Welcome to the Bronze Age Idiot / Blasphemous Heretic / Cinderella Man Manifesto. In light of the ongoing verbal diarrhea from those espousing their Christianity while simultaneously attempting to prove His existence by acting like they are God, I have decided to give whomever happens upon my corner of the web another plausible view on Faith, my own. I will also include my views on some hot political topics as I see them pertaining to my Faith. This has also been inspired by some Atheists who have expressed interest in understanding a concept as foreign to them as existence outside of linear time. I have learned first hand that I cannot accurately speak towards their objectivity or the validity of their claims. All I can do is put it out there let the sparks fly.
It’s all about context. A structure is only as strong as it’s foundation. It is for this reason that I have chosen to begin with certain absolute values that shall (despite any arguments) remain constant throughout this blog. Here’s your context.
1. It is impossible to prove (to any degree) to anyone that God does or does not exist. Present any evidence you have and I’ll disprove your evidence. Science can explain the existence of any evidence. Follow the timeline of any natural process backward to its origin and the only connection to God is conjecture on the part of the person who claims “God said let there be…” Conversely, if you reach the same end of the same timeline and say that there is absolutely nothing beyond that point; I can refute that as well. Just because the limits or your research capabilities have been reached proves only that you are either unable or unwilling to see what is beyond zero. Just because you can’t find it, doesn’t mean that it isn’t there.
2. At no point is this manifesto will I be speaking on behalf of God. I am not God. I do not believe, think, fancy myself, portend or otherwise intimate that I am God or his mouthpiece. I will never lead you to believe that I am telling you what God thinks about X. I am only enlightening you as to what Damagecrab thinks about God and X.
3. It is not possible to shake my Faith in God. I have been to war, through three failed engagements and have lived openly as a Redskins fan in the Greater Dallas/Fort Worth area for a combined total of over 10 years. I have loved, lost, lived and have more scars / sea stories than most. I’ve trekked halfway around the world and back, hitting almost every point in between and I’ve experienced nothing that has led me to doubt God, His existence or His power. I can make very few guarantees in this life, however I can state with impunity that you’ll inevitably reach the same conclusion in your attempt to motivate me to renounce my Faith by labeling me either a “Bronze Age Idiot” or a “Blasphemous heretic”: Failure. You are, however, more than welcome to try.
4. I am not trying to convert you. Not to my way of thinking, Faith, team, side, alliance, moral standard set or spirituality. Regardless of how harmless I may judge you to be either in the grand scheme or immediate future; I have only the answers to MY questions, not yours.
5. I am saying precisely what I wrote. I understand the genuine need to paraphrase my verbose, pedantic ramblings into concise nuggets of wisdom for the sake of digestion. I also know “trolling” when I see it. If you didn’t get it the first time, read it again. It’s not like this blog is going somewhere.
6. Definition: “You’re Welcome”. If you ever see “You’re Welcome” (in quotation marks), this is what I mean: Veterans such as myself, those who came before me and those who shall forever follow, have and are constantly paying the ultimate price for your freedoms, specifically the one you exercise here; the freedom of speech. Inevitably, you have only those rights you can successfully defend. We defend them for you. Like it or not, the Constitution you think guarantees your freedom; does not. We do. Essentially, you have the right to be a stupid, immature, classless and/or as you wish. That right, as well as every word of every other right you have, was written in the blood of veterans. No matter how self-important you fancy yourself, you would be either dead or a slave without us.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” - Voltaire
Titular explanations. You will note the 3 alternate titles to this manifesto. For the sake of context, I shall attempt to explain from where they originate.
• Bronze Age Idiot – This particular gem is courtesy (loosely) of the previously mentioned Atheists. It references the fact that religion was used in the Bronze Age to explain anything from phenomena to minutiae to the uneducated masses by their ruling bodies. It is intended to spotlight my anachronistic willingness to place value in an illogical belief system despite my education and the world of boundless advancement, scientific discovery and logic in which I live and interact. I’ve been called worse, by better.
- Blasphemous Heretic – Obviously (hopefully) a reference to the reaction I have most commonly received from Christians who have responded to previous blogs on previous blog sites. Lets break this one down; shall we?
- Blasphemous – There are at least two different definitions of blasphemy in the Bible and I shall cover how I think that is possible later. In the meantime, I refer to the two I know offhand. First, the idea that it refers to the defamation or denial of God (any deity, actually). Obviously I’m guilty of neither instance so let’s move on. Second, the idea that one is guilty when claims to have or attempts exercise the abilities of God. I find this definition wildly and hilariously ironic as the very declaration of me as a blasphemer essentially constitutes a judgment of my sins and, simultaneously, sentences my soul to eternal damnation, which is solely the domain of God. I’ll reflect more on judgment later.
- Heretic – I’ll wear this moniker like a big red “S”, rather than a scarlet “A” on my chest. I view heresy the same way Mark Twain viewed patriotism: “In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."-Mark Twain-Notebook, 1935.
- Cinderella Man – This is mine. This is not, however, a reference to the 2005 Ron Howard/Russell Crowe/Paul Giamatti/Rene Zellweger release of the same name. Great movie, not what I was referring to. It is a reference to the song of the same name released by Rush on their 1975 Fly By Night album. Feel free to look up the lyrics on your own.
Take this on Faith. You can go to a plethora of websites to find a definition of the word, “faith”. I offer that the majority of those who take up this endeavor shall either read into the definition they find whatever it is they already think OR they simply keep searching until they find one that adequately suits their purposes. In any case, the true meaning remains the same. (NOTE: Keep this theory in mind when reading my feelings on the Bible and other faiths). Faith is belief without proof, simply stated. Conversely, knowledge is belief with proof. Regardless of YOUR definition of the word; belief without proof is the context of this blog. This is the antithesis of almost every Atheist who reads this blog. I find that most Atheists (including the ones with whom I have spoken prior to establishing this blog or any blog for that matter) require proof for everything. Ironically, the proof could be the word of a venerated scientist without requiring said scientist to demonstrate that which they currently espouse. They argue that the track record of the scientist forgoes the requirement of demonstration. Yet if someone speaks to their faith or about God and I felt that their statement held merit, I’m a Bronze Age Idiot. Meanwhile, because the scientist is presenting their statement as one of fact and is willing to offer proof, they can readily accept the report of scientific findings as fact and that, to them makes perfect sense.
The Atheistic Double Standard of Proof:
- Atheists = Innocent until proven guilty.
- All Persons of Faith = Guilty until proven innocent.
The Radical Right Wing / Moral Majority Double Standard:
- Christians (of their specific denomination) = Innocent
- Everyone Else = Guilty
At least the Atheists offer the opportunity to prove yourself, even if it is ultimately impossible. Ultimately; both standards are unreasonable and reprehensible. To the Radical Right / Moral Majority I offer this warning: pick the wrong part of the Bible and you are committing blasphemy. To the Atheists I offer this caveat; statements of faith, specifically those NOT offering proof of God, do not bear the burden of proof. Anyone who says that they can prove God exists is a false prophet, period (Rule #1). It may seem like I am playing a game of semantics, however, there is too great of a chasm between the ultimate meanings of both statements. One says: “Unless you agree with me; you are wrong.” Whereas the other says: “I’m offering my theory for your scrutiny. View it as you will.” (Rule #4) One claims seeks to manipulate someone’s existing belief system, the other presents information devoid of manipulation. That’s a huge disparity. If your intention is to prove something such as causation, guilt or scientific law, then the burden of proof is on you. If you are not trying to prove anything, then there is no reasonable expectation of proof. There’s always going to be curiosity as to why you believe what you do, just no reasonable expectation of proof. This is in no way satisfactory to your average Atheist. To them I offer this:
In the equation that is my existence; God is the undefined X variable for which the only solution is attained at death. Upon my death, the true nature of God’s existence will be proven to me, and only me. You will have to wait for your own death in order to learn for yourself whether you were right or wrong. If you are right, nothing happens, there is no afterlife and your awareness shall cease with your biological function. If you are wrong, you had better hope that either the standard by which you are judged matches the one by which you lived (HINT: if you were wrong about God then you probably didn’t do too well on the moral standard thing either) or that the afterlife you end up in doesn’t involve some sort of negative experience. This is the Cost / Benefit Analysis I pose to you, the Atheist. I (obviously) already completed mine.
