Ray's article doesn't even pretend to argue from a rational point of view in the opening text of his article entitled "Why the Atheist Doesn't Exist." He states:
Fundie say what? So, because one doesn't have two random facts of knowledge about sand and yak male-pattern baldness, Ray assumes that a person couldn't possibly question the existence of a god! Since knowing sand weight and yak hair totals in no way relates to philosophy in any way, one could also ask the same of any professing theist and claim that, since they don't now the answers to these questions, there's no way they could have a knowledge about a god at all! No one I know claims to know everything--whether atheist or otherwise. In fact, if anyone would like to claim the title of know-it-all, please contact Ray so he can make an argument about why you don't! What's really--really--silly is that Ray seems to think he's made some kind of point about knowledge when all he did was admit that people don't know everything (this is where we say "Thank you Captain Obvious!") It is not an argument for or against atheism, it is an argument against people who claim to have all the answers. And as far as I know, the only people who claim they have The Answers have been Deep Thought and right-wing nuts who claim you need Jesus (which is also not an answer...)
There can be no such things as an atheist. This is why: Let's imagine that you are a professing atheist. Here are two questions for you to answer: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? We can safely assume that you don't. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully-grown male Tibetan yak? Probably not. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there are some things that you don't know. It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think they know everything.
Ray continues on his "you don't know everything" tirade against "atheism" with some more straw:
Wait, was that...? Yes, it was. A scarecrow going naked fast!
Let's say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that you would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not be aware of. You would know everything that has happened in history, from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret love life of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat's fleas. You would know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All history would be laid out before you, because you would be omniscient (all-knowing).
So where is this proof? Of course, with proof, there's no need for faith, and without faith, god would die, wouldn't he. But besides that "point" Ray tried to make, he still hasn't explained why yak's male-pattern baldness is somehow related to knowing whether or not god exists. He simply restates that a person doesn't know everything (again stating something quite obvious) and then tries to throw some weight behind his obvious statement of fact by quoting Thomas Edison--like we should be impressed somehow that he can use a search engine. Of course, somehow stating that because we don't know everything there may be proof of god also isn't an argument--it simply points out a possibility that god may exist, which any atheist, knowing they don't know all, would readily admit to the possibility of such without putting any stock in the probability.
Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let me repeat: Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God? If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.
But then Ray actually starts to make an argument:
Listen, I didn't say it was a grand and awe-inspiring argument, I just said he starts to make one... Let's stay with him and see where he's going, shall we?
Let's look at the same thought from another angle. If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold in China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement of that nature. Conversely, for me to say, "There is gold in China," I don't need to have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the country, and the statement is then true.
So, where is this "speck of gold" that allows you to unilaterally claim that there is indeed a god? What's that? You have "faith"? Well, that's not a speck of gold. In fact, since you just stated the obvious as no one knows everything, and that you need to have seen a speck of gold to claim that he does exist, where is the "speck of gold" that landed you squarely in the "god does exist" column? What is the observed, mensurable proof that you are in possession of to say that there is a god? Because without that observed "speck of gold," you're claiming to have knowledge where none exists. Perhaps your title should have been called "Why We Can Never Be Sure that God Exists." But then Ray continues to dig his hole deeper:
To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.
Yes, knowing what I know, I believe there is no god. Just as knowing what you know--without a speck of "god gold" to be found in the universe--you believe there is a god. I am open to the possibility of pigs flying, but realize the probability of such will never happen--does that qualify me as an avid hog-nostic?
If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence?
The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an "agnostic" - one who claims he "doesn't know" if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is "ignoramus." The Bible tells us that this ignorance is "willful" (Psalm 10:4). It's not that a person can't find God, but that he won't. It has been rightly said that the "atheist" can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him. This is not a pleasant thought for some.
But do you notice what happened in there? Suddenly there's a god who knows all--where did he come from? What "nugget of gold" did Roy throw in there so we would know there is a god--and then, to know that god knows all?
Not only does he have no basis for his unilateral belief--no speck of gold in China, as it were--it has no bearing being in this context. What Ray is trying to say that atheists are really just agnostics. The difference, dear reader, is in what they profess to believe: Agnostics believe there is a deity, but believe there's no way of knowing or interacting with this deity, and while he may not exist, aren't willing to commit one way or the other. Atheists think there's no deity at all--but if you provide some type of evidence, some "nugget of gold," perhaps, we'll hear you out and see what this gold actually represents, if anything. I dare say, an Agnostic would also like to see your nugget to see if the deity that the Agnostic thinks must be there is an interactive deity. Until then, we're back where we started: With no gold.
But then he throws in the "Latin" of the "Greek" word for agnostic is ignoramus: But the bible verse he posts isn't about "not knowing"; it's about not seeking out god, which is totally different. If I don't seek out leprechauns, does that make me ignoramus? No, only prudent. Also, Psalm was in Hebrew--not Greek, so I have no idea which Greek word he's referring to. Perhaps he had his English bible re-translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English? And despite all that, the verse still isn't about agnostics--it's about people who aren't "seeking" god, not not believing in god, or questioning his existence--or even demanding a proof that he may exist!! In fact, it seems to me to be pointed squarely at pastors (or other religious leaders) who profess a belief in YHWH but don't seek knowledge about him!! In which case, the only people who are ignoramus's are the ones who believe YHWH exists, but don't bother with him! It's amazing how many rational arguments can be made against Ray's silly one, but he kept on writing, so we will keep on as well:
And then Ray tries to point out that everyone dies as a gold nugget--I think none of you need me to point out how stupid this is, right?
It is said that Mussolini (the Italian dictator), once stood on a pinnacle and cried, "God, if you are there, strike me dead!" When God didn't immediately bow to his dictates, Mussolini then concluded that there was no God. However, his prayer was answered some time later.
So what do we have left here? We have
- No one knows everything
- Everyone dies
That is, unless Ray has a photo he'd like to share with the class? No? Hmm... Well, when you get that speck of gold which would lead you to believe there is a god, let us know. Cause without it, you're in the same boat as the rest of us... Well, except, you have your imaginary friend...
