Of course, talking about God these days usually means talking about the non-existence of God. In this sense, the subject may more properly be identified as ontology or observation rather than God him/her/itself. Less frequently, I talk about how in the Bibles, God really is quite a wicked character.
No question, though: God comes up in conversation quite often in my original posts and in replies to commentators. Amused believers read all my God-text and are pleased to suggest that I harbor latent theistic beliefs. Or they trot out a popular quote from G.K. Chesterton: "If there were no God, there would be no atheists."
Now, Chesterton's aphorism makes a nice sound bite, but it's not correct. Were I slightly cheekier, I would retort, "If there were no evolution, there would be no creationists." My proverb, at least, has the benefit of being factually true.
But the best and most direct response to Chesterton is to correct him: if there were no religion, there would be no atheists. Religion and its conjoined sibling, dogma, are the conditions that lead to people self-identifying as Atheists. God the being is, well, incidental. As ever, when we really start to look into matters, God is actually irrelevant.
Indeed, if it weren't for atheists, God would not be brought up nearly as much. Many believers are actually ashamed of God and uncomfortable with their belief. They simply do not want it challenged.
I bring up God, then, to expose the whole idea to inquiry. When the concept is brought into the foreground, we can clearly see its flaws and chips and patches and scratches. The believer wants God to be the eternal mystery, the thing we will never attain or know. The Atheist wants to talk about God. The fact is, we know all too much about him/her/it.
As for Chesterton, I have never been impressed with him. To me, he lives on that tier well below Wilde and Shaw. His little quip here opens itself up to reverse formulations that make much more sense, such as if there were a God, there would be no atheists. We Atheists "are," after all, because he/she/it is not.
So, believers, let's talk about God. Let's discuss your concept of God. Why not? What are you afraid of?
If there were no unicorns there would be no aunicornists. In that regard Chesterton is at some level correct. If the concept of God didn't exist and if people didn't sincerely believe it and try to convince other people that God existed then there would be no one who identified as an atheist. More or less everyone would probably be one just as they didn't believe in unicorns or leprechauns.
ReplyDeleteNotice what you say:
ReplyDelete"If the concept of God didn't exist..."
Do you agree that the concept of God is different than God him/her/itself?
If so, you can see my point that atheists reject the idea that God exists.
God's actual existence is beside the point.
Larry, well the issues that come up really are not God's existence so much as that a) the concept exists and b) that there are many believers.
ReplyDeleteSo essentially yes.
Strawmanish commentary, no, Larry?
ReplyDeleteWhy would I be uncomfortable with God? Because he is not at all concerned with our bodily integrity? That preserving our soul/eternal identity is a worthier cause?
Hey, we've gotsta make choices here.
do we or do we not care about living? do we or do we not care about Man in general as opposed to people in particular?
But if you wanna compare numbers, lets see. Crusaders, Inquisition, Witchhunts, etc. what, say 1 mil?
Your turn. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pot, etc. etc. What, say 100 mil?
Give or take. Over to you.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI don't know why you're uncomfortable with God. I gave my opinion.
That's nice that you seem to know exactly what concerns God. How convenient.
I did not raise the issue of body count, but a few points seem relevant.
(1) Stalin established a cult of Stalin. Not atheist.
(2) Hitler, by some credible accounts and by a scan of Mein Kampf, was Catholic and was tacitly supported by the Vatican.
(3) Your numbers for the Crusades are way low. I've seen reports closer to 9 million people.
(4) The God you profess to worship is also - if you believe in him/her/it - responsible for the religious murders of Judaism, all forms of Christianity, and Islam. How do you reckon your death toll now?
(5) The God you worship is himself/herself/itself the single greatest genocide artist of them all. Or did you forget the global flood?
Steve, you're going to have to do much better than this poor first effort.
And learn what a straw man is, for jeebus' sake!
You might want to take the Litmus Test (http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2010/03/litmus-test.html). How deep is your faith, really?
Larry,
ReplyDeleteFirst, your strawman is arguing against the caricature of a God you believe some people worship. It really is a handy gadget to have in your rhetorical toolkit.
Second, 'Why would I be uncomfortable with God?' was not a rhetorical question. I am absolutely comfortable with the reality of a being larger than ourselves and responsible for existence as we know it. You cannot escape it. Logic and rationality point to God, contrary to assumptions propagated in blogs like these.