Your own personal Bible Decoder Ring. Let’s cut to the chase: man wrote the Bible. It chronicles Creation, Noah’s Naval Deployment, The First Day of Christmas, Jesus Does Time On Death Row, Jesus’ Comeback Tour and even tells us what to look for in an Armageddon. Yet nothing is mentioned about God coalescing into tangible form, picking a Bic and droppin’ the wisdom, first hand. I'm guessing this is because he didn’t. But someone did. Atheists will tell you that those who wished to use it to control the uneducated masses penned it. Most Christians will tell you that it was penned by man, but inspired by God. They’re both right. The bible is basically a collection of letters written to entire populations or essays written by people who gave first hand accounts of Jesus. Of course, I’ve always wondered who chronicled Genesis. Everything after Genesis chronicles the history of a civilization of some sort so I don’t doubt the existence of a written language at that time. Genesis, however… how did we happen upon that one? Personally, I think Jesus dictated it after he got here. I’m pretty sure he was a subject matter expert; Son of God and all. Interestingly enough… it doesn’t matter. Think about this: if Genesis was complete fiction… would that shake your Faith? Why? We know that man wrote the Bible. We know that man is by his very nature, imperfect and a sinner. It is therefore unreasonable to expect that ALL of the words in the Bible belong to God. Man threw in his two cents, believe that. King James even named his version after himself. It’s insulting to God to think otherwise. Doing so is tantamount to believing that God IS NOT the omniscient / omnipotent power we say he is. Basically you’re saying that God let man change the valuable parts of the Bible to meet his own needs. I doubt that. Compare all the different versions of the Bible. They are all interpreted to mean a million different things because they are all written differently. There are, however, certain similarities between them all. Look at the meanings behind things like the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes and the Proverbs, et cetera, ad nauseum. Those do not conflict. The same is true for some parables but maybe this is the litmus test (or part of it, see the part about other religions for the other part) for finding the parts that God actually cares about. Maybe, all of the contradictions are found in the parts that man wrote himself, sans God’s approval. I believe that God knows we are smart enough to figure out what’s right and what’s wrong. Whether we actually do it or not is the test we face. That is why I believe that the Atheists are technically right that man wrote the Bible to suit his own purposes. I believe God lets (present tense) man have liberty with His Word because he knows we dare not change certain things. We could, but deep down inside some part of our soul recognizes the True Word and admonished us from either changing it or believing changes to it. So, ultimately, how does one interpret the Bible. To couch my belief in Christian terms; the Holy Spirit guides us all, and guides us differently not based upon our ultimate destination but based upon our current path. To couch this in terms an Atheist can relate to; follow your heart. Both parties, however, should apply as much common sense as possible. I’ll talk more about how and where I apply it in subsequent sections. God gave you common sense, whether you like it or not. Like other abilities / talents, use it or lose it.
Spirituality V. Religion. What’s the difference? The way I see it; Spirituality is the relationship one has with their higher power. Religion is a man-made institution originally intended to promote fellowship between like-minded people. This has been subsequently corrupted to its current form: a demagogical cult of personality. About the only things I do religiously pertain to hygiene. Religion thrives on consistency. When change comes to a religious institution, it happens violently. Not necessarily as violence relates to war or fighting (although this is far from an aberration), however, when it doesn’t involve actually injury and destruction is likely does involve the opposition of two forces resulting in anger, insults and an everlasting feud. I don’t remember reading anything in the Bible that justifies the absurdly asinine behavior that plagues inter-denominational exchanges. Anytime someone in the Church attempts to affect change there is some sort of upheaval. Reformation is often considered a direct attack upon God’s Law. God isn’t the problem; His followers are. Segregation, alarmism, prejudice, elitism and war. This is the legacy of religion. A group of like minded individuals get together RELIGIOUSLY, regurgitate RELIGIOUS rhetoric, work themselves into a RELIGIOUS fervor and someone inevitably gets blown up in the name of their God. Spirituality doesn’t have this problem. Spirituality has no body count. Atheism does have a body count. Just ask the Russian’s who were massacred by the Soviet Regime or the Jews, Christians, Blacks, Homosexuals or Handicapped who were slaughtered wholesale in Nazi concentration camps. When Spirituality transcends religious belief, we end up with People like Gandhi:
“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
And Martin Luther King, Jr.
“Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.”
Verdict: I’ll take Spirituality over Religion (and Atheism) at every opportunity. Imagine what our world would be like if I wasn’t the only one.
Dinosaurs & Deity. For centuries science and religion have been at each other’s throats. This is retarded. There is nothing in science that disproves God’s existence, Grace or the validity of his teachings. So why does the Church flinch every time science flexes? Science never has been, is not now, and never will be a threat to God. It is a threat to the Church, though. This too is the fault of the Church. Long ago the Church overstepped its bounds and began to answer scientific questions with God. How many people would have lived had the Church turned to science to investigate and cure the Black Plague (oh look, a Biblical term, imagine that)? Instead it was deemed a punishment and people crowded to the Church to seek God’s forgiveness, all the while spreading death amongst the faithful. Allow me to play Captain Obvious and illuminate the solution to the most classic of all the Church/Science debates…
Creationism = Who, Evolution = How.
Yeah, it actually IS that simple. It works like this: God says let there be light and there is a Big Bang. The Bible says it took 6 days. Really? According to the same text God always was. There was never a point where he never existed. WHOA! DEEP! Unless, of course, you can imagine existence outside of linear time. Think about it. We can think it, write it and say it but we really can’t imagine it. We are stuck in linear time. Everything about us relates to linear time. Now consider the possibility that whoever was given the task of transcribing this concept to human terms, being human themselves, somehow misconstrued the message. Replace “days” with “stages” and we get a timeline which now may be aligned with accepted science. There is even a verse (actually, there are a few) in the Bible that says that a day to God is the same as a thousand years and a thousand years is the same as a day (2nd Peter 3:8). Confused? I’m not. This tells me that linear time does not apply to God. So science tells us that it took billions of years of evolution to get like as the planet to the point it was at when Adam & Eve showed up. Seems like a long time to us. Not so much to God. He had all the time in the world. Why? Probably because He invented time in the first place. Speaking of Adam & Eve: I’m guessing that they were two of thousands who evolved circa the same time. If I’m wrong; we’re all inbred and Eve was to busy spitting out babies to have time to talk to snakes. I seriously doubt that.
Want to see an Atheist and/or a Jesus Crispy twitch uncontrollably? Tell them that God invented science. Works every time.
Have the Christian’s reached a verdict? Here’s the whole verse:
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye’, when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Matthew 7:1-5
Is this THAT hard to understand? God does not need your help judging the sins of you fellow man. He is omnipotent and omniscient. He’s better qualified than you. I can’t imagine the amount of ego or hubris it takes to think that one is equal to God and worthy of passing judgment. When you are free of sin, you may judge. HINT: you are sinful by nature therefore you will never be qualified to judge while you still draw breath. Find another hobby. Remember what I said about taking upon oneself the abilities and powers of God being blasphemy? If blasphemy is the only unforgivable sin and all the rest are equally ugly in his sight; what does that mean for the Jesus Crispy who thinks God sent them judgment robes in the mail? It means that God will forgive the homosexual you condemned to hell but not you. D’oh! I can’t make this any clearer.
Separation of Church & State? We don’t need no stinkin’ Separation of Church & State! Barry Goldwater said it best when he said:
“The Republican Party will rue the day it got into bed with the Radical Right.”
He actually said a lot of things about how detrimental the influence of religion is on politics. History shows us that when religion is intertwined with government it usually leads to witch hunts and wars. And still, The Church sees fit to do everything in its power to dictate public policy. I’m not saying that Churches, on an individual basis, are incapable of improving the world around them. I contend that a Church in a community becomes a centralized point of fellowship and human contact desperately needed in today’s technologically-connected-yet-physically-separated-societal archetype. On the other hand it neither holds a monopoly on this attribute nor does it continue to work properly when it ventures beyond the boundaries of God’s Law and into a position of public policy. Whatever happened to giving unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and giving unto God what is Gods. Passing laws that uphold Gods Law is anti-productive and flies in the face of faith. Obedience means nothing to God if it is forced. If I drag an Atheist to God, put a gun to the Atheist’s head and order them to repent and accept Jesus Christ as their savior, is it genuine? No. God judges us by what He sees in our hearts. If He looks into that Atheist’s heart and sees the truth behind his belief then his confession means noting and the only thing I’ve done is sinned against God and my fellow man. By the same token; if we take away someone’s choice by passing laws that outlaw sin, then their adherence to Gods Law is just a coincidence and has no spiritual value. Jesus never lobbied the magistrate to affect public policy. He traveled the known world and simply offered his teachings as an alternative to their present moral standard. Today’s Jesus Crispies are too busy ignoring their children and gathering up their earthly treasures to actually go out and witness. That’s what their political representatives are for. The facilitation of peace, progress and free commerce should be the only criteria on which legislation should be based.
Imagine all the people. When I speak to people of other faiths I generally listen to what they have to say and even tend to read some of the texts with an open mind. For instance, the copy of the Tibetan Book of the Dead (the closest thing to a Buddhist Bible-equivalent you’re are going to find) has the best definition of “nothing”. In doing so, I have noticed a few universal similarities between the majority of the world’s spiritualities. From the Christian perspective; the majority of those of Faith practice ideas remarkably similar to the Ten Commandments, Proverbs and the Beatitudes. Combine this with the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel and you have enough to suggest that regardless of whom or how you worship; the difference between your God and mine might be lost in ancient translation. Another reason why “Holy Wars” are so useless; it’s the same God. Not to mention the fact that if two Gods were going to vie for domination, why would they use the imperfect humans who could possibly lose to do so?