Unless you're willing to admit that you are just an agnostic with a belief-in-god complex--using your logic, Ray, you don't have a leg to stand on--or a nugget of gold to cash in on...
The onus is on you, Ray, to show us that nugget.
11 comments:
Ray, indeed, had terrible arguments. Knowing the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii is not directly related to knowing whether or not a god exists. That is like me stating that I know the author of 1984, but I do not know how Neosporin's Scar Solution sheets work, therefore I should question whether or not I actually know that Orwell wrote 1984.
True, we don't know everything about everything. Actually, I think there is an infinite amount of "things" to know, therefore knowing everything is impossible. But this does not mean that the things we know are false. Or that we can't know things for sure, since we don't know everything. This is vague. But hopefully I'm making some sense.
Also he has his definitions wrong. An atheist as defined by the Random House Unabridged Dictionary 2006 edition (sorry I don't have the 2007 edition, but I compared the 2003,2004,and 2005 edition and the definition hasn't changed):
Atheist-n-a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
It does not say anywhere that they know irrefutably that there is no God, merely that they deny any existance of one. And to be even more clear, in this definition to deny (as defined by the same source mentioned above) means 'to refuse to agree or accede to'. So basically it is an atheists BELIEF that there is no god, not thier irrefutable knowledge. Just as in the case of a Christian it is thier BELIEF that there IS a god, not thier irrefutable knowledge.
His argument that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense is true, which is why there are agnostics. However claiming that lack of evidence prooves that the evidence is yet to be discovered is false logic. The evidence may not exist at all.
However there is a clear distinction between agnostic and atheist whereas agnostic (again using the same dicitonary) is defined as "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience." An agnostic does not BELIEVE one way or the other about god, whereas an athiest BELIEVES that there is no supreme being. The faulty logic is that one answer will fit two opposing viewpoints, when it cannot. If Ray thinks there is a god, then there is one. If an atheist thinks there is no god, then there is no god. And an agnostic doesn't care one way or the other, so the debate does not effect them at all. Faith and knowledge cannot mix. They are not even on the same spectrum. They cannot co-exist. Just believe whatever you want and let bygones be bygones.
I define my atheism this way:
There is absolutely the same amount of evidence the Tooth Fairy exists as there is that God exists. I don't have to consider any being to be real unless evidence is provided.
I wrote about this yesterday on my blog.
Psa 14:1 [[To the chief Musician, [A Psalm] of David.]] The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.
Scripture says they exist. I'm an old fundie that believes the book. Darkmind had the right point. It is belief. The fool said in his heart. It is a personal choice.
I think the sliver of gold you are looking for in the vast expanse of dark matter, is this unbelievable life support system we call planet earth. I may be wrong but the other planets are not exploding with life? This is an argument based in reality or are you not really living? Life didn't just happen, not even our greatest test of knowledge could create life. God created it, the evidence is everywhere. God left his finger prints on every human soul.
I understand that "reality" isn't your best friend. The reality is man with man can't procreate. Yet you are okay with that because you reject reality in order to believe what is in your heart. Reality is the ultimate acid test and will prove all our beliefs in the end. Jesus Christ is the answer...
To Rebecca: Thanks for stopping by! Ray actually makes this stuff way too easy, you know? And you made perfect sense to me... :D
To Darkmind: And to think, if you would have had the 2007 edition, I would have thought you had something there...
To Bacon: Agree 100%. I'll stop by later to check out your posts!
To CS: I'll take yours point by point:
You said: Scripture says they exist.
I take it you mean atheists and agnostics? Yes, they do. I just didn't need David to wax poetic about it to know it's true...
I'm an old fundie that believes the book.
I know... I try to keep an open mind when you write anyway, though... :D
Darkmind had the right point. It is belief. The fool said in his heart. It is a personal choice. So I realize here that you are only using the word "fool" because David did? I mean, neither of us would really want to reduce this to name-calling, now would we? We've evolved socially and scientifically quite a bit since David's time...
I think the sliver of gold you are looking for in the vast expanse of dark matter, is this unbelievable life support system we call planet earth.
I'm not the one claiming to have found gold--of course, Ray would have had a better example if he would have used Mars and Life instead of Gold and China, but either way his logic is orbiting Pluto at the moment... Why must "life" equal deity? Just because something is amazing shouldn't equate divine simply because it's amazing!! Does the ant look at a piece of corn on the ground and go, "Ah! It's that stuff the queen just loves!!! Thank the gods!!! This stuff is amazing!!" No, at least as far as we can tell. And like the ants, when you look at this stuff and think someone must have made it, you are not only missing the big picture, you've substituted the big picture with a hologram... There is no evidence pointing in the direction of the divine... Unless you have some sort of photographic evidence?
I may be wrong but the other planets are not exploding with life?
How many planets are there in the universe? And you think that just because our very few neighbors haven't yielded signs of life yet, that there must not be life anywhere? Really? Talk about not seeing the picture! Dude, there are BILLIONS of planets--even if ONE PERCENT of them had life, holy fuckin' shit!!! That's billions of life forms!! Just because we don't seem to be in center city when it comes to life doesn't mean we're alone... I think you need to rethink this position...
This is an argument based in reality or are you not really living?
Apparently reality doesn't take into account percentages and possibilities and probabilities? Of course we're alive--we couldn't question if we were or not if we weren't--how silly! But your argument fails to take into account that we haven't even seen, let alone calculated, the vast amounts of planetary forms in the universe. We don't yet know how many differing forms life has taken on our own planet!! And you think you're looking at things realistically? Really?
Life didn't just happen,
Right, based on your book. Anything else to back up your theory?
not even our greatest test of knowledge could create life.
Humans aren't even close to the end of figuring out what we can, could, and will be able to do. What we think of now as "our greatest knowledge" will be peanuts in 100 years--maybe less! How many centuries did it take to defeat measles, malaria, infertility--the list goes on and on!! Just because we haven't figured out how to do it yet doesn't mean we won't--that's just more small-minded thinking, with a minor in pessimism...
God created it, the evidence is everywhere.
You have yet to provide anything that could be viewed as evidence. Evidence isn't evidence unless it leads to a concrete solution, also as which you have yet to provide and evidence for...