Lastly, why tag God with the responsibility for killing done in His name? Looks like its time to drag out that ole standy once again: 'guns don't kill people', people do'. Just put sub God for guns.
By the way, nice try with that Stalin cult evasion. Still no Gods.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI fail to see the caricature in the OP. Perhaps you'll care to quote the part where I misrepresent God. When you do, please also show why your portrait is more accurate and comprehensive than mine.
You say: "I am absolutely comfortable with the reality of a being larger than ourselves and responsible for existence as we know it. You cannot escape it. Logic and rationality point to God, contrary to assumptions propagated in blogs like these."
I say: Fine, you are comfortable with the idea or the possibility that a being "larger than ourselves" exists.
I'm comfortable with it, too. In fact, I'm comfortable with the possibility that there may be many, perhaps thousands, of such beings. Are you?
But we part ways when you say "Logic and rationality point to God." No, logic does not all point to God. Rationality does not point to God. And the evidence does not point to God. The only thing that points to God is the beliefs you inherited from your mom and dad and some influential teachers. Had you been born a Muslim, you would be telling me all about the indisputable logic and rationality of God's Koran. Perhaps you would like to explain these "assumptions" of mine that are false and being promulgated.
Now, you cannot be serious with "why tag God with responsibility" line, can you? Is not your theory that God is the Author of all? Is God not everywhere and in control of everything? Why shouldn't God be held responsible for (1) the atrocities committed by his declared adherents and (2) the atrocities he himself performs and explicitly authorizes?
Please do explain on what basis God is exonerated! If you believe your Bible, then God kills people. He does it himself for himself. He does it with his own "hands." You cannot deny this.
There's no evasion on my part regarding Stalin. No doubt, Stalin was an awful and brutal man. I have no words to express my outrage that such a person assumed power and implemented the murderous and tyrannical policies he did. You say Stalin was an atheist, as if this somehow explains something. If Stalin was a vegetarian, should I also avoid that?
Besides, the fact that you bring up Stalin at all is an evasion on your part. My original post does not mention God's murders or the rampages of believers at all. You're the one who introduced body count.
Putting the Stalin thing aside, points #2-5 still stand and are quite devastating. With Hitler, too, one can hardly talk about his anti-semitism without also tracing back to the legacy of Martin Luther. In some regards, Hitler tried to make reality out of the clergyman Luther's vision.
So, Steve, my OP is about how I, as an Atheist, can and do bring up the subject of God in my posts. I think I give a fair, balanced, and honest portrait of the character. if you wish to disagree with my assessment, may I suggest you attempt to back it up?
"If there were no evolution, there would be no creationists." My proverb, at least, has the benefit of being factually true.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by true? How do you know it is?
Blas,
ReplyDeleteBy "true," I mean it is probably the case that had evolution not occurred, people (including creationists) would not exist.
Are you seriously trying to make some pitch for "we have no objective standards, values or without God"?
Are you seriously trying to make some pitch for "we have no objective standards, values or without God"?
ReplyDeleteWell as someone like Kant demostrated that I´m courious to know how you solve that.
Blas,
ReplyDeleteThese might help you:
http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2009/12/religious-do-not-have-objective-moral.html
http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2009/10/morality-without-god.html
http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2009/11/against-interpretation.html
http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2010/01/objectivity-truth-and-spin.html
Good luck!
Well Larry I take a look to your reference but I didn´t find any description about what you call true, the most close is this:
ReplyDelete"It is one thing to recognize the reality of nature, another thing to make claims about that reality. That's a shift. There is a space between the two. In that space lies all the work of science"
This means that you accet only science as true?
Part of my position is that God is not an objective moral standard.
ReplyDeleteSome make the claim that there is not morality or truth without God, and I argue that with or without God makes no difference to whether there is morality or truth.
I don't "know" that something is true. Neither do you. The question is whether I have enough data and reasoning to make a sufficient case that something is so in reality (or was so).
Your turn: what do you call "true" and how do you know?
Why should I explain what I think what is thruth if you cannot know if it is truth? How can you say "My proverb, at least, has the benefit of being factually true" when you cannot explain what is true for you?
ReplyDeleteBlas,
ReplyDeleteI already explained this to you:
"By 'true,' I mean it is probably the case that had evolution not occurred, people (including creationists) would not exist."