Thou shall conform. The Bible admonishes us stay away from the very face of evil. Jesus Crispies view this as the call to action to eradicate anything they view as evil from the face of the earth and to shield their children (and yours) from the same. This is why they have to send their children to private schools and make them all dress the same. That’s fine but their right to swing their fist stops where my nose starts. Making children practice conformity is a waste of childhood. The standards you hold them to now are just going to change by the time they graduate. Furthermore; the ones who are going to change the world are not going to be the ones who conform. Training children to conform is tantamount to training them for mediocrity. Which serves only the purpose of those who wish to either remain in power or pass it on as a birthright. The Founding Fathers did away with royal succession for a reason. I actually understand the reasoning behind it. We all fear the unknown to some degree. It’s perfectly healthy to work towards protecting that which you love. Too much protection is just as damaging as evil itself. If your children don’t know what evil truly looks like, how will they know when they are truly facing it? Isn’t Lucifer the Great Deceiver? Do you really think that the greatest evil presents itself in black clothing, wearing tattoos, piercings and listening to Death Metal? That’s not evil, that’s just me! It comes in the form whatever you would consider to be wholesome. That’s the whole point of temptation. Give the people what they want instead of what they need. The greatest evil is not committed in the name of darkness, it is committed in the name of light. Besides, how do you expect to witness to the sinners if you either can’t recognize them or won’t go to where they are? Preaching to the converted is useless. Do you really think God can’t tell the difference, either?
It’s a baby AND a choice. Once again, if you take away people’s right to choose you work against God’ Plan. He gave us free will for a reason. It’s not your place to question the Lord (that’s one of the more popular forms of blasphemy). Give people other options, educate them and they will be able to make the right decision on their own. Now when you run across that young lady who is the victim of rape/incest; ask yourself if YOU are willing to take care of that baby. If so, put your money where your mouth is. If not; shut-up, keep walking and stop trying to play God by telling other people how to live (unless you are trying to commit blasphemy). Similarly, when you run into the mother-to-be who is going to die if she gives birth (assuming she didn’t know this before having sex); please explain to me how exactly you can justify her death because of your God Complex. God’s going to judge everyone eventually. Abortion can be forgiven, blasphemy cannot. You choose.
I can’t pray without you. Prayer in school is in no way illegal. School led prayer is. As long as there are final exams & pop quizzes, there will be prayer in school. Banning school led prayer is enforcement of the Separation of Church and State. It’s PC, and PC is more “Pansy Coddling” than “Politically Correct” but this is the world in which we allowed to come about. Let’s face the facts: public schools are funded by tax dollars making them governmental arms. When they do anything to practice religion it is automatically unconstitutional. It violates the separation of church and state. I have no idea why this is such a hard concept for the Church to embrace. It protects them at no real cost to them, unless of course they want to set public policy. Which if they continue to do so it only sets the legal precedent to allow the public to set Church policy (since we have based out legal system on the English standard of Common Law). I also wonder what kind of Christian actually needs to be led in prayer all the time. Can’t Junior Crispy pray for himself , at least until he gets home? Does Mommy & Daddy Crispy not have enough time to teach Junior & Alice Crispy how to pray to God? It’s not that hard. I never had a problem with it. Teach your children about God at home, if you don’t have time, you shouldn’t have children. When you do teach them to pray, please teach them that praying for victory in a competition is tantamount to praying for someone else’s failure. There’s nothing Christian about that.
I now pronounce you hypocrite & wife. OK, we have already established that condemning homosexuals for being homosexuals is blasphemous and thereby unforgivable, unlike homosexuality. It’s irrelevant whether homosexuality is a sin or not. As soon as you condemn, speak out against, segregate yourself from or in any other way judge a homosexual; you are wrong. I offer this viewpoint instead. If marriage were so sacred, it wouldn’t be a legal institution. Is it God’s or Caesar’s? You can’t have it both ways. This is God’s Law, not Burger King. The moment we established marriage as a legally binding contract with legislative and economical ramifications it ceased to be sacred. If the Jesus Crispies REALLY thought it was so sacred they would lobby to remove it from the books. Something else to ponder, why haven’t they tried to outlaw adultery? Are you telling me that there are more homosexuals seeking a legal marital status than there are adulterers. I contend that there are more adulterers who are Christians and thereby actively devaluing marriage than there are homosexuals who threaten to do so by marrying each other. And if you hate them so much then BY ALL MEANS, LET THEM GET MARRIED!!! To NOT allow homosexuals to get married is unconstitutional on two levels it’s unequal protection against homosexuals by not affording them the legal & economical benefits as well as unequal protection in FAVOR of homosexuals by not letting them get married and suffer like the rest of us! All jokes aside: veterans have made too great a sacrifice in defense of the Constitution and the rights therein to allow anyone take them away.
Everyone loves a happy ending. You’re probably expecting me to present my view of eschatology (the science of predicting the manner with which the world will end. Yes, I’m serious, this is a word). Here it is: It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change how you live your life, does it? The important part is what happens AFTER the world ends. Who ever you are, whatever you believe: you better hope you’re right. I know I do.
55 comments:
Hi Crabcakes,
I would love to hear your thoughts about the following ...
If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments.
-- Bertrand Russell
According to William Craig, the claim that "you can't prove a universal negative" is false. In the first place, of course you can. For example, you could disprove the statement that "there are polka-dotted geese." That would be a universal negative and you can disprove that. But more importantly, the claim that 'God does not exist' is not a universal negative. It's a singular negative. And certainly you can prove negative singular statements, such as, 'There is no planet between Venus and the Earth.' You can provide arguments to show that a singular negative statement is true.
Indeed, there are actually two ways to prove the nonexistence of something. One way is to prove that it cannot exist because it leads to contradictions (e.g., square circles, married bachelors, etc.). Because incompatible-properties arguments attempt to demonstrate a logical contradiction in the very concept of the thing in question, incompatible-properties arguments are deductive arguments.
Incompatible-properties arguments can also be applied to states of affairs involving several objects. In other words, it may be logically impossible for two objects to exist simultaneously. For example, some gods cannot coexist with other gods. The god of Islam (Allah) and the god of Christianity (Jehovah), despite their common origin in the god of Judaism (Yahweh), are mutually exclusive. Jehovah and Allah, at least as traditionally understood, cannot both exist at the same time. Both claim to be the Creator of the universe, but they have contradictory attributes (e.g., Christianity claims that there are three "persons" known as God but Islam claims that there is only one). Therefore, Allah and Jehovah cannot both be "God"; at least one cannot exist.
Thus, the Christian theist who makes the positive existential claim that the Christian god exists, is implicitly making the negative existential claim that all gods contradictory to the Christian god do not exist. Similarly, the Islamic theist who makes the positive existential claim that the Islamic god exists is implicitly claiming that all gods contradictory to Allah do not exist. And both the Christian and the Islamic theist presuppose the nonexistence of the god of Deism, an impersonal Creator of the universe.
The other way to prove the nonexistence of something is, in the words of Keith Parsons, "by carefully looking and seeing." The basic idea is that some objects are said to be detectable in some way. Either their existence is directly observable or their existence is not directly observable but the object causes effects which are directly observable. For example, consider the existence of an ordinary rattlesnake. Suppose someone standing next to you claims that a rattlesnake is directly in front of you. You look down and see nothing. In such an instance, it would follow that there is no rattlesnake in front of you. This same method allows us to know that such things as the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, the Abominable Snowman, etc. do not exist.
But the most decisive refutation that "negative existential propositions cannot be proven" is the fact that the claim that "negative existential propositions cannot be proven" is itself a negative existential proposition. If negative existential propositions cannot be proven, then that implies there are no proofs for negative existential propositions. But the claim that "there are no proofs for negative existential propositions" is itself a negative existential proposition. Therefore, you could never claim to have any proof for the claim that negative existential propositions cannot be proven.
What would it take to change your mind about god?
* see someone walk on water or raise the dead?
* confront God directly?
* see an image of Jesus burnt into your toast?
* hear a compelling argument in favor of the position?
I am not saying that a magical being who cares about your welfare used his supernatural powers to authorize another, lesser magical being to come to you and arrange for you to have an eternal existence if yoy agree to perform certain acts. That lesser being was given a choice to either allow himself to be executed by some humans or not, and through the prior arrangement with the superior magical being, choosing to allow himself to be executed would authorize the agreement for eternal existence. But the option whether or not to accept this agreement still stays with the humans who can choose to be obedient and loving towards these magical beings or not. If they do accept the deal, then they get to go to a magical place after they die and live forever with the super beings.
Important Point! What I AM saying is that atheism is the reasonable conclusion to draw.
Justifying atheism doesn’t require discounting faith. Furthermore, trying to rebut faith is typically futile. Crabcakes has already implicitly and explicitly acknowledged that what the evidence or arguments indicate is irrelevant to him. By invoking faith, you have already embarrassed and made a mockery of yourself more than any thoughtful reasoned rebuttal could accomplish.
When we have good reasons to believe that there’s really nothing else supporting the belief besides the causal explanation, then we do have grounds to reject the truth of it. The Inuit Eskimos believed that the moon god, named Aningan, chased his brother, the sun, across the sky, and lives in a giant igloo in the sky. We don’t take such a claim seriously, and we know that there’s not much more to account for this belief in a particular Inuit Eskimo than that his mother and father believed it, everyone else around him believed it, they told him it was true, and it fits in well with the rest of what he believes is true about the world. Maybe the belief provides some emotional comfort. Or maybe there is a neurological disposition to believe such things. Here the psychological, social, causal explanation of the belief explains it away entirely. There are no good reasons for us to believe that the story about Aningan is true, and there are many plausible causal accounts of why the Inuits believe. That’s why you’re an atheist about Aningan.