God left his finger prints on every human soul.
So what are Chimera twins? Hosting two souls in one body? Or does only the prominent DNA in the body have the soul? What about those cases where one twin grows separately in another? Do they both have souls, even though one controls everything and the other is just a massive parasite without any thought of its own? What about the billions of naturally aborted fetus's throughout our span? Billions on billions!!! Each and every one of them had a soul? Most fetus's are naturally aborted before a woman knows she's pregnant! What's the point in that soul having been conceived at all? Seriously--you seem to think you have all the answers--what are the answers to these?
I understand that "reality" isn't your best friend.
Said the black pot...
The reality is man with man can't procreate.
Was that supposed to be a point? Did you know that scientists have created a viable fetus using only two eggs--no sperm? Soon they'll be able to do it with two sperm and no egg! And even if man on man can't reproduce--so? You really think I was expecting to become pregnant? Who isn’t living in reality? My grandmother can't procreate with her husband--and? Many straight couples can't procreate--and? You seem to think you have something there--if you follow it to it's conclusion, you'll realize you don't...
Yet you are okay with that because you reject reality in order to believe what is in your heart.
I follow what's in my heart, yes. Mostly because it is the reality--I am gay. I did nothing to promote it, and used most of the first two decades of my life trying everything to prevent it... but somehow that doesn't seem realistic to you?
Reality is the ultimate acid test and will prove all our beliefs in the end.
Not everyone's....
Jesus Christ is the answer...
And here I thought the answer was 42...
If Jesus is the answer, what's the question?
I apologize if I sound snippy--but really, you don't seem to be using your full capacity for thought...
Actually, our "tests of knowledge" (what odd wording!) HAVE shown that by simulating the conditions on earth when it was newly formed (Tectonic vibration, lightning strikes, chaotic magnetic waves, heat, and a series of acids and chemicals found in lava) we can produce organic compounds. Now, the organic compounds produced in that experiment did not make lifeforms, but we do know that by combining them in the right way, they could have. And given a time frame of a billion or so years (yeah that's "illion" with a "B"!) those compounds interacting naturally on earth could form nucleic acids, amino acids, proteins, and rudimentary components of living cells. Now, there could have been a god involved in this process (if you want to beleive that) but science HAS proven that no deity was needed for life to be possible.
hello jason! sometimes i don't know what to say to your blog but is this atheism a religion? the way you preach it i would consider you a fundie in atheism. :) i feel you are trying to say a little bit to hard there is no God. but again i say its your blog and we live in a country that says you can blieve in what ever and i don't think God is making you believe in Him either. love and prayers ps its SNOWING!! :) :) :) i love it but dad isn't to happy about it. i say every winter needs one good snow. and i think maybe God might of said that also. :):) snort! :) :)
I take it you mean atheists and agnostics? Yes, they do. I just didn't need David to wax poetic about it to know it's true...Yes, I meant atheists and agnostics did you even read the scripture that was provided? I was writing around 3am that morning so forgive any mishaps, even my logic wasn't as clear. I’m still aghast at the compliment- I’ll try to utilize my full capacity of thought. Me a fundie, who would have thought we have capacity for greater thought, what won me the honor- the Paul Lunatic discussion?
I know... I try to keep an open mind when you write anyway, though... :D
I try to keep an open mind as well and an open Bible. :D
So I realize here that you are only using the word "fool" because David did? I mean, neither of us would really want to reduce this to name-calling, now would we? We've evolved socially and scientifically quite a bit since David's time...
Not about name calling it is more about repeating the man of faith, David, as he wrote while the Spirit of God inspired him. I’m not so sure we’ve evolved much socially; scientifically, yes – but that too is a fulfillment of prophecy. Social evolution is more like the tides of the ocean and I think the tides are receding- to return another day.
I'm not the one claiming to have found gold--of course, Ray would have had a better example if he would have used Mars and Life instead of Gold and China, but either way his logic is orbiting Pluto at the moment... Why must "life" equal deity? Just because something is amazing shouldn't equate divine simply because it's amazing!! Does the ant look at a piece of corn on the ground and go, "Ah! It's that stuff the queen just loves!!! Thank the gods!!! This stuff is amazing!!" No, at least as far as we can tell. And like the ants, when you look at this stuff and think someone must have made it, you are not only missing the big picture, you've substituted the big picture with a hologram... There is no evidence pointing in the direction of the divine... Unless you have some sort of photographic evidence?Didn’t say you found gold, just helping you find gold. Life doesn’t equal deity. Who is twisting things? No one is worshipping life for life’s sake. The ant analogy seems to be an attempt to say that people who believe in a god are primitive? I’ll play along for a second, so the ant being the cognizant creature that he is, doesn’t pause to contemplate the complexity of life? Does the ant not question his origin before he worships the provider of the food? You are assuming that people who believe in a god does so because of physical evidence or physical provisions. I wonder if the ant paused and stood in awe at the thinking power going own in his brain. Thought is not physical. Besides I doubt the ant has a camera big enough to take a picture of the human that dropped or placed the corn. Interesting, wonder if ants are debating on their blog if humans exist. After all they may only see details and be mired down in earthy living that they can’t see the footprints, fingerprints, or creation of human beings. Or I could be wrong, they may be blogging about silly humans that refuse to see the big picture and the complexity of life, thought, and the spiritual realm. Who knows they may be just holograms- but then that would be rejecting reality.
How many planets are there in the universe? And you think that just because our very few neighbors haven't yielded signs of life yet, that there must not be life anywhere? Really? Talk about not seeing the picture! Dude, there are BILLIONS of planets--even if ONE PERCENT… That's billions of life forms!! Just because we don't seem to be in center city when it comes to life doesn't mean we're alone... I think you need to rethink this position...I’ve come to notice that you have issues with plurality. Remember the whole “disciples” thing? Did you not read what I wrote, “planets”, plural? Just because I didn’t elaborate with decorative words that stagger the mind doesn’t mean I’m ignorant and doubt that BILLIONS of planets exist. I feel a little foolish that I had to spell that out for you. At any rate, you’re making my point. From what we know of, we can’t find life ANYWHERE else. If you show me a picture of other life forms on other planets then I’ll believe it. You are placing faith in numbers and chance. Who is to say that any life outside of this galaxy exists? Who is to say it doesn’t? I’m pointing out that life isn’t exploding on other planets for one simple reason. Life is extremely complex. We couldn’t have just happened. The spark of life is more complex than a pool of goop and a lightning bolt. If life is on other planets then God put it there.