Please note the qualifier "probably" in the definition I used to clarify my statement. The facts appear to conform logically and empirically to my statement. You have not disputed this but rather resorted to circumspect quibbling.
Now, it's time for you to contribute to the discussion or shut up.
There are several reasons you should explain what you think truth is. One, you seem to object to my definition. Two, you should be willing to subject idea to rational inquiry. Three, you have put the burden solely on me to explain myself. I have fulfilled my obligation and would expect you to do the same.
No Larry, you explained me twice your sentence not what do you mean by true. I would try to help you:
ReplyDeleteTrue means that is something that you think/beleave/know probably happened.
Should I think/beleave/know probably happened?
Should every other human think/beleave/know probably happened?
Blas,
ReplyDeleteIt looks like I can't give you what you want. Do you want me to give a dictionary definition of the word "true"?
I already said that I believe it probably happened that people, including creationists, are the product of evolution. You asked me to explain this, and I did.
You asked for my definition of "true" and how I know. My response was that what is true is what we have in data and reasoning to assert confidently that something is or was in reality. This response directly answers both of your questions.
You, however, have not answered me at all. All you've given is a posture of dissatisfaction.
Sorry, may be I´m not so smart, I´m catholic after all. Now I understand your answer. All what you post as true is only something that confidently happened in the reality. I´m happy to understand that I may not take as a fact what you post and keeping God exist.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteYour arguements are self-defeating. You wont be able to see it though. You have clearly demonsrtated that with the others who have challenged this utterly bogus post.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWhich ones are self-defeating? Show it to me.
I think you are speaking unfairly, as I have operated in good faith (pun intended). Every question asked of me I have sought to answer directly.
I have not seen this from people who write in to oppose my opinions. You, for example, just baldly state that my arguments are self-defeating. Fine. That's an interesting claim. Too bad you have decided not to back it up.
Instead, your next statement is essentially to call me stupid and suggest that I've been pretty thick regarding previous comments.
How very christian of you.
"But we part ways when you say "Logic and rationality point to God." No, logic does not all point to God. Rationality does not point to God."
ReplyDeleteLarry,
You can only say this if you blind yourself to what you observe.
That's what design denial is all about. You(pl)see it but refuse to believe it, so you claim it is a trick played on the eye. So the question becomes, when is it that you can depend upon what you see to be real and when is it 'just' an illusion?
Rather, logic and rationality come full circle and confirm what one perceived directly in the first place.
"And the evidence does not point to God."
Your version of events says it is all just one long series of lucky accidents until some arbitrary point in time where all of a sudden its not longer random anymore. Such powerful evidence for the non-existence of God.
Rather, spontaneity / accident / random are all appeals to ignorance. They are hardly 'evidence' that lends support to the 'non' existence of anything. They are dead in the water as explanations.
"Now, you cannot be serious with "why tag God with responsibility" line, can you? Is not your theory that God is the Author of all? Is God not everywhere and in control of everything? Why shouldn't God be held responsible for (1) the atrocities committed by his declared adherents and (2) the atrocities he himself performs and explicitly authorizes?"
ReplyDeleteYes, God is the author of all and is everywhere. Your misconception lies in your erroneous belief that God controls all. Rather, Creation is all about 'designing' something He would not control but rather would guide to self-realization and understanding. That is why His ultimate concern is with preserving our spiritual identities, not our material bodies.
Any adherent of God doesn't kill, extreme cases notwithstanding. Heck, even our own devised judicial system holds to this norm. Why should God be held to a different standard? Because He is God. He adheres to the laws He devised. Can't say that for us now, can we?
The trick is to look at oneself before deciding what God is supposedly obligated to do or not to do.
Look for the speck.
"Besides, the fact that you bring up Stalin at all is an evasion on your part. My original post does not mention God's murders or the rampages of believers at all. You're the one who introduced body count."
ReplyDeleteNot at all. I distinctly remember you laying down a challenge in the last line of you OP.
So here we are, talking about God. And no, i didn't lose my little list of atheist talking points. What's next, how evil the Pope is by exhorting his flock to practice abstinence in lieu of handing out condoms?
We can go there buts its your OP.
Sooooo, whaddaya wanna know?
Steve,
ReplyDelete"You can only say this if you blind yourself to what you observe."
You, sir, are the master of unsupported assertions.
Put your money where your mouth is: show me an observation. Let's "see" what you're talking about. Show me the logic and show me the rationality because it just ain't so, no matter how much you want it to be. Stop worrying about what you think atheists claim. Worry about what you claim.