What about Christianity? The early Christians were a small group of people embedded in an Iron Age world view. The world, as they saw it, must have been heavily populated with magical events and forces, supernatural beings, gods demanding tribute and obedience. They had been raised their entire lives to believe that a spiritual and political messiah would come and provide them with salvation. They were illiterate for the most part. Science as we know it wouldn’t be invented for another 1500 years or so. They had no general expectation that there were natural explanations for lots of the events that people often take to be of religious and supernatural significance. Religiousness and spiritual devotion to some sect or other was a normal way of life for them.
Sure, it’s possible that a magical, and divine super being decided to have a son, however that happens, and to send that person to in a tiny village in the middle east in the first century. And it is possible that the magical super being did it in order to tell people to be kind, loving, and forgiving to each other. And those people who believe that all of this story is true will be rewarded in a special magical place after death that no one has ever seen, while all the ones who have doubts and don’t believe will be tortured for eternity.
But doesn’t it really strain credulity for you to really take all that to be true, and for you to expect us to take you seriously? You’ve got to admit that given all the far-fetched, crazy metaphysical schemes that religious traditions have come up with over the centuries about giant igloos in the sky, crocodile gods in the bottom of the Nile, animal spirits, and positive thinking, it’s just common sense to look at one of these stories with a healthy amount of skepticism, and to suspect that the more plausible explanation is that some people who just didn’t know better got confused, or made some mistakes, and the whole thing managed to catch on and spread through a series of interesting historical developments. All of those thousands and thousands of other religions arose from just those sorts of mistakes, so how likely is it that Christianity didn’t?
In order for a belief in God to be justified for a person, that person needs to have grounds that render the belief likely to be true. It won’t be enough to just sketch out possibilities on every side of the topic: Well, possibly God was the first cause. And possibly God had a reason for tolerating evil. And it is possible that the designer was God. And it is possible that if God designed us, then when our cognitive faculties are functioning properly, we will have a reliable, justified belief that there is a God.
If it is possible that one of the winning lottery numbers tomorrow will be 39, and it is also possible that one will be 7, and another one will possibly be 71, we don’t now have reason to think that the group of numbers: 39, 7, and 71 will probably win the lottery tomorrow.
Theism isn’t reasonable until we have some grounds that make it probable. All of these possibilities added up don’t make theism reasonable.
The believer can’t keep dodging the burden of proof forever. They are writing checks all over town to answer the challenges about these different lines of defense, but there’s no money in the account. If a table has 4 possible legs, we can’t expect it to stand up.
Top Ten Myths about Belief in God
1. Myth: Without God, life has no meaning.
There are 1.2 billion Chinese who have no predominant religion, and 1 billion people in India who are predominantly Hindu. And 65% of Japan's 127 million people claim to be non-believers. It is laughable to suggest that none of these billions of people are leading meaningful lives.
2. Myth: Prayer works.
Numerous studies have now shown that remote, blind, inter-cessionary prayer has no effect whatsoever of the health or well-being of subject's health, psychological states, or longevity. Furthermore, we have no evidence to support the view that people who wish fervently in their heads for things that they want get those things at any higher rate than people who do not.
3. Myth: We have immortal souls that survive the death of the body.
We have mountains of evidence that makes it clear that our consciousness, our beliefs, our desires, our thoughts all depend upon the proper functioning of our brains our nervous systems to exist. So when the brain dies, all of these things that we identify with the soul also cease to exist. Despite the fact that billions of people have lived and died on this planet, we do not have a single credible case of someone's soul, or consciousness, or personality continuing to exist despite the demise of their bodies. Allegations of spirit chandlers, psychics, ghost stories, and communications with the dead have all turned out to be frauds, deceptions, mistakes, and lies.
4. Myth: Belief in God is compatible with the descriptions, explanations and products of science.
In the past, every supernatural or paranormal explanation of phenomena that humans believed turned out to be mistaken; science has always found a physical explanation that revealed that the supernatural view was a myth. Modern organisms evolved from lower life forms, they weren't created 6,000 years ago in the finished state. Fever is not caused by demon possession. Bad weather is not the wrath of angry gods. Miracle claims have turned out to be mistakes, frauds, or deceptions. So we have every reason to conclude that science will continue to undermine the superstitious worldview of religion.
5. Myth: We have immortal souls that survive the death of the body.
We have mountains of evidence that makes it clear that our consciousness, our beliefs, our desires, our thoughts all depend upon the proper functioning of our brains our nervous systems to exist. So when the brain dies, all of these things that we identify with the soul also cease to exist. Despite the fact that billions of people have lived and died on this planet, we do not have a single credible case of someone's soul, or consciousness, or personality continuing to exist despite the demise of their bodies. Allegations of spirit chandlers, psychics, ghost stories, and communications with the dead have all turned out to be frauds, deceptions, mistakes, and lies.
6. Myth: If there is no God, everything is permitted. Only belief in God makes people moral.
Consider the billions of people in China, India, and Japan above. If this claim was true, none of them would be decent moral people. So Ghandi, the Buddha, and Confucius, to name only a few were not moral people on this view, not to mention these other famous atheists: Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Aldous Huxley, Charles Darwin, Benjamin Franklin, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Elizabeth Cady-Stanton, John Stuart Mill, Galileo, George Bernard Shaw, Gloria Steinam, James Madison, John Adams, and so on.
7. Myth: Believing in God is never a root cause of significant evil.
The counter examples of cases where it was someone's belief in God that was the direct justification for their perpetrated horrendous evils on humankind are too numerous to mention.
8. Myth: The existence of God would explain the origins of the universe and humanity.
All of the questions that allegedly plague non-God attempts to explain our origins--why are we here, where are we going, what is the point of it all, why is the universe here--still apply to the faux explanation of God. The suggestion that God created everything does not make it any clearer to us where it all came from, how he created it, why he created it, where it is all going. In fact, it raises even more difficult mysteries: how did God, operating outside the confines of space, time, and natural law "create" or "build" a universe that has physical laws? We have no precedent and maybe no hope of answering or understanding such a possibility. What does it mean to say that some disembodied, spiritual being who knows everything and has all power, "loves" us, or has thoughts, or goals, or plans? How could such a being have any sort of personal relationship with beings like us?
9. Myth: Even if it isn't true, there's no harm in my believing in God anyway.
People's religious views inform their voting, how they raise their children, what they think is moral and immoral, what laws and legislation they pass, who they are friends and enemies with, what companies they invest in, where they donate to charities, who they approve and disapprove of, who they are willing to kill or tolerate, what crimes they are willing to commit, and which wars they are willing to fight. How could any reasonable person think that religious beliefs are insignificant.
10: Myth: There is a God.
Five big differences between science and religion.
(1) Religion presumes more than science, since it assumes the existence of entities or a non-physical realm about which science remains skeptical or silent, given that whatever science cannot examine and test science is neutral about.
(2) Religion has too many articles of faith science can do without: In science, what explains with fewer commitments to unsubstantiated speculation or unobservables is better than what explains with more.
(3) Religion has a built-in faith-based immunity to criticism and scrutiny which science rejects; the scientific attitude requires a perpetual, skeptical attitude about articles of faith however much these may support what one wishes to believe.
(4) Religion believes what it does not bother to prove, since evidence is either not needed or optional as long as it is complementary; science accepts only what it proves (tests) and this is only conditioned upon the quantity and quality of the evidence available.
(5) Religion never rejects or corrects its foundational beliefs, but science often does---this is the source of its honesty and its usefulness. Science is a self-correcting, revisionary, fallible process that routinely revises and even abandons altogether inadequate hypotheses in favor of better ones.
Damagecrab: I'll *be* pimpin'
Jesus Christ: For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.
P.S. Regarding your cost/benefit analysis, etc., any thoughts about the following...
Not only is it possible to be a moral person without a belief in God, there are some very good reasons for thinking that in many cases believing in God is itself actually immoral.
In general, isn’t it a bad thing to believe a claim that :
*you know is false,
contributes to the confusion or false beliefs of others,
*encourages supernatural, spooky, non-critical, fuzzy-headed thinking,
*fosters fear and anxiety.
creates complacence about social problems, social policy, and the future of humanity on this planet.
*undermines the advancement of science
*contributes to the stagnation of human progress.
*encourages a historically outdated, over-simplified worldview.
*stalls our progress in dealing with new, complicated and important moral issues
*has no good evidence in its favor.
*encourages cultural and ethnic strife.
*gives people false hopes.
is self-deluding.
*fosters fear, confusion, and fuzzy, magical thinking in children.
*fosters false beliefs in children.
impedes children’s acquisition of our most important, modern advancements in knowledge.
*is a case of akrasia:
The ancient Greek concept of akrasia is acting against one’s better judgment or having a weakness of will. Consider the heroin junky, or the smoker who is trying to quit, or the alcoholic. In their clearer moments, they can see what's wrong with their lives. They know that quitting is the sensible thing to do. But those needs creep up, the rationalizations start gaining traction, rational thought lapses, and he finds himself with a hypodermic or a cigarette in his hand. The psychological, emotional, and physical desires are too strong, and the intellectual habits, the fortitude of will, and his resolve are too weak.
