/><BR/>i do not do the right thing due to fear of eternal punishment, but i do not want to be eternally punished. i do the wrong thing often, but when i do right AND it's inconvenient for me or painful then it IS because i believe there IS a right thing, and i believe there is a right thing because i believe in God. <BR/><BR/>if i did not believe in God then i would die young, probably fairly happy, and leave a swath of destruction in my path. this particular path has to do with women for me but for others it is money or crime or whatever. <BR/><BR/>doing what is RIGHT, to me, has no meaning without God other than what society says is right or wrond, and if i were, say German, and living in say, nuremberg in 1942 then i sure would be listening to my home slices and beatin' me some jews and killin' me some frogs.<BR/><BR/>i would submit to you that before i accepted Christ i did the 'right thing' for fear of punishment from my father's right hand (father small 'f') and because i was blessed with good (in every sense) friends, teachers, coaches etc... <BR/><BR/>my parents are big on right and wrong, but when i got old enough to ask 'why' they were lost. that's when i started searching and experimenting and that's when i begrudginly came to accept Christ.<BR/><BR/>can't argue the pussy thing.911DOChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466669111561150174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-80257626332506126762008-03-05T14:58:00.000-06:002008-03-05T14:58:00.000-06:00Don't give up on the Hitchens book. There are some...Don't give up on the Hitchens book. There are some significant weaknesses in H's arguments, mainly because he TRIES to be inflammatory for effect. I've read his book twice and have also read multiple articles and interviews by / with him. I think you are wrong in assuming he does not know his subject (Xanity etc...). He has had multiple co-interviews with cristian 'leaders' that you can search and read on the web. I think if you read them without bias, he universally comes out on top.<BR/><BR/>It's like prob. of pain and the sproul book: I truly struggle through sometimes and roll my eyes at the circumlocutions and (in my eyes) circular arguments. You prob. dont see their writings this way. But nonetheless, I learn from getting through these books. don't let Hitchens abrasiveness turn you off. I think his arguments, while not rock solid, are at the very least, compelling. I'll be interested in what you think of Dawkins more rigid and scientific approach (although he is not immune from condescension)...<BR/><BR/>In reference to sproul - have been reading up on schools of textual criticism, biblical inerrancy vs. infallibility, apologetics and the like... pretty interesting stuff although ALOT of mental masturbation going on.<BR/><BR/>Dude, don't get pissed, just contro' yo 'ho..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-81432202002462293182008-03-05T01:09:00.000-06:002008-03-05T01:09:00.000-06:00saw your sproull comment before your prior, this i...saw your sproull comment before your prior, this in response to sproul, working on other...<BR/><BR/>dude, <BR/> i have gotten stuck in hitchens. it's boils my brain as 70 p into it<BR/> i still am reading only a clever diatribe that amounts, so far, to a<BR/> 'my team is awesome and your's sucks' type argument. he just does not<BR/> have, so far, an understanding of the core beliefs of Xianity or other<BR/> religions, but looks at what he claims are the results of belief and<BR/> launches all barrels. it is hard for me to read and i have to do it when i'm<BR/> not already pissed which, these days, is rarely. <BR/> j911DOChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466669111561150174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-76957421459617454282008-03-04T15:20:00.000-06:002008-03-04T15:20:00.000-06:00ABOUT 1/3RD THROUGH SPROULL...LOTS O ?SABOUT 1/3RD THROUGH SPROULL...<BR/>LOTS O ?SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24021163.post-85756311672086558302008-02-29T13:57:00.000-06:002008-02-29T13:57:00.000-06:00One quick comment: "secular humaist" is just a pol...One quick comment: "secular humaist" is just a politically correct term for atheist.<BR/><BR/>Anyway:<BR/>The tough question for an atheist to answer (that you have correctly identified) is roughly: "why do good?" or "why not fuck everyone over and just go for yourself?"<BR/><BR/>Several possible responses:<BR/>1. Atheist as "humanist" - this is sort of like christianity absent christ. In other words, "do unto others..." becomes the basis of the moral philosophy. I simply act this way because I want others to also act this way. If I fuck people over, I expect to be fucked over, and I don't want to be fucked over (unless Gisele is doing it). My motivation and reward is to 'lead by example' and reap the returned good will. <BR/>2. Atheist as objectivist: This is basically selfishness as a virtue. Hard to capture in a brief paragraph (Read Atlas Shrugged).<BR/>3. Atheist who is hedging his bets. Pascal's wager and the like.<BR/>4. Atheist who acts 'good' now, because acting 'bad' in the past made him feel bad (your theory). You say this is somehow due to a higher power that gave us a good nature and by denying that nature and 'sinning' we are out of touch with god which makes us feel bad. Basically, your Juju is all fucked up. Or maybe your Chi.<BR/>There is certainly something to your theory, but your explanation sucks man-ass. I'm sure there are plenty of people who fucked people over to get ahead and are now happy as pigs in poo. Others were 'sinners' and this didn't work to get them ahead, they feel bad, then they see the light. If fucking people over has no downside and doesn't make you feel bad (I am absolutely sure there are ALOT of people like this) then what does THIS say about god? Does this then offer you proof that god doesn't exist? Of course not. So ergo the obverse cannot offer an explanation for god's existence. Quod Erat Demonstrandum, BITCH!<BR/><BR/>all that said, it really comes down to why do I think I do what I do. I think I have aspects of all of the above. None of which requires God. Do you think that you do the right thing due to fear of eternal punishment or hope for eternal salvation? I doubt it. I doubt it because I'm sure that BEFORE you accepted Christ, you were a good person and that you are the same person now. But probably you don't get as much pussy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com