Apparently reality doesn't take into account percentages and possibilities and probabilities? Of course we're alive--we couldn't question if we were or not if we weren't--how silly! But your argument fails to take into account that we haven't even seen, let alone calculated, the vast amounts of planetary forms in the universe. We don't yet know how many differing forms life has taken on our own planet!! And you think you're looking at things realistically? Really?You are right, reality is real. Real facts, real experiences, possibilities, percentages, and probabilities only offer conjecture. The reality is we are here and we are cognizant little creatures living on a planet of unbelievable complexity. Call it silly but you are not seeing the “big picture” as you put it. Being alive and able to question, to reason, to disagree – those are both physical and nonphysical realties. We don’t know if any life forms exist anywhere else only on planet Earth who cares how many forms life takes. We know it is here – your point is? You are placing a tremendous amount of faith in chance with incalculable odds against you.
Allow for this little analogy. You are in a room. The room covers the necessities in order to survive, a bed, chairs, stove, sink with running water, windows, and food. You decide to go out the only door. You look down the hall and in both directions it is an endless site of doors. You open the next door, thinking to find something better because your bed is too small. You walk in and find no chairs, no stove, no windows, no bed, nothing. The room is beyond sparse it holds nothing. You go to the next room and the next. When you return to your room you find sustenance. You begin to appreciate the room, its structures- the chairs and stove, the window and other special things. The most likely thought would be simple, who put it here? Someone designed that room for life support. This is a simple analogy of reasoning.Time and chance has never produced complexity. It has never produced designed organisms. When you look at a building you think, who designed it? This Earth is designed. It took thought and a mind that has unbelievable power.
Time and chance has no cognitive abilities. It can’t plan or predict. Time and chance – probabilities or possibilities- have NO creative energies. We know these things because of experience in reality. Intelligence creates intelligence. Am I wrong? Let’s be real.
Right, based on your book. Anything else to back up your theory?Real concrete experiences. My kids didn’t just appear. Scientists are working to create- whatever they create didn’t just happen- anything in your book that proves that wrong?
Humans aren't even close to the end of figuring out what we can, could, and will be able to do. What we think of now as "our greatest knowledge" will be peanuts in 100 years--maybe less! How many centuries did it take to defeat measles, malaria, infertility--the list goes on and on!! Just because we haven't figured out how to do it yet doesn't mean we won't--that's just more small-minded thinking, with a minor in pessimism...You make an awesome and powerful point. We’ve ascended the cliffs of knowledge and are conquering the peaks of problems. We are after all, thinking creatures. It is proving the point that only intelligence creates and designs. Small-minded thinking? Hmm.. you’ve proven my point perfectly… and with much more passion. So life can come from some cosmic explosion and a goop of very basic chemicals and here we are? Talk about small-minded thinking. If intelligence is having a hard time trying to ignite the spark of life, imagine how easy it must have been during the lightning strike or some other inanimate object to create life. If that happened then why isn’t it still happening? Prove to me that a lifeless object can create life? See the absurdity? It takes a creator, wouldn’t you think?
You have yet to provide anything that could be viewed as evidence. Evidence isn't evidence unless it leads to a concrete solution, also as which you have yet to provide and evidence for...Going back to my analogy. One day you got bored of the daily grind and decided to go explore more rooms. When you returned you found your room ransacked. Only one item left, your drawing. Would you sit down and think all is well? Someone took everything. The evidence being- your stuff is gone. But who was the thief? The concrete evidence would be the absence of stuff and evidence. If you can’t find the culprit it doesn’t mean they don’t exist. My point being we are on the only life supporting planet that we know of and it is perfectly designed to support life. The absence of a pictured ID doesn’t mean it wasn’t created. Evidence enough for me, unless illogical fallacies are my forte.
So what are Chimera twins? Hosting two souls in one body? Or does only the prominent DNA in the body have the soul? What about those cases where one twin grows separately in another? Do they both have souls, even though one controls everything and the other is just a massive parasite without any thought of its own? What about the billions of naturally aborted fetus's throughout our span? Billions on billions!!! Each and every one of them had a soul? Most fetus's are naturally aborted before a woman knows she's pregnant! What's the point in that soul having been conceived at all? Seriously--you seem to think you have all the answers--what are the answers to these?So, what is the color of the core of Pluto? Is Pluto a planet? What about the intensity of pain the algae experiences on the puss of the pond? Answer- who cares! No need in dodging the point with an array of questions that does not address the crux of my point. Morals exist in the human soul. Guilt and self reflection, spiritual experiences and faith are all in the domain of the soul. God left his signature on the reality of the soul. Awareness is beyond physical and when you have that special “gut feeling” it is most likely a spiritual, soul centered, reaction to something. I’d love to know all the answers to your questions, I’m not God and only he will be able to answer the complexities of your questions.
Said the black pot...Witty, thanks for the laugh.
Was that supposed to be a point? Did you know that scientists have created a viable fetus using only two eggs--no sperm? Soon they'll be able to do it with two sperm and no egg! And even if man on man can't reproduce--so? You really think I was expecting to become pregnant? Who isn’t living in reality? My grandmother can't procreate with her husband--and? Many straight couples can't procreate--and? You seem to think you have something there--if you follow it to it's conclusion, you'll realize you don't...Yep it is a point. It is a point at how you ignore natural process to do what you desire to do. To believe what you want to believe, regardless of the stuff around you. I’ll admit that science is awesome, it does prove that intelligence is used to create. Male and female were designed to produce offspring. It was designed that way or am I just some stupid fundie? You missed my point entirely by spinning or diverting in another direction. Last time I checked a man can’t impregnate a man. It is physically impossible because it was designed that way. Have you ever driven a well designed car? Now put that car in a field and see how well it can plow. Sure it can do the action but with horrible results. I’m following to a logical conclusion…Still it was designed and if there is a design then there must be a Designer.