Isn’t it true that one does something blameworthy or bad if one succumbs to believe those things that we want to believe when we know full well that the belief is undermined by the evidence. If out of a weakness of will, you allow yourself to believe something because of your emotional, psychological, or social needs, but not because you see good reasons in the form of evidence for it, aren’t you letting yourself down? You are letting all of us down. You are condoning believing in that way, you are lowering the bar for yourself and for everyone else, you are acknowledging that you cannot or you will not submit your beliefs to the arbitration of reason.
And isn’t it also true that your belief in God fits many, most, or all of these conditions? The problem for those with the religious urge is that culturally we have widely endorsed sloppy, indulgent, irrational thinking, especially when it comes to religion. There's a church on every corner trying to draw them in. And we've all elevated the abdication of reason in matters of God to a noble virtue instead of rejecting it for the dangerous and demeaning practice that it is. Most people, when they are being clear headed and thoughtful, know that there are no good evidence in favor of theism, and there is a lot of evidence contradicting it. But, many people want there to be a God. They hope that he's listening to their prayers. They don't think they could face life without him.
So they permit themselves to "believe in" God in the "hope" sense of "believe." ("I believe that my husband will make it home safely from Iraq.") But we don't usually distinguish carefully between that sense of "believe" and the "I believe because the evidence indicates that it is true" sense of believe. (NASA says, "We believe that there is no water on the moon.") And the comforting, hoping kind of belief settles in naturally. Then we find ourselves surrounded by like minded people who feel the need to believe(h). No one is comfortable acknowledging their weaknesses, and no one wants to attribute flagrant irrationality to themselves. So in time, hoping beliefs slip into a stronger kind of belief. We talk ourselves into thinking that it really is true that God exists. We hear others acknowledging our belief and our needs. And they encourage us to be strong, to have faith, to sustain that belief. We rationalize, we blur, and we feel more and more strongly that this thing that we want to believe really isn't just a hope, it's correct, it's the truth.
What originated as something that we knew wasn't true but we hoped was true anyway exploits a weakness of the will and becomes a belief that we think is true and that we think there's good evidence for. The drug works its way into the crevasses of your reason. You find a way to get what you want and placate your reason: you believe because you hope it is true, and you enslave your reason to making it seem like it’s a legitimate claim to the truth.
Since I'm not lazy enough to go www.buyathesis.com in order to copy & paste my response (your 1st comment), I'm going to read what you wrote and respond directly (your 3rd Comment). The more you write, the longer I take . I don't have canned responses for everything in life, I find that doesn't promote change and facilitate progress and it stunts my spiritual growth. I'm more of a "question the answers" type of guy. I will answer though you will either have to be patient or bitchy, there are no other options.
Hi Crabcakes,
You may not be lazy enough to go to www.buyathesis.com, but you evidently went to www.buyadelusion.com when you decided to follow the bible (albeit like someone picking and choosing what they want as if the bible was a chinese buffet). However, I would love to hear your response to the arguments I posted.
BTW, how open-minded are your comments below? If it's not possible to shake your faith in god, is it really faith? What if I said, "I have faith that you are wrong and nothing will change my mind." Would that make me open-minded. All I am saying is that if you make outlandish claims, provide some sort of explanation that holds water. You have failed miserably to do that and you skip back and forth between "proof" and "faith." You have zero proof and "faith" doesn't hold water. There have also been countless people who have been to war, travelled a lot, etc. who a) do not believe in god, b) believe in another god(s) than you, or c) became less sure of god as a result of their experience. So, your point here is really no point all. It's really just self-serving and emotional reasoning.
"It is not possible to shake my Faith in God. I have been to war, through three failed engagements and have lived openly as a Redskins fan in the Greater Dallas/Fort Worth area for a combined total of over 10 years. I have loved, lost, lived and have more scars / sea stories than most. I’ve trekked halfway around the world and back, hitting almost every point in between and I’ve experienced nothing that has led me to doubt God, His existence or His power. I can make very few guarantees in this life, however I can state with impunity that you’ll inevitably reach the same conclusion in your attempt to motivate me to renounce my Faith by labeling me either a “Bronze Age Idiot” or a “Blasphemous heretic”: Failure. You are, however, more than welcome to try."
TITI, I don't know how you cracked into my laptop and stole the Word document that I was working on to respond to this post, but well done.
I'd just add a couple little thoughts...
1. It's silly to talk about the belief system of atheists. There is no system. There is simply one belief that unites all atheists... "god does not exist."
2. Trotting Hitler out with the atheist tag is an old, and useless trick. First, it was already conceded by DC that morality has nothing to do with a higher power, and 2nd, see point 1 above. Atheism is one belief, not a system. As such there is no relationship between atheism and how good/bad a person is. TITI brings out a number of examples of "moral" atheists, but the entire argument is ridiculous on both sides.
3. As TITI said, the personal bio is interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to the argument. God either exists or doesn't, and your life experiences speak not a word to that issue. That said, thanks for your service.
Oh, and one last thing (for now) in defense of TITI... when he/I want to lighten it up and be funny, we are "trolling". When he provides an in-depth and thoughtful response, he gets references to "buyathesis.com" and "canned responses." So, what kind of response do you want? Deference? Good luck with that.
Questions for Crabcakes:
Hitler was an atheist? I don't know about Hitler's religion, but I do know that he was heterosexual, so can I assume you're against that, too?
If you met an adult who still believes in Santa Claus because he read a book about Santa visiting and presents magically appeared on Christmas morning when he was a child, would you praise him for having faith in the face of overwhelming evidence or think that he was deluded?
"If you believe in God and are wrong, then it's no big deal, but if you don't believe in God and are wrong, you'll be punished eternally, so it's not a good idea to be an atheist." Hey, what if you're wrong that God likes unthinking self-righteous redskins fans compared to honest people who try and live a good life?
"God wants you to believe in him without rational proof." Then he's certainly doing a fine job of not tempting me with evidence!!!
Crabcakes: "Want to see an Atheist and/or a Jesus Crispy twitch uncontrollably? Tell them that God invented science. Works every time."
Fascinating, I'm not twitching uncontrollably. Are you?
"Faith" and "science" are mutually exclusive.
Faith(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
Science: a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
So, if god invented science, 1) then how can you still use faith as an argument? 2) If god invented science, where is the evidence of god or that donkeys talked, etc.?
Twitch on ...
pwned again.
TITI, you know the answers to these questions, but I love that you ask them anyway.
Once again, braindamage brings nothing more to the table other than "i believe it because i believe it and it makes me feel good to believe it and you can't tell me i don't believe it..."
Whatevs.
BTW TITI, if you put this much effort into grad school, you might have finished in under 23 years!
Crabcakes: I know from personal experience that God exists.
TITI: No he doesn't. He told me so himself.
Oh, thanks, New Tex. I have nothing personal against Crabcakes. Seems like he is just a truly wonderful, caring, intelligent person. I was just hoping for him to share his "tome of wisdom" as he puts it about this topic. Hope that I don't have to wait too much longer ... maybe he's been playing drums and he's about ready to share his tome of wisdom ...
Crabcakes: The universe is so complex that someone must have designed it.
TITI: I don't know -- that sentence was fairly complex but there was obviously not much thought behind it.
Three quick thoughts:
1. Damagedbrain would never make it through a Ph.D. dissertation defense, unless his committee had 3weeks to hear his (evasive) responses to questions.
2. That said, a wise man once said "better to be quiet and thought of as an idiot than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
3. I did find a piece of braindamge's diary... excerpted here:
Many times when I am troubled or confused, I find comfort in sitting in my back yard sipping tequila, while having a long conversation with Jesus.
This happened to me again yesterday after a particularly difficult day.
I said "Jesus, why do I work so hard?"
And I heard the reply: "Men find many ways to demonstrate the love they have for their family. You work hard to have a peaceful, beautiful place for your friends and family to gather."
I said: "I thought that money was the root of all evil."
And the reply was: "No, the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. Money is a tool; it can be used for good or bad".
I was starting to feel better, but I still had that one burning question,so I asked it . "Jesus," I said, "what is the meaning of life? Why am I here?"
He replied: "That is a question many men ask. The answer is in your heart and is different for everyone and I would love to chat with you some more, but for now, Senor.... I have to finish your lawn"
Hmmmm... this explains so much.
Thanks for sharing your three quick thoughts, New Tex. Yup, definitely explains a lot.
Some memorable moments in the life of crabcakes ...
* Invests all of his $ in Enron because he has "faith" in Ken Lay.
* Awarded the Darwin Award for lamest attempt to prove god exists (i.e., 12/2007 "God is the X variable" treatise).
* Gets in a shouting match with his community college science professor, ending with, "If you believe in the Easter bunny and are wrong, then it's no big deal, but if you don't believe in the Easter bunny and are wrong, you'll be punished eternally, so it's not a good idea to be an atheist about Easter bunnies."
Dearest Crablegs,
Alas, evidently you are giving us the silent treatment. Before that, one could fly a jumbo jet through any part of your "arguments" and never scrape against a fact, shred of evidence, or logical point. Evidently, you have realized that your smug and hostile attempt to bully your way onto other people's blogs as a "true christian" with a tome of wisdom to enlighten athiests and your 'jesus crispies' has cratered. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Vaya con Dios,
TITI
Do you think I would put you two above MNF? Puh-leeze! Crab's busy man! I almost didn't have time for this! I'll read replies either tomorrow or Wednesday. Lot's o'good stuff guys! Thanks!