"Your misconception lies in your erroneous belief that God controls all. Rather, Creation is all about 'designing' something He would not control but rather would guide to self-realization and understanding."
And how exactly do you know what creation is all about? Give me a cite. Let's look together at this, or is it only in your personal version of Creation?
"Sooooo, whaddaya wanna know?" I want to know what exactly supports the beliefs you claim to hold. You have been talking big but you have demonstrated nothing.
I invite people to talk about God and you want to talk about Stalin (another "god"). It seems to me that you just want to argue. You have your little god belief and your self-satisfied sense of rationality, but so far you haven't shown there to be anything behind your beliefs.
If you want to talk about God, let's talk about God. Not Stalin, not atheism, not Chesterton. Let's talk about the being that's supposed to be the focus of it all.
I offered something simple: let's talk about God. So far, you and your co-believers have failed. You've done everything possible to run away from the subject.
I promise not to try and de-convert you. I don't care if you want to remain a believer. But I do want to talk about reasoning and thinking and how far these things can take us.
Fair enough?
"I want to know what exactly supports the beliefs you claim to hold. You have been talking big but you have demonstrated nothing"
ReplyDeleteNaw. Noone is talking big Larry. People just get tired of the condescending attitude of atheists when they droll on about how they at least have evidence for their position.
Truth is, they resort to an irrational assertion that nature caused itself or that nature has always been in order to attempt an end run around the logical conclusion of God's existence.
My 'support' for belief in God is based on logic and rational conclusions. How is that, you say?
Well, how do you short-circuit the infinite regress problem? You need a starting point. And the logical starting point is a choice between God and spontaneity. What other choices are there?
Now if you look at spontaneity it is an argument from ignorance. As well, it is a negative argument that cannot be demonstrated.
Take the big bang for instance. What caused the big bang? Can you provide a final, prime natural cause? Are answers like 'it just is' an adequate answer?
So logically, God is the default position. Whether we can explain God and/or God's attributes is beside the point. It is irrelavent to establishing the logical fact of God's existence and act of creation.
Not only that, but as I touched on in a previous post, the obvious design of life is chock full of support for God's existence and expression of Mind.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteForgive me if this sounds condescending - i do not intend it so - but your comments contain standard theist talking points with zero evidence behind them.
(1) You misrepresent the science that investigates the origins of the universe, which makes assertions based on currently available evidence and models. Does this mean such assertions are correct, finished or unflawed? No, not at all. All it means is that the picture being developed has the benefit of using known scientific "facts," empirical data, and experimentation. See http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-everything-came-from-nothing-no-god.html, http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2009/12/beginning-of-universe.html, and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQUqRJJ24GQ
(2) The first cause argument is perhaps the best argument available to/for theism, in my opinion. On the other hand, there's no justification for asserting that "logically, God is the default position." This is a textbook case of the argument from ignorance. You do not know what this first cause is. I don't either, but the three videos I have referenced explain how that problem can be approached scientifically. Therefore, your claim that God should be the default position is bunk. You cannot just assume that a magical being outside the system created the system simply because you don't know the cause. Indeed, there's good reason to think that our universe would be much different than it is had it been created by an intelligent being.
(3) You say, "Whether we can explain God and/or God's attributes is beside the point." Well, this was a point of my post. I want/wanted to talk about God's attributes, which in my opinion show all the hallmarks of being human invention. So the real "beside the point" is the cosmological dance you are attempting, which is a desperate move to distract people from examining the concept of God.
(4) The "obvious design of life" line is laughable. You are making nothing more than a subjective assertion. If design were so obvious then why is there such enormous difficulty in trying to describe the objective evidence for it? Besides, there are good reasons why people should see design when it is not, in fact, "there": (a) Humans anthropomorphize. We tend to attribute our humanlike qualities to all sorts of things. (b) Evolution and some human design both involve complex systems dealing with the same physical constraints. (c) Evolution has much in common with a design process. It generates trial-and-error modifications of existing forms and discards inferior versions.
So, you are both misrepresenting the actual atheist position (or my atheist position) and exaggerating the quality of your theist position.
I hope this helps. Still waiting to see if anyone actually wants to talk about God....