I follow what's in my heart, yes. Mostly because it is the reality--I am gay. I did nothing to promote it, and used most of the first two decades of my life trying everything to prevent it... but somehow that doesn't seem realistic to you?The physical reality is, the design wasn’t meant for that action. If you saw me planting corn with a Porsche what would you say or think? What would the designer think? Logical conclusion, why would you want to plow and plant corn with a Porsche? In this case the designer really doesn’t care but in the case of God, he does care.
Not everyone's....Yes everyone’s. If you are right and it was just a cosmic hoax then you will be proven right but it really won’t matter. However, if you are wrong then it will be proven wrong with consequences.
And here I thought the answer was 42...Another witty comment… funny.If Jesus is the answer, what's the question?You have to ask him your questions and seek him for the answers, ultimately Jesus Christ is the answer to the most important question of salvation.I apologize if I sound snippy--but really, you don't seem to be using your full capacity for thought...No need to apologize it is your blog and I’m just a responder to your article. I hope I expressed a better capacity for thought.Really all you’ve pointed out is an antagonistic approach of questions without substance. Sure you toss out some scientific advances but it proves nothing about your belief. As I’ve tried to point out, it proves that intelligence begets intelligence. Life begets life. The outrageous notion of atheism rejects common logic. Atheists are crippled by questions that are in the domain of God. Atheism is usually the narcist’s belief in order to get their fill of pleasure without consequences. One last question… if you’re an atheist then why bother to debate?
""Atheists are crippled by questions that are in the domain of God. Atheism is usually the narcist’s belief in order to get their fill of pleasure without consequences"". This is the best thing I have read on this whole blog! It is so true! The only problem is that while there may be no (terrible) consequences here on earth, there will be terrible consequences after this life is over. Not one of us knows when it will be our time to die - it could be in ten years or in ten minutes (no one can deny that, right?). It is sad that so many people are taunting God instead of worshipping Him as the Savior of all mankind.
The more I read this blog, and read all the double-talk and the words that have no meaning but are meant to impress people, I have come to the conclusion that those of you who believe you are so intelligent because you deny God are truly some of the least intelligent people I have ever heard of.
The length of your words do not matter, but your willingness to admit that you do not know everything and that you have sinned - those things matter.
Thanks Roxie for the compliment.
Yes, I meant atheists and agnostics did you even read the scripture that was provided? I was writing around 3am that morning so forgive any mishaps, even my logic wasn't as clear. I’m still aghast at the compliment- I’ll try to utilize my full capacity of thought. Me a fundie, who would have thought we have capacity for greater thought, what won me the honor- the Paul Lunatic discussion?
LOL, "Paul Lunatic" discussion! You may have something there, kinda like an Oscar's for the fundies... You should tell Dobson about that! :D
Not about name calling it is more about repeating the man of faith, David, as he wrote while the Spirit of God inspired him. I’m not so sure we’ve evolved much socially; scientifically, yes – but that too is a fulfillment of prophecy. Social evolution is more like the tides of the ocean and I think the tides are receding- to return another day.
You show a surprising lack of faith in mankind overall--which I suppose is to be expected form someone who views all of man kind as "sinful" from the get-go. Why do you think society is "regressing"? Crime is down for the most part (well, if we ignore the crime stats during W's time in office), more diseases are being cured and eradicated, more people are being lifted out of poverty (well, except under W's watchful gaze), more people are being treated equally under the law--even in third world countries we are starting to make improvements in the lives of the people--where they'll have help, that is. Human decency and empathy have continued and will continue to grow for those less fortunate--and giving in the US is at an all time high, despite a decline in bible attendance and professing Christianity! So I'm wondering what things you perceive to signal a "downgrade" or "regression" in society overall?
Didn’t say you found gold, just helping you find gold.Gold must exist if you wish to find it...
Life doesn’t equal deity.
But that's essentially what you're saying! How intricate and carefully designed and all that other stuff--you're saying "life" itself leads you to the conclusion of a deity, despite no evidence to support such a theory. Perhaps you misunderstood me in thinking I was saying "life" is equal to "deity"? Not sure...
Who is twisting things? No one is worshipping life for life’s sake.
Which wasn't my point, but perhaps that's my fault. I was trying to say that you seem to be saying that the mere presence of life you equate with meaning there must be something "bigger" or "larger" than you, that's all. And all I'm saying in return is, "What, besides reading 'design' into life, makes you believe this? What is the overwhelming clincher of your conclusion?"
The ant analogy seems to be an attempt to say that people who believe in a god are primitive?
Again, you're reading a bit too much into my analogies--although I will say it may not be too far off the mark... I was simply pulling an analogy that we, as mere specks in the universe, could relate to in a way how ants most likely view the earth. Ants are not man-made. Corn is not man-made. Both are a product of nature, hence an example which can easily correlate into a "universal" example, nothing more...
I’ll play along for a second, so the ant being the cognizant creature that he is, doesn’t pause to contemplate the complexity of life? Does the ant not question his origin before he worships the provider of the food?
Following in the "cognizant ant" scenario, why would an ant be "logically" drawn to a "provider" as opposed to a natural by-product of life on earth? What should the ant be reading into that would lead him to this conclusion? Complexity in life has built over time through not only natural selection, but survival of the fittest. These are both naturally occurring phenomena in nature that have been recorded and observed quite extensively! And while we have yet to observe a drastic "change in species"... in fact, wait, I'll just repost this quasi-dumbed down explanation from earlier in the blog... Of course all change is within a species... that's how it happens. There's a fish. That fish learns that the bugs that live above the water are better. Gradually, as the fish tries to reach these insects on the banks of the river, the ones with fins better adapted (whether through muscle structure or bone structure through mutation in small bone and muscle genes) are the ones that survive and breeding continues with small mutations over many years until, if you go back and look at this fish compared with the other fish that didn't try to reach bank insects and instead preyed on smaller fish or underwater life; they don't even look the same and can no longer interbreed because the changes are now too drastic at this point (like a tiger and a lion--their genetic offspring is still a cat, but cannot produce offspring of its own; as opposed to wolves and Chihuahuas, which, while both still dogs, cannot interbreed at all and produce no offspring). Soon these fish that have developed stronger fins to flop on land to catch the bugs develop other mutations, small, minor ones that make their front fins a bit stronger, maybe a little bent. Given another few hundred to thousand years (barring any major genetic mutations or leaps), that fin is no longer recognizable as a fin, but a leg. But the "fish," while no longer a fish, hasn't changed "species" per se. It is still the creature it was but has so adapted to its environment, that, while we as people categorize it has having changed species (as we like to categorize things: i.e., find design and categories where none exists in reality), it hasn't really--it's just an adapted creature. Same creature, but looking very very different after a few thousand years...