TITI: Ok. Where to start… you really didn’t read my post did you? You just copy & pasted something, right? Fine. Whatever. Let’s see what we got here, shall we?
“According to William Craig, the claim that "you can't prove a universal negative" is false.”
Which Craig theory are you referring to? Is this a Craig Interpolation or just some other propositional theory? What propositional variables are you working from? It still doesn’t account for fuzzy or multi-value logic. You’re assuming that there are only two truth values: true & false. How does this work when “possible” is applied? If “possible” is possible, then why not probable, likely, maybe, relatively or any other truth value I cn come up with? We’ll have to come back to this when you are better prepared.
“…the claim that 'God does not exist' is not a universal negative. It's a singular negative.”
Talk about cherry-picking. Aristotle’s fuzzy logic doesn’t apply but his singular negative syllogistic does? Whatever. Why isn’t this a particular negative? I’m not claiming everyone else’s belief in God is true (or possible) just some of them. Besides; this is all just obversion which is predicated on inference and therefore not proven.
“Jehovah and Allah, at least as traditionally understood, cannot both exist at the same time.”
First: define The Traditional Understanding of God/Allah. Second: compare this to my belief in one common God. Third: rethink this argument.
“The other way to prove the nonexistence of something is, in the words of Keith Parsons, "by carefully looking and seeing." The basic idea is that some objects are said to be detectable in some way. Either their existence is directly observable or their existence is not directly observable but the object causes effects which are directly observable.”
What if I look carefully and see billions of people claiming spirituality? Can I infer that belief in a high power could possibly be caused by a higher power? When I introduce “possible” into the truth value set we’re out of the clean room of predicated classic logic and heading towards fuzzy & or multi-value logic. Where the real world and all it’s mutations / variables are taken into consideration. The soup is getting too thick for traditional propositions to stir alone.
“Therefore, you could never claim to have any proof for the claim that negative existential propositions cannot be proven.”
Good thing I never did. I just claimed to be able to refute claims not prove anything.
“What would it take to change your mind about god?” Death
* see someone walk on water or raise the dead? Could be an LSD flashback.
* confront God directly? I will, at death.
* see an image of Jesus burnt into your toast? It wouldn’t last long: I like jelly.
* hear a compelling argument in favor of the position? I would love to hear one someday.
“I am not saying that a magical being who cares about your welfare used his supernatural powers to authorize another, lesser magical being to come to you and…”
Biased context. The only logic one can infer from this is that you have something psychological against faith. Therefore your arguments are tainted by the inherent possibility of the self –fulfilling prophecy. You’ll find what you were looking for.
“Important Point! What I AM saying is that atheism is the reasonable conclusion to draw.”
Oh, look. I was right. This too is assuming that there are only two truth values in the set.
“When we have good reasons to believe that there’s really nothing else supporting the belief besides the causal explanation, then we do have grounds to reject the truth of it.”
So, I have grounds to reject your truth. Cool.
“What about Christianity? The early Christians were a small group of people embedded in an Iron Age world view. The world, as they saw it, must have been heavily populated with magical events and forces, supernatural beings, gods demanding tribute and obedience. They had been raised their entire lives to believe that a spiritual and political messiah would come and provide them with salvation. They were illiterate for the most part.”
This is only valid if I share their belief, which I don’t
“Science as we know it wouldn’t be invented for another 1500 years or so.”
That’s dumb. Science wasn’t invented by man; it was DISCOVERED by man. That’s like saying meiosis never occurred until we observed under a microscope. Even invention is just the discovery and subsequent facilitation of a scientific possibility which always existed.
“The believer can’t keep dodging the burden of proof forever.”
Why not? Did you call the logic police on me? Besides, everything gets proven at death.
“Top Ten Myths about Belief in God
1. Myth: Without God, life has no meaning.
There are 1.2 billion Chinese who have no predominant religion, and 1 billion people in India who are predominantly Hindu.
>Same God as far as I’m concerned.
And 65% of Japan's 127 million people claim to be non-believers. It is laughable to suggest that none of these billions of people are leading meaningful lives.
>And there are more people who believe in a higher power than don’t so isn’t this irrelevant? Everyone’s life has the potential for meaning regardless of belief. Most believe, the rest don’t. Where’s the logical dissuasion now?
2. Myth: Prayer works.
Numerous studies have now shown that remote, blind, inter-cessionary prayer has no effect whatsoever of the health or well-being of subject's health, psychological states, or longevity. Furthermore, we have no evidence to support the view that people who wish fervently in their heads for things that they want get those things at any higher rate than people who do not.
>If prayer makes someone feel better it works for them. I have prayed and have had my prayer “answered”. This is where the truth set again swells to true, false & possible.
3. Myth: We have immortal souls that survive the death of the body.
We have mountains of evidence that makes it clear that our consciousness, our beliefs, our desires, our thoughts all depend upon the proper functioning of our brains our nervous systems to exist. So when the brain dies, all of these things that we identify with the soul also cease to exist. Despite the fact that billions of people have lived and died on this planet, we do not have a single credible case of someone's soul, or consciousness, or personality continuing to exist despite the demise of their bodies. Allegations of spirit chandlers, psychics, ghost stories, and communications with the dead have all turned out to be frauds, deceptions, mistakes, and lies.
I don’t believe in ghosts, et al either. Yet I still believe that there is an afterlife. There is no tautology here, Dr. Craig. Move along.
4. Myth: Belief in God is compatible with the descriptions, explanations and products of science.
In the past, every supernatural or paranormal explanation of phenomena that humans believed turned out to be mistaken; science has always found a physical explanation that revealed that the supernatural view was a myth. Modern organisms evolved from lower life forms, they weren't created 6,000 years ago in the finished state. Fever is not caused by demon possession. Bad weather is not the wrath of angry gods. Miracle claims have turned out to be mistakes, frauds, or deceptions. So we have every reason to conclude that science will continue to undermine the superstitious worldview of religion.
>Read the post, this was never my claim. I don’t believe any of this crap either. You’re wasting time.
5. Myth: We have immortal souls that survive the death of the body.
We have mountains of evidence that makes it clear that our consciousness, our beliefs, our desires, our thoughts all depend upon the proper functioning of our brains our nervous systems to exist. So when the brain dies, all of these things that we identify with the soul also cease to exist. Despite the fact that billions of people have lived and died on this planet, we do not have a single credible case of someone's soul, or consciousness, or personality continuing to exist despite the demise of their bodies. Allegations of spirit chandlers, psychics, ghost stories, and communications with the dead have all turned out to be frauds, deceptions, mistakes, and lies.
>I’ve heard this before. Someone must have changed the Matrix! (Myth #3)
6. Myth: If there is no God, everything is permitted. Only belief in God makes people moral.
Consider the billions of people in China, India, and Japan above. If this claim was true, none of them would be decent moral people. So Ghandi, the Buddha, and Confucius, to name only a few were not moral people on this view, not to mention these other famous atheists: Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Aldous Huxley, Charles Darwin, Benjamin Franklin, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Elizabeth Cady-Stanton, John Stuart Mill, Galileo, George Bernard Shaw, Gloria Steinam, James Madison, John Adams, and so on.
>See the answer to Myth #4.
7. Myth: Believing in God is never a root cause of significant evil.
The counter examples of cases where it was someone's belief in God that was the direct justification for their perpetrated horrendous evils on humankind are too numerous to mention.
>So are the examples of cases where it was someone’s lack of fatih, hatred of God or adherence to Atheism was the direct justification for their perpetrated horrendous evils on humankind. Following your line of logic: if they all wore pants the logical conclusion would be to outlaw pants. Nice.
8. Myth: The existence of God would explain the origins of the universe and humanity.
All of the questions that allegedly plague non-God attempts to explain our origins--why are we here, where are we going, what is the point of it all, why is the universe here--still apply to the faux explanation of God. The suggestion that God created everything does not make it any clearer to us where it all came from, how he created it, why he created it, where it is all going. In fact, it raises even more difficult mysteries: how did God, operating outside the confines of space, time, and natural law "create" or "build" a universe that has physical laws? We have no precedent and maybe no hope of answering or understanding such a possibility. What does it mean to say that some disembodied, spiritual being who knows everything and has all power, "loves" us, or has thoughts, or goals, or plans? How could such a being have any sort of personal relationship with beings like us?
>Were you seriously looking for a precedent for the circumstances surrounding the CREATION of reality? If you find someone from an alternate reality let me know and we’ll all compare notes on how the creation of their reality went as compared to ours. OK?
9. Myth: Even if it isn't true, there's no harm in my believing in God anyway.
People's religious views inform their voting, how they raise their children, what they think is moral and immoral, what laws and legislation they pass, who they are friends and enemies with, what companies they invest in, where they donate to charities, who they approve and disapprove of, who they are willing to kill or tolerate, what crimes they are willing to commit, and which wars they are willing to fight. How could any reasonable person think that religious beliefs are insignificant.
>The same decision criteria are influenced by politics, education, nature, nurture, art, music, philosophy, personal experience. When you can separate all of those variables out, then you can prove causation.
10: Myth: There is a God.”
>Truth Set: True, False & Possible.
“Five big differences between science and religion.”
And this is where I stop. Why? Because I’m no fan of religion. I’ve stated and inferred that repeatedly in post and previous ones. Read the post and you’ll eventually get that.
"Therefore your arguments are tainted by the inherent possibility of the self –fulfilling prophecy. You’ll find what you were looking for."
I will be submiting this as a nominee for the Best Example of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black Award.
"Besides, everything gets proven at death."
The age old escape clause, along with "god works in mysterious ways." Both are tactics to dodge the question, of "where is the evidence that god exists or existed?" No one questions that faith exists or spirituality exists... we question whether or not there is someone on the other end of the call. All the rest, that is, how you worship as compared to how a Muslim worships... it's all window dressing.
“Not only is it possible to be a moral person without a belief in God, there are some very good reasons for thinking that in many cases believing in God is itself actually immoral.”
Yup, It’s as possible to be a moral person with a belief in God and there are some very good reasons for thinking that in many cases believing in God is itself actually moral.
So NOW you recognize the multi-value logic truth set! How convenient.
“In general, isn’t it a bad thing to believe a claim that :
*you know is false, > Yes, too bad you can’t prove that faith is false.
*contributes to the confusion or false beliefs of others, > Certainly! When religion uses people’s faith to this end it has the same effect that sensationalism in the media has had on our country in the past. This is not specific to just religion but to all tools used by power-hungry pundits to control the masses. You’re blaming the gun for what the shooter did.
*encourages supernatural, spooky, non-critical, fuzzy-headed thinking, > See above.
*fosters fear and anxiety.> See Above.
*creates complacence about social problems, social policy, and the future of humanity on this planet.> See Above.
*undermines the advancement of science> See above.
*contributes to the stagnation of human progress.> guess what I’m going to say…
*encourages a historically outdated, over-simplified worldview. > Only IF AND WHEN that perspective can be proven to directly cause negative outcomes.
*stalls our progress in dealing with new, complicated and important moral issues > See the second reply.
*has no good evidence in its favor. > You mean like Atheism?
*encourages cultural and ethnic strife.> See All of the above.
*gives people false hopes. See Above.
*is self-deluding. See above.
*fosters fear, confusion, and fuzzy, magical thinking in children. See above.
*fosters false beliefs in children. >Right, because belief in Santa Claus is an epidemic!
*impedes children’s acquisition of our most important, modern advancements in knowledge. See all of the above.
*is a case of akrasia: Do you now see the theme of personal accountability? If the belief that God told someone to commit murder is deemed delusional then so is the belief that God causes these things. Is it a universal negative? Is it a tautology? Who cares?
“Isn’t it true that one does something blameworthy or bad if one succumbs to believe those things that we want to believe when we know full well that the belief is undermined by the evidence. If out of a weakness of will, you allow yourself to believe something because of your emotional, psychological, or social needs, but not because you see good reasons in the form of evidence for it, aren’t you letting yourself down? You are letting all of us down. You are condoning believing in that way, you are lowering the bar for yourself and for everyone else, you are acknowledging that you cannot or you will not submit your beliefs to the arbitration of reason.”
Reason has been the most effective catalyst for change in my belief structure. My beliefs are constantly adjusting as I go through life. The only constant is the fact that I believe in God. What constantly changes is my perception of the circumstances surrounding his existence, not his existence specifically.
Scenario: You successfully strip away faith from humanity. Given the human condition. What is the direct result of your action?
Good stuff! I’m having fun!
NT:
“1. It's silly to talk about the belief system of atheists. There is no system. There is simply one belief that unites all atheists... "god does not exist."”
Whatever you use to justify your belief in the non-existence of God is your belief system; ie: logic.
“2. Trotting Hitler out with the atheist tag is an old, and useless trick. First, it was already conceded by DC that morality has nothing to do with a higher power, and 2nd, see point 1 above. Atheism is one belief, not a system. As such there is no relationship between atheism and how good/bad a person is. TITI brings out a number of examples of "moral" atheists, but the entire argument is ridiculous on both sides.”
Who said anything about Hitler? I was referring to the Fascist Nazi Party. Review your definition of fascism and show me where God fits in. It doesn’t. Therefore it is an Aethist institution. And are you telling me that it’s irrelevant just because YOU say so or is there a some logical/legal/universally recognized precedent I’m missing.
3. As TITI said, the personal bio is interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to the argument. God either exists or doesn't, and your life experiences speak not a word to that issue. That said, thanks for your service.
One’s personal experiences are the only filter they have by which to evaluate everything. How is that irrelevant when that’s precisely the filter through which you have evaluated the worth of your own argument?
“Oh, and one last thing (for now) in defense of TITI... when he/I want to lighten it up and be funny, we are "trolling". When he provides an in-depth and thoughtful response, he gets references to "buyathesis.com" and "canned responses." So, what kind of response do you want? Deference? Good luck with that.”
I never accused you of trolling. I just said that I could recognize it and would not respond. I have responded and not deleted your comments. Are you feeling paranoid or do you have a guilty conscience? I’m responding to you in kind. Calm down. TITI’s not getting bitchy, yet!
Wow, at least we now have some evidence that crabbycakes still exists (with a separation of brain and body). For someone who has been to the "war (of the worlds" movie), through three failed engagements (including seven restraining orders) and has lived openly (insert joke) as a Redskins fan in the Greater Dallas/Fort Worth area (i.e., East Dallas) for a combined total of over 10 years, loved (himself), lost (wallet, car keys, etc.), lived (as a sponge off of others)and has more (self-inflicted) scars/(make believe) sea stories than most (liars), trekked halfway around the world (of community college online) and back, hitting almost every point in between (jail time), I was execting more game from you! A full blown schizophrenic could probably offer a more cogent argument for the CIA spying on him than you have provided for your delusion.
"Alas, evidently you are giving us the silent treatment. "
Unless you are paying for my responses... you don't get to dictate deliverable deadlines. Get over yourself.
"I will be submiting this as a nominee for the Best Example of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black Award."
As long as you admit that we're both black, it's valid.
"The age old escape clause, along with "god works in mysterious ways." Both are tactics to dodge the question, of "where is the evidence that god exists or existed?" No one questions that faith exists or spirituality exists... we question whether or not there is someone on the other end of the call. All the rest, that is, how you worship as compared to how a Muslim worships... it's all window dressing."
All the logic in the world whether it's traditional, fuzzy or multi-valued; will never make God fit into your comfortable little box. Just accept the fact that i do not limit myself to your box. I refuse to conform to your standards. So does everyone who has faith. The fact that my perception extends farther than your is not my problem. Nor is it yours until such day as either one of us decides to overstep their rights and infringe on the other's right to believe. I have no intention of doing that to you or anyone else. Want me to prove it?
I'll introduce you to my soulmate who happens to be a practicing Pagan who worships "The Goddess". She celebrates the holidays in her own way and even keeps an altar next to our bed. It's been over 5 years and we've never fought over faith or tried to convert each other. Save your arguments for someone who rejects the validity of your Atheism. I do not. You could be right. My truth value set will always contain "possible".
mmmmmmm.... pagan booty.... so delicious.
You guys must be a real hit in Ft. Worth.
I'm not naive enough to think that she would be treated fairly by almost anyone in the Bible Belt. We just keep it to ourselves unless we know how each person feels about religion. Sad but true.
And yes... that booty is tasty!
Crabtankerous: I'm not naive enough to think that she would be treated fairly by almost anyone in the Bible Belt. We just keep it to ourselves unless we know how each person feels about religion. Sad but true.
TITI: Forget, some of the wacko folks in the bible belt. How is ole Crabby's God gonna treat your Pagan better half when SHE dies? Dare you to answer this one!
The Bottom Line, my Peeps: Faith is diametrically opposed to knowledge. Either you believe something because of the evidence, or you believe something IN SPITE of the evidence. Anything known is, therefore, no longer held on faith. The two are incompatible.
Oh, BTW, did you know that some horses actually have hayfever. Yep, that's right Crabrangoon, animals are sometimes born into a life of inevitable suffering because they are allergic to their principle foodstuff. Your God, he has one mean sense of humor, baby.
This should explode Crabs 3 remaining neurons:
Did you ever realize that before time, God wouldn't have had enough time to create time.
Crabs: Save your arguments for someone who rejects the validity of your Atheism. I do not. You could be right. My truth value set will always contain "POSSIBLE".
Crabs: It is NOT POSSIBLE to shake my Faith in God.
For the love of the god of Deism, an impersonal Creator of the universe, explain yourself!!!
"How is ole Crabby's God gonna treat your Pagan better half when SHE dies?"
Read my original post. (Same God, different name.)
"The Bottom Line, my Peeps: Faith is diametrically opposed to knowledge."
Didn't I say this at the beginning of my original post? Shoo 'nuf! Get your own box, TITI.
"Either you believe something because of the evidence, or you believe something IN SPITE of the evidence."
Unless no evidence exists either way, then you have faith. All your logical arguments are supposition qualified by existing mathematical equations. Even Aristotle admitted his arguments didn't apply to future events. Why? Because things can change. There are no laws which at some point in the future may not be proven wrong. We might gain the evidence you seek upon death; the future event making it a relevant argument.
"Your God, he has one mean sense of humor, baby."
And we are all made in his image, that's why you crack me up, Bubba!
"Did you ever realize that before time, God wouldn't have had enough time to create time."
If he is truly ominipotent, he wouldn't need material components, just the inclination.
TITI: I will make this very simple.
Quandry: Did TITI shake Crab's faith in God?
Truth Value Set: True, False & Possible.
Conclusion: False.
Until proven otherwise, it is not possible.
And, no I didn't qualify that because I assumed your were familiar with the concept of logical problem solving.
Point: Everything is debatable.
"How is ole Crabby's God gonna treat your Pagan better half when SHE dies?" Read my original post. (Same God, different name.)
-> Fascinating! So, if I pray to my God, Uga Buga, God of the Wide Open Fairway, by golfing on a semi-regular basis, then my after life will have all of the same magical treats as yours and your pagan partner?
"The Bottom Line, my Peeps: Faith is diametrically opposed to knowledge." Didn't I say this at the beginning of my original post? Shoo 'nuf! Get your own box, TITI.
- So, you either have faith of god (a guess, which you said was never gonna change) or a conviction (which is knowledge, yet you have zero evidence). I love that you have dug yourself into a deep hole, yet keep diggin' and diggin'.
"Either you believe something because of the evidence, or you believe something IN SPITE of the evidence." Unless no evidence exists either way, then you have faith. All your logical arguments are supposition qualified by existing mathematical equations. Even Aristotle admitted his arguments didn't apply to future events. Why? Because things can change. There are no laws which at some point in the future may not be proven wrong. We might gain the evidence you seek upon death; the future event making it a relevant argument.
- This is just too stoopid to comment.
"Your God, he has one mean sense of humor, baby." And we are all made in his image, that's why you crack me up, Bubba!
- Hopefully, your pagan lady isn't made in his image or she'd be a man.
"Did you ever realize that before time, God wouldn't have had enough time to create time." If he is truly ominipotent, he wouldn't need material components, just the inclination.
- Ah, the omnipotence paradox! An omnipotent being can do absolutley anything. So can an omnipotent being create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift? If he can create it, then there is one thing he can't do: lift the stone. If he can't create it, then there is one thing he can't do: create such a stone. Either way, there is something he can't do, which contradicts the assumption that he is omnipotent. This is a paradox. Care to resolve it?
P.S. You have the brains of a sea scallop.
TITI... check out this video... just mentally replace "Mr. Madison" with "Damagecrab".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PDKcX0Ji90
Also replace "god" with "flying spaghetti monster".
Wait a minute! The three of us should really publish this post in book form once crabcakes finally officially cries uncle after being taken behind the woodshed one too many times. I'm serious, we could make bank, baby. All we'd need to do is polish crabby's grammar and strengthen his arguments a bit. Otherwise, readers would think that we were picking on someone with special needs.
"Fascinating! So, if I pray to my God, Uga Buga, God of the Wide Open Fairway, by golfing on a semi-regular basis, then my after life will have all of the same magical treats as yours and your pagan partner?"
Try it and let me know how it works out.
"So, you either have faith of god (a guess, which you said was never gonna change) or a conviction (which is knowledge, yet you have zero evidence). I love that you have dug yourself into a deep hole, yet keep diggin' and diggin'.
Conviction: an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence. {wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn}
Knowledge: cognition; the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning
{wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn}
Conviction DOES NOT EQUAL knowledge.
"P.S. You have the brains of a sea scallop."
At least I can accurately use and define the words I use. You, Jimmy Boy, are pathetic example of carbon-base wastage.
"This is just too stoopid to comment."
Obviously referring to yourself.
"Hopefully, your pagan lady isn't made in his image or she'd be a man."
The operative "He" in reference to God is nothing more than a throwback to chauvanistic period references. I could call God an "It" if you would feel better.
"Ah, the omnipotence paradox! An omnipotent being can do absolutley anything. So can an omnipotent being create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift? If he can create it, then there is one thing he can't do: lift the stone. If he can't create it, then there is one thing he can't do: create such a stone. Either way, there is something he can't do, which contradicts the assumption that he is omnipotent. This is a paradox. Care to resolve it?"
Sure. Omnipotence incurs no physical limitations nor the need for physical form. Since power implies effort and effort implies exertion and exertion is required to over come weight and mass and since weight & mass are purely physical properties: an omnipotent being wouldn't need to lift the rock. All affectations of the rock by the being are matters of inclination.
dude... you just called your pagan girlfriend and "it."
NT: Hilarious.
TITI: If you're gonna play spelling and grammar police... all three of us are gonna get thrown under the bus.
NT: I've called her worse things than "it" before. She'll live.
Yup, I would like it if you refer to god from now on as an "it." Thanks, and that clarifies that your pagan lady was made in the image of an "it."
"Fascinating! So, if I pray to my God, Uga Buga, God of the Wide Open Fairway, by golfing on a semi-regular basis, then my after life will have all of the same magical treats as yours and your pagan partner?" Try it and let me know how it works out.
-> Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now we are getting somewhere. Finally, explain then to me the rules for what I can do to "ensure" that it works out? Double dare ya, bubba crab!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXsHPLl-zFY
That game looks wicked pissah!
Although, I'd prefer to get a Wii.
BTW, if either of you two monkeys can help me get a Wii for the holidays, I'd pledge my undying support to your theological position.
So, far the rules I've learned from Bubba Crab for an after life of special goodies:
1. Cherry pick from the New Testament.
2. Snub my nose at Jesus Crispies and athiests.
3. Become nothing more than a motivated pretzel by trying to justify why I am special and others are not.
"Yup, I would like it if you refer to god from now on as an "it." Thanks, and that clarifies that your pagan lady was made in the image of an "it.""
If my lady is made in the image of an it, then I love It-Pussy!
"-> Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now we are getting somewhere. Finally, explain then to me the rules for what I can do to "ensure" that it works out? Double dare ya, bubba crab!!!"
Ok, Here are the rules: Worship what you want, how you want, if you want. The only thing you have to do is suffer the consequences. Fair enough?
NT: Holy Crap. That's all I can say.
??? because I am trying to track down a Wii??
NT:
http://shopper.cnet.com/consoles/nintendo-wii-console-480p/4014-10109_9-32745213.html?tag=srch_1_1
let me amend... help me find a wii for retail price... not some price gouge online.
Holy Crap = the dumb game... Bibleman's fight for faith.
Yeah, I got no defense for that one. I'm not even gonna try.
What's your price, then?
Ok, Here are the rules: Worship what you want, how you want, if you want. The only thing you have to do is suffer the consequences. Fair enough?
Come out from behind the woodshed, my buddy. Ahhhhhh! Gee, was that so hard little rangoon? No need any longer to puff yourself up into a big special person who truly understands the mind of god, hypocritically punk Jesus Crispy's as if only you have the magic key, and claim false evidence, make up faulty logic, and cling to this copout called "faith" by trying to lambaste thinking people who try and live a good life while being compassionate to others.
Now, if only most adherents to Islam could start to think similarly ...
For reals.
retail is $259... the online prices are through the roof because they have become ridiculously popular and impossible to find in a store. The wife and I were going to get one for us, just to have something to goof with when we are bored... that is why I won't pay a nickel over retail... if we have to wait to Feb, that is fine with me. We found one, but that was gifted to our niece and nephew... 'tis better to give than receive, yadda yadda yadda...
"Come out from behind the woodshed, my buddy. Ahhhhhh! Gee, was that so hard little rangoon? No need any longer to puff yourself up into a big special person who truly understands the mind of god, hypocritically punk Jesus Crispy's as if only you have the magic key,"
It's only hypocritcal if I agree with themon the things I bash them for, which I don't.
"...and claim false evidence,"
Please repeat my evidentiary claims
"make up faulty logic"
Yeah, Aristotle doesn't know shit about logic, huh? And NO ONE has ever developed proof for fuzzy and multi-value propositions before, right?
"and cling to this copout called "faith" by trying to lambaste thinking people who try and live a good life while being compassionate to others."
Lambaste? Uhhh, Do you really need me to go back and prove your part in the mutual lambasting that just took place?
Compassionate? Who's the hypocrite now? Just because you couldn't make me flinch doesn't mean you were trying to be compassionate, just ineffective.
P.S., On a semi-serious note, I truly believe that Damagecrab is a true warrior, bright guy, and solid person. I thoroughly enjoyed the back and forth. A lot of fun.
DC, NT, and TITI all lived happily ever after (except for New Tex who was arrested for pirating his neighbor's cable TV service).
The End.
Yeah, you're not gonna find one at retail this time of year. January might work. Lot's sales and what not.
Guys... it's been a blast. I honestly thank you both for your insight and time.
AND I THANK GOD FOR BOTH OF YOU!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Okay, the manuscript for the book is now finished. Let's just delete the last comment by DC, make major improvements to his contributions, and then ship this baby off to Simon & Schuster!
Well done, peeps.
If you censor me... I'll tell Alice.
"If you censor me... I'll tell Alice."
Perfect! Here is the working title for the book ...
Go Ask Alice About God: How The Bronze Age Idiot/Blasphemous Heretic/Cinderella Man/Redskins Fan Got His Mojo Back By Being Schooled By Two Wicked Cool Poppin' Athiests.
Well, we might need to work on this title a tad...
Authors: Two Heathens and a Heretic
Heard.
Now, how do you feel about the topic of politics ...
Post a Comment