Larry you said
ReplyDelete"All it means is that the picture being developed has the benefit of using known scientific "facts," empirical data, and experimentation"
but also for you: "true is what we have in data and reasoning to assert confidently that something is or was in reality."
So confidently means that there is a chance for science(and allways will be) that God exist.
And going to your request I want to talk one of infinite aspects of God: Love. God is Love.
Have your cosmogony an explanation for Love?
@Blas,
ReplyDelete"So confidently means that there is a chance for science(and allways will be) that God exist."
Yes. I cannot tell you with 100% certainty that God does not exist. However, neither can I tell you with 100% certainty that fairies and sprites do not exist. I cannot claim with certainty that an invisible teapot is not orbiting our Sun.
By the same token, you cannot claim with 100% certainty that God exists. Plus, inflationary cosmology builds upon our best knowledge (facts, insofar as we have as high a degree of confidence as we can) to make reasonable scientific inferences about the "what happened" and "how" of the beginnings of our universe. So far as I know, there is no similar or correspondent path to the claim for God's existence. So, as physical-natural models for the origins of the universe become more clear, detailed and confidently asserted, supernatural models become less and less likely to be true.
"And going to your request I want to talk one of infinite aspects of God: Love. God is Love."
Thank you for getting to the topic. So that I can answer your question to me, may I ask first what exactly you mean by "love"?
Can I further ask how you know that God is love? What I mean is if I say "Blas is Love," is that a true statement? Why or why not? And then why is it true that "God is Love"?
how you know that God is love?
ReplyDeleteBecause He let me know.
What I mean is if I say "Blas is Love," is that a true statement?
No
Why or why not?
Because I´m a man, not an act.
And then why is it true that "God is Love"?
Because he let us know that He is Love.
Blas,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your experience, but I'm afraid I don't find your reasoning specific or convincing.
Thousands of people claims to have been abducted by aliens. Recently, the new media reported on a little girl who had verses of the Koran appear on her body. In the Salem Witch trials of the 1690s, people swore oaths that their neighbors were practicing witchcraft.
You say that I should accept as true that God is Love because "He let us know." Unfortunately, you do not disclose how he let us know.
However, if we read the Bible, then I think your equivalence of God and Love is highly problematic.
Under what definition is love expressed by a worldwide flood killing all life on earth?
Under what definition is love expressed in a law to burn a priest's daughter to death if she has sex? (Lev 21:9)
Under what definition is love expressed by threatening humans with the punishment of eating their own children? (Deut 28:53)
Under what definition is love expressed by sending bears to kill small children? (2 Kings 2:23-25)
Under what definition is love expressed by having a human being scourged, tortured, and hung alive on a piece of wood as a sacrifice? (New Testament)
I'm sorry, but this love you speak of is quite strange.
"I'm afraid I don't find your reasoning specific or convincing"
ReplyDeleteIs not my intention to convince.
"Thousands of people claims to have been abducted by aliens. Recently, the new media reported on a little girl who had verses of the Koran appear on her body. In the Salem Witch trials of the 1690s, people swore oaths that their neighbors were practicing witchcraft."
Yes, and you believe what a couple of scientifics tell you about what happened 40 billions years ago in a place MYL far away. Everybody needs to believe, everybody chose what to believe.
"I'm sorry, but this love you speak of is quite strange"
May be, Which is your definition of love, that makes strange mine"
"Yes, and you believe what a couple of scientifics tell you about what happened 40 billions years ago in a place MYL far away. Everybody needs to believe, everybody chose what to believe."
ReplyDeleteYou have changed the subject again. Let me remind you:
You said - God is Love because he let you know.
I said - Please explain how he let you know.
I also said - I'm skeptical of personal anecdote because it's not as reliable as other kinds of evidence.
You then replied - But Larry, you accept the authority of science/scientists.
I'll finally say - Well, I don't unquestionably accept what any scientist says about anything. I like to see the raw data, if that's possible, and understand how it has been treated. You have only shared a self-interested and personal view.
P.S. - "Love" is your word. You define it.
"You have only shared a self-interested and personal view"
ReplyDeleteYou asked for that. Remeber:
Can I further ask how you know that God is love? What I mean is if I say "Blas is Love," is that a true statement? Why or why not? And then why is it true that "God is Love"?
"Love" is your word. You define it.
God Love is the actuality of Goodnes.
Human Love is the own fullfilment with others happyness.
"God Love is the actuality of Goodnes.
ReplyDeleteHuman Love is the own fullfilment with others happyness."
Now you are just making stuff up.
I have no idea what it means to say that "God Love is the actuality of Goodness."
But one previous question still stands: How did God show you that He is love?
"Now you are just making stuff up."
ReplyDeleteThis what you says, and has a chance of not be true.
"How did God show you that He is love?"
I answer all the question you make to me, now is your turn.
What is love for you?
"This what you says, and has a chance of not be true."
ReplyDeleteWho can tell? I seriously do not understand what you mean by "God Love is the actuality of Goodnes."
Look, it's totally OK with me for you to hold whatever opinions you do. I don't care. I really don't.
But it's quite rude of you to make a statement that is (1) incomprehensible and (2) not explained in any way at all.
I'm not going to play your little game unless you act fairly toward me as I have toward you.
I'm not going to give you my definition of love until you explain what you mean. It's your term; you brought it up.
And then I presented cites of biblical passages that reveal God to be genocidal, sex-obsessed, mean, and sado-masochistic. Somehow all of these qualities are "loving" to you?
Blas, you've tried my patience long enough. You seem to know little about the god you worship, and you seem to know even less about him or the books that reveal his presence in the world.
My advice to you is that you should stay away from skeptic and atheist sites. Just go on visiting the blogs of other believers where you all can tell one another how great god is and how jesus is just the bees' knees. Go there. You should feel right at home.
But I suspect you are here because deep down you know - it's been shown to you - that there's no god and never was one. And more than this, it makes absolutely no difference.
Go on, in peace, but go on.
"God Love is the actuality of Goodnes."
ReplyDeleteThis is a definition of God in the realistic aristotelean/aquinean framework. Do you prefer to talk of God in the idealistic framework of Plato/St. Agustin/Rosmini?
You after all wanted to talk about God:
"Still waiting to see if anyone actually wants to talk about God"
"And then I presented cites of biblical passages that reveal God to be genocidal, sex-obsessed, mean, and sado-masochistic. Somehow all of these qualities are "loving" to you?"
What you did is jumping in the conclusion, in order to make a logic argument you have to say:
1) Love is ...(whatever you want)
2) God make this things that do not fit with the definition of love
3) Then God is not love.
Then we can to talk about God.
"My advice to you is that you should stay away from skeptic and atheist sites.(...) Go on, in peace, but go on.
Are you going to ban me?
Want you keep this blog only for atheist talking about haw smart they are and how dumb are the religious people?
No, Blas, I won't ban you unless you give me reason to. But you don't seem up to the caliber of discussion that I want.
ReplyDeleteYou have not explained "God Love is the actuality of Goodnes" adequately despite my repeated requests for you to do so. Either you do not know what your own statement means or you are unable to express it.
I don't care that you think of God following Thomas Aquinas, who is vastly overrated and whose "proofs" of God have been refuted soundly. But you bring up Aquinas and Augustine merely to mention "big" names. You have shown no evidence of actually understanding their lives and their thinking.
"What you did is jumping in the conclusion, in order to make a logic argument you have to say."
Once again, you reveal yourself incapable of holding your own position. I have asked for *your* definition of love. I have askeds several times. You don't seem to understand that if you bring in the term then you must tell me the "proper" definitio and context for it. When I gave you those biblival cites, I had no pre-set definition of love in mind, but I asked a question of you: whether these acts by God constituted love. You seem to think they do, and if so you have the responsibility to explain.
You have utterly failed to meet your burden in this discussion. I have little reason to think at this point that you are going to offer anything new or interesting on the topic of God. You know nothing about the God you say you worship. This much is clear.
As I said, I won't ban you. But if you are looking for a way to get out of this "discussion" before you make yourself seem any more unaware of the subject, then I'm offering you a chance to go. I don't particularly care whether you comment anymore or not. But I'll probably just ignore you until you learn more about God and about the very statements you make. From now on, you'll have to say something at least mildly interesting to get a response from me.
You, that work with technology, teach classes in English literature, are working on a Ph.D on matters of literature, textuality, and probabilistic reasoning. You that like to see the raw data, and understand how it has been treated, of astronomic and quantic experiments that only few researches hardly understand. You who kwons that Thomas Aquinas is vastly overrated and whose "proofs" of God have been refuted soundly, want make me think you don´t understand "God Love is the actuality of Goodnes". You are kidding me.
ReplyDeleteYou can start here, if you want http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Practical_philosophy
By the way I´m very interested in your soundly refutation of the Aquinas “proofs” of God. No matter that it will be only a probability of reality.
“I had no pre-set definition of love in mind, but I asked a question of you: whether these acts by God constituted love. You seem to think they do, and if so you have the responsibility to explain.”
You are an sophistic expert or you are kidding me again. How did you chose that texts? Ramdomly? Or you on purpose have been looking for them? You were looking texts that do not match with what you think is love. There is no another way.
Just to show I´m not kidding to you, I will try with simple words, what "God Love is the actuality of Goodnes"
God (as pure actuality) transform the capacities of each been (potentiality) according to the perfect good (Goodness).
So if, what the Bible says, was made by God should be Love by the definition of God and Love.
Your turn.
Blas,
ReplyDeleteYour last bit is interesting, albeit muddled.
You define God as "pure actuality." But why? Upon what basis may one define God in this way? Seems to me you simply assume God exists and that he has the (undefined) property of "pure actuality."
The problem is that you have not explained why we should assume the existence of God. You have not explained what an "actuality" is, whether pure or impure, and why it is a necessary condition of any being, let alone God.
You don't get to just make up creatures....unless I get to do this, too. Let me therefore introduce you to Mog, who is handsomer and smells better than your God. Mog is pure fragranality. Thus, even his farts are sweeter than sweet. Please explain why you accept as true your statement about God but not mine about Mog.
And I am sorry that you don't like passages from your own Bible. I wonder if you would have had the same reaction if I'd cited some of the nicer bits about God (John 13:34, Joshua 1:9, Psalm 23:4, and so forth). I bet quoting these would have made your heart sing.
If you're trying to show that "God is Love," you've so far not done anything near it. May I ask why you have so far avoided trying to bring in John 4:8?
““You define God as "pure actuality." But why? Upon what basis may one define God in this way? Seems to me you simply assume God exists and that he has the (undefined) property of "pure actuality."”
ReplyDeleteI´m not going to explain you the aristotelic metaphisic, you are smart enough and you have all the degrees to make by your own if you want, and if you didn´t know yet and are kidding me. Also I show you a link where you can start.
“The problem is that you have not explained why we should assume the existence of God.”
Remember this:
“So, believers, let's talk about God. Let's discuss your concept of God. Why not? What are you afraid of?”
So you assumed the existance of God or the idea of God, if not what are you inviting to talk about? Nothing?
“ Please explain why you accept as true your statement about God but not mine about Mog”
I can accept the existance of Mog, no problem, you confirm its existance? there are more people that know Mog exist? Its important to us? Give me more information please.
“And I am sorry that you don't like passages from your own Bible”
Can you explain me when I said something like that?
“ May I ask why you have so far avoided trying to bring in John 4:8?”
I have explained more than you so far, are you going to explain your concept of love? Are you afraid of? Is harder to explain than Mog?
You're fortunate that the sun is shining and I'm in a good mood.
ReplyDeleteI don't buy the ontological arguments that underwrite Aristotelian thinking on gods because these arguments tend to mistake conditional hypotheses for facts. In other words, by your definition God may be a pure actuality, but (1) there's no reason to think that "existence" is a property of God's [as actuality apparently is] and (2) there's nothing to stop anyone from asserting the existence of any imaginary being.
Regarding (2), I'm delighted that you are willing to accept the existence of Mog. However, what makes you such an agnostic to demand that his existence be confirmed? After all, the existence of God cannot be confirmed, yet you say you believe. The existence of a real person corresponding to the fictional character of Jesus Christ cannot be confirmed, yet you believe (I presume).
I have explained my concept of love. Just go to a dictionary. Since you pointed me to Wikipedia for your ideas on Aristotelian metaphysics, why won't you accept a dictionary for my definition of love? Is this the game you want to play, where words mean whatever you want them to?
According to you, if God orders a woman to be stoned to death, or if God sends an angel of death to take infants, or if God does not intercede to stop a wicked act, this is all love and we puny humans should just shut the fuck up and be thankful because we are not in a position to criticize God.
Bah. The only sources that we have for the existence of God is the Bible. And in the Bible, the character of God is horrible. Here is a fraction my evidence demonstrating the horribleness, cruelty and injustice of God --
1. Genesis 7:21-23: All creatures, outside of those on Noah’s ark, are murdered by drowning by God.
2. Revelation 4:11: God creates mankind for his own pleasure then God destroys (murders) men, women and their babies when he isn’t pleased.
3. Genesis 19:1-26: God destroys the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. He murders all the people, including all the innocent children.
4. Genesis 38:9-10: Onan, when he has sex with his brother’s widow, wastes his seed on the ground. What he has done offends God. God murders him.
5. Exodus 9:23-25: God murders by hail every man that is outdoors.
6. Exodus 12:29: God murders all of Egypt’s firstborn.
7. Exodus 14:6-28: God forces Pharaoh and his army to chase the Hebrews. God parts the Red Sea for the people. God collapses the sea and murders Pharaoh's Army who had followed the Hebrews into the sea.
8. Exodus 21:17 & Leviticus 20:9: Whoever curses his father or mother shall be murdered.
9. Exodus 21:20-21: If a man strikes his male or female slave and they die immediately, the man shall be punished. But, if the slave lives a day or two and then dies, the man will not be punished because that slave is his own property.
10. Exodus 22:20: If you sacrifice to any God other than the Lord, you are to be murdered.
11. Luke 19:27: Jesus says: Those who would not have me be king over them, bring them before me and slay them.
12. Revelation 2:23: Jesus would also put an adulteress woman’s children to death.
Let me sum up. Where's your evidence? Don't you have anything more than bland, second-hand philosophy? I show you your own bible, the source of your knowledge about god. And you give me nothing.
You claim that God showed you his love. Bullshit. I don't believe you. You have come here and argued without cause, made wild assertions without substantiation, and generally evaded direct questions.
As I have said before, you don't seem to know anything about the God you say you worship. Why, then, do you do it? Is it because you are afraid? Is it because you want love? Is it because you feel a sense of community with other believers? Whatever your reason for holding onto belief in God, I think we all now know that you don't believe in God because of any evidence.
"(1) there's no reason to think that "existence" is a property of God's [as actuality apparently is]"
ReplyDeleteActuality and potntiality refers to beings, cannot exist outside them.
"(2) there's nothing to stop anyone from asserting the existence of any imaginary being."
Also science do not prevent anyone from asserting the existence of any imaginary being like the dark matter for example (and there are many imaginary beings in the story of science and willbe)
"However, what makes you such an agnostic to demand that his existence be confirmed?"
My demand is not such agnostic. I really will believe you if you confirm that you see him you smelled its sweets farts, if other people saw it. If you explain more about Mog. My mind is open, I do not thing agnostic by itself is a bad way of tinking until if it is a temporary position.(not taking temporary litterally).
"The existence of a real person corresponding to the fictional character of Jesus Christ cannot be confirmed, yet you believe (I presume)."
Of course, atheist beleive as a fact that there is a full chain of beens between the first lucky RNA selfreplicating molecule to the man and you do not believe the existance of a jewish called Jeshua.
"I have explained my concept of love. Just go to a dictionary. Since you pointed me to Wikipedia for your ideas on Aristotelian metaphysics, why won't you accept a dictionary for my definition of love?"
Ok, do you agree with this?:
“love usually refers to a deep, inffable feeling of tenderly caring for another person”
"Here is a fraction my evidence demonstrating the horribleness, cruelty and injustice of God"
Can you explain why you think that is evidence horribleness, cruelty and injustice? Why is injustice? What justice is? aren´t you “mistaking conditional hipotesis with facts”?
"As I have said before, you don't seem to know anything about the God you say you worship"
Also you call yourself atheist, but at the same time “I cannot tell you with 100% certainty that God does not exist”
"Actuality and potntiality refers to beings, cannot exist outside them."
ReplyDeleteIncorrect. These terms do not refer to entities themselves but rather to properties that entities have, theoretically speaking. What's more, terms like actuality and potentiality are conventional and, as formulated, have no empirical basis. Calling God a "pure actuality" makes a nice thought experiment, but without an empirical basis I don't see how we are going to get anywhere in a discussion. You like your Aristotelian theorizing, fine, but I have yet to see you tie it to anything corresponding to observed reality. Until you do this, your theorizing is garbage.
"Also science do not prevent anyone from asserting the existence of any imaginary being like the dark matter for example (and there are many imaginary beings in the story of science and willbe)."
This is also a false statement. The existence of dark matter is asserted from