But, back to your comment:
You are assuming that people who believe in a god does so because of physical evidence or physical provisions.
I'm wondering why they don't look at the physical evidence and provisions and how they came about...
I wonder if the ant paused and stood in awe at the thinking power going own in his brain.
Because you think, you are. Not because you think, god must be...
Thought is not physical.
Thought is a non-physical by-product of the very physical neural-electric currents taking place in your brain. Amazing, yes. Supernatural? How could it be? As my mother and I were discussing during yesterday's snow day, energy is everywhere--it's the very fabric of our universe. She thinks of this as "proof" of god, as in, someone or something had to create the energy. But why? Simply because we have a creative side, we read into our world a "creative" force that simply isn't there on a cognizant level--all species on the earth (and yes, most likely on other worlds) evolved mostly out of necessity for survival--not "just because god was feeling whimsical." As we evolved better brains, we found better ways of propagating the species, and allowing us to survive better--nothing more...
But I think I've gotten slightly off topic... My bad...
Besides I doubt the ant has a camera big enough to take a picture of the human that dropped or placed the corn.
He could get a wide-angle lens... We've taken pictures of things massively huger than we are to the ant...
Interesting, wonder if ants are debating on their blog if humans exist.
LOL! Picturing a keyboard fit for four hands...
After all they may only see details and be mired down in earthy living that they can’t see the footprints, fingerprints, or creation of human beings.
If they aren't thinking big enough... Or using the wrong lens, as pointed out earlier...
Or I could be wrong, they may be blogging about silly humans that refuse to see the big picture and the complexity of life, thought, and the spiritual realm.
Touché... "Complexity" doesn't equal divine... Only that our branch has been around long enough to continue to improve upon what we've had in the past...
Who knows they may be just holograms- but then that would be rejecting reality.
Blue pill, or red pill?
I’ve come to notice that you have issues with plurality. Remember the whole “disciples” thing? Did you not read what I wrote, “planets”, plural? Just because I didn’t elaborate with decorative words that stagger the mind doesn’t mean I’m ignorant and doubt that BILLIONS of planets exist. I feel a little foolish that I had to spell that out for you. At any rate, you’re making my point. From what we know of, we can’t find life ANYWHERE else. If you show me a picture of other life forms on other planets then I’ll believe it. You are placing faith in numbers and chance. Who is to say that any life outside of this galaxy exists? Who is to say it doesn’t? I’m pointing out that life isn’t exploding on other planets for one simple reason. Life is extremely complex. We couldn’t have just happened. The spark of life is more complex than a pool of goop and a lightning bolt. If life is on other planets then God put it there.
My point was--only the neighboring planets are close enough to have been given a cursory glance for obvious signs of life--the others, the billions of others, are still too far for us even to gauge things such as atmosphere, gravitational pull, if life could be there, how similar to earth they may be. You said the "planets don't appear to be bursting with life." The only planets we've had a chance to even glance at our planets--the ones right here--the rest are still too far!! To say they aren't bursting with life is to not even take that into account! It isn't "plurality" I have an issue with--it's the assumption that just because the one's that are close enough to look at have seen signs of life--the other planets are only little dots smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. And to say that the "goop" couldn't have created life discounts tons of science in recent years that shows, as Darkmind pointed out earlier, that the basic building blocks of life that form amino acids are in the space dust surrounding the earth, that the earth was bombarded with in the early stages... it very easily, given the amount of time that took place, created life, which then began building upon itself as it lasted longer and longer... It's not a far stretch until we create life from "nothing" (read: goop) in our labs...
You are right, reality is real. Real facts, real experiences, possibilities, percentages, and probabilities only offer conjecture. The reality is we are here and we are cognizant little creatures living on a planet of unbelievable complexity.
Not so unbelievable when one looks at the science...
Call it silly but you are not seeing the "big picture" as you put it.
Apparently we're looking at two different pictures of the same thing...
Being alive and able to question, to reason, to disagree – those are both physical and nonphysical realties. We don’t know if any life forms exist anywhere else only on planet Earth who cares how many forms life takes. We know it is here – your point is?
The complexity of life goes a long way toward backing up the science behind it.
You are placing a tremendous amount of faith in chance with incalculable odds against you.
Not really. I have more evidence behind my faith--and my faith allows for change and growth as more data becomes available...
Allow for this little analogy. You are in a room. The room covers the necessities in order to survive, a bed, chairs, stove, sink with running water, windows, and food. You decide to go out the only door. You look down the hall and in both directions it is an endless site of doors. You open the next door, thinking to find something better because your bed is too small. You walk in and find no chairs, no stove, no windows, no bed, nothing. The room is beyond sparse it holds nothing. You go to the next room and the next. When you return to your room you find sustenance. You begin to appreciate the room, its structures- the chairs and stove, the window and other special things. The most likely thought would be simple, who put it here? Someone designed that room for life support.
Your analogy has one glaring flaw--"rooms," "doors," "chairs"--everything is obviously man-made, and therefore, seeing man-made objects of course leads one to think, "Hmm? Who did this?" Any other thought--say, that a supernatural being must have done these things-is absurd, as all the evidence points toward man in this instance.
This is a simple analogy of reasoning. Time and chance has never produced complexity.
Has never produced man-made objects...
It has never produced designed organisms.
You're reading "design" into something that has evolved for maximum efficiency in life itself. If life was so well "designed," we wouldn't have cancers, diseases, heart clogs, brain aneurisms (sp?), plaque, tooth decay--the "design" you see is inherently and extremely flawed in an innumerable amount of ways! But if one looks from the perspective of life evolving, of trying to attain a balance of existence against those innumerable odds which you find so unbelievable--it all makes a lot more sense!! Our bodies--all creatures, in fact--are still learning and improving ways to cope with our environment. There is no "design" except where you want to see one.
When you look at a building you think, who designed it?
As buildings are obviously man-made objects. Nature made trees through a process of natural selection and survival of the fittest. If trees were "designed," we wouldn't be able to trace their evolution so easily through the past, and find the connections between, say, the common ancestors of the redwood and the fern...
This Earth is designed. It took thought and a mind that has unbelievable power.
No, just time and goop (your words). :D
Time and chance has no cognitive abilities. It can't plan or predict. Time and chance – probabilities or possibilities- have NO creative energies.
Not true. While it is not cognitively creative, life has adapted to suit whatever has been thrown at it. This is why so many creatures have gone extinct--only so much "creativity" is built into life, and not all forms can change fast enough or adapt fast enough to cope. If life were so designed, nothing would go extinct, as a thoughtful designer would have created conditions in which all life could flourish and not let the not-so-fit get eradicated...
We know these things because of experience in reality.
I'm still not sure what version of reality you're living in, but it at least allows for great discussions, wouldn't you agree?
Intelligence creates intelligence. Am I wrong?
Yes. But that's okay. I used to think the exact same way, with my head in the sand saying "No! You're wrong!!"
Let’s be real.
We're working on it.
Real concrete experiences. My kids didn’t just appear.
So you learned about the birds and the bees! Good for you! :D
Scientists are working to create- whatever they create didn’t just happen- anything in your book that proves that wrong?
Stated earlier. The building blocks of the amino acids which form yours and a hundred other forms of DNA and RNA are everywhere. All it took was a little time and chance... Which, given the billions of years that have passed, was bound to happen, and most likely is happening elsewhere in the universe as we speak... or type, actually...
You make an awesome and powerful point. We’ve ascended the cliffs of knowledge and are conquering the peaks of problems. We are after all, thinking creatures. It is proving the point that only intelligence creates and designs. Small-minded thinking?
Yes, you are still trapped in it. Having intelligence ourselves does not mean it took something intelligent to make us. 2 + 2 would still equal 4, even of no one were around to understand the math. And we can still question "why" only because we've evolved to that point. If intelligence only created intelligence, why would a genius who married a genius produce an average C student? You're working with a false assumption...
Hmm.. you’ve proven my point perfectly… and with much more passion.
Actually, all I've said is that we will continue to improve upon ourselves, by ourselves. Nothing more.
So life can come from some cosmic explosion and a goop of very basic chemicals and here we are? Talk about small-minded thinking.
I don't understand how you think seeking answers and refining them as we gain knowledge is small-minded? Perhaps you just don't like the idea of coming from goop? But you buy the idea of coming from dust after god sneezed? Let's see which has more evidence behind it... Hmm....
If intelligence is having a hard time trying to ignite the spark of life, imagine how easy it must have been during the lightning strike or some other inanimate object to create life.
We are just now beginning to harness the science, and understand the natural laws surrounding it. That's like chiding a two year old for not being able to drive a Porshe! We aren't there yet--but we're on our way!
If that happened then why isn’t it still happening?
Who says it isn't? We'll prove it eventually--maybe even in the underground water flows on Mars--perhaps in Pluto's core, who knows?
Prove to me that a lifeless object can create life?
I would, but you wouldn't believe it anyway if it did happen. You'd then claim we were "trying to play god" and were on the way to hell, perhaps. Don't worry--we will get life out of inanimate objects. But, like "in the beginning" (the real one, not the biblical one), it will happen...
See the absurdity? It takes a creator, wouldn’t you think?
Only because you have limited imagination....
Going back to my analogy. One day you got bored of the daily grind and decided to go explore more rooms. When you returned you found your room ransacked. Only one item left, your drawing. Would you sit down and think all is well? Someone took everything. The evidence being- your stuff is gone. But who was the thief?
A person, obviously. And the only reason the absence is the evidence is because the stuff used to be there--what used to be somewhere that you think the absence of his proof is proof of his existence?
The concrete evidence would be the absence of stuff and evidence. If you can’t find the culprit it doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
But I know there's a culprit because something that previously was isn't anymore...
My point being we are on the only life supporting planet that we know of and it is perfectly designed to support life.
We don't know that it's the only one because of previously made points. Not enough research has been done, or has even been possible to do up until now. Only our neighboring planets are close enough for a cursory inspection, and all other planets are still beyond our means of observation and travel. So far...
The absence of a pictured ID doesn’t mean it wasn’t created.
Except that, unlike your analogy, you have nothing missing to support what's missing now. You still have nothing, and you had nothing before that nothing went "missing."
Evidence enough for me, unless illogical fallacies are my forte.
Forte away.
So, what is the color of the core of Pluto? Is Pluto a planet? What about the intensity of pain the algae experiences on the puss of the pond? Answer- who cares!
If you expect to find answers, you need to care. The color of the core of a planet (or whatever Pluto is now) could be the reason why it isn't obviously bursting with life. The level of pain an algae cell might feel could be used to find some sort of pain medication--or point toward a common line of evolution in which pain developed--or learn to communicate in whole new ways with other forms of life we haven't come across yet, even here on earth. Everything should be studied, looked at, and analyzed--not just what is "apparently" important on the surface...
No need in dodging the point with an array of questions that does not address the crux of my point.
I think they happen to be very important to the crux of your argument.
Morals exist in the human soul.
Morals exist in empathy and societal means and motives. Nothing more, nothing less. Whatever has been deemed good for society, whether ill or not for individuals at times, has been used as the yard stick for what is "good" and "bad." If it was bad for the tribe? It was deemed "bad." If it was good for all involved? Then it was deemed "good." Our sense of god and bad--and our sense of what could be divine and what couldn't be divine--has also changed as society has. In another 200 years, your god won't even look like your god anymore as society will have moved on and now found new "bads" to be crusading against. But that's their issue, not ours for the time being...
Guilt and self reflection, spiritual experiences and faith are all in the domain of the soul.
Again, you are confusing neural electromagnetic phenomena with "divine" intervention. Did you know that when a doctor pokes a needle at a certain part of your brain, you could feel such overwhelming sadness for no reason, other then the fact that a needle touched there? Joy, contemplativeness, guilt, despair--all have been brought on by the touch of a doctor's utensil as they try to figure out what the brain is all capable of. Personalities have changed drastically after brain surgery--and our personality is a huge part of what we deem to be "immaterial" about us--but if our soul, personality, our "spirit" about life were so immaterial, a brain surgery shouldn't change that, should it? Brain surgery is a physical thing--but greatly affects what we think to be intangible... Interesting that...
God left his signature on the reality of the soul. Awareness is beyond physical and when you have that special "gut feeling" it is most likely a spiritual, soul centered, reaction to something.
No, not really. Gut feeling evolved out of a need to survive in the face of the unknowable. Fight or flight and all that. I'd go into it more, but this is already way too long....
I’d love to know all the answers to your questions, I’m not God and only he will be able to answer the complexities of your questions.
See, and that feels like a cop-out to me. Say you don't know--fine. Say you don't know but that the great sky god does have all the answers? Bull. Study the why's!!! Ask the what's!!! The what-ifs, the how's, the why's--all of these questions are how we continue to gather knowledge, and refine and change the knowledge we already have... Not by "seeking sky god" but by dissecting the frog, by learning about the core of Pluto, by poking at the brain and by asking the algae why it feels pain...
Yep it is a point. It is a point at how you ignore natural process to do what you desire to do.
I use a steel pipe and door coat hangers as curtain rods--that's not what they were made for, but it works just fine, and hurts no one... And it was three times cheaper than buying the curtain rods at Walmart. I use the tree stump in my yard to sit on when planning my garden. That's not what dead trees were made for, but that's what I use it for, and it hurts no one. I use rocks to decorate my flower beds--what were rocks made for again? But I think they look nice, and it hurts no one....
To believe what you want to believe, regardless of the stuff around you.
What is this "stuff" to which you refer? That reminds me of a story about our Spanish exchange student from back in the day, but that's for another time...
I’ll admit that science is awesome, it does prove that intelligence is used to create.
It proves that we use our intelligence to design. And even a lot of us don't use it for that. Some people just live without creating. Sad, really. But your creating a false equation. You're saying that "intelligence" equals "creation." Would you call an ant intelligent? No, but they make awesome hills as they found through evolution that it worked for them. Some birds make nests, "create" nests if you will, but I don't think anyone would accuse them of being overly intelligent--watch ducks fly through your living room windows, or a cardinal that pecks at your office wall all day at his reflection...
Male and female were designed to produce offspring.
And?
It was designed that way or am I just some stupid fundie?
Is that the only reason you have sex? To make babies? I doubt it. You do it because it feels good, do you not?
You missed my point entirely by spinning or diverting in another direction.
I'm not so sure I did...
Last time I checked a man can’t impregnate a man.
And not all males can impregnate all females...
It is physically impossible because it was designed that way.
As I said, is making babies the only time you have sex? That's apparently, according to you, what sex was "designed" for, so you wouldn't want to abuse that design by enjoying it, right?
Have you ever driven a well designed car? Now put that car in a field and see how well it can plow.
Again, a man-made object with a specific purpose. Why do all your analogies focus on purposefully man-made objects? Can you find nothing else in your sky god’s creation form which to make an analogy? I'll skip the rest of this only because I think I've made my point...
Really all you’ve pointed out is an antagonistic approach of questions without substance.
Is that what you really think?
Sure you toss out some scientific advances but it proves nothing about your belief.
Scientific findings are the basis of my beliefs.
As I’ve tried to point out, it proves that intelligence begets intelligence.
You've yet to prove that...
Life begets life.
Uhh....
The outrageous notion of atheism rejects common logic.
If believing in your god is so logical, why don't more people believe? Perhaps it is because of the illogic?
Atheists are crippled by questions that are in the domain of God.
What was the question? You made like 5 statements of "fact" in a row...
Atheism is usually the narcist’s belief in order to get their fill of pleasure without consequences.
Now you're off-track. What "fill of pleasure" am I getting to avoid what consequences? If you're right and I'm wrong, I'll "pay the consequences no matter what! I have faith in man. We are decently good, in that, we almost always try to do what's best for us, together, as a human nation. Sometimes we fail. And we may never have all the answers, as there are ten times as many things to find out as the universe is seemingly infinite. But I have faith that as long as we continue to try and find the answers to life, what it is, and what we could potentially do with it, all of our "problems" and "issues" will be resolved in time...
Your notions of "actions" and "consequences" are as outdated as your bible. Yes, actions have "consequences," or reactions. But you seem to think there's some cosmic balance that cares about my sex life while your sex life--while not always for making babies as "sex was designed for," is okay-why is that?
One last question… if you’re an atheist then why bother to debate
Are Christians not trying to force their "moral code" on the country? Tell everyone by force through law what is "right" and what is "wrong"? Do you not want to indoctrinate all children by placing your bible's archaic laws in stone in our schools, in our pledge--have your "lifestyle"--your chosen lifestyle--as the standard for which all others should live? That is why--hoping that some fundies out there realize that forced morality isn't a very moral stance. That not everyone believes as you believe, and that our country was founded to escape religious persecution, not codify it into law... That's why. Until Christians realize they aren't the only ones that want to live as they wish in freedom. That's why I debate. To protect my country, my rights, my life...
And I've joined the army to protect yours and my right to life and liberty, and I'd do the same again--but until the fundies realize it's not their country alone--then I'll continue to fight them as well...
And Roxie--I don't know everything. And sin is an arbitrary concept created to control the masses. Where is the double-talk? Provide concrete examples in context before waving around your arbitrary accusations, please. One might be led to think you are nothing but a brainless cheerleader...
Post a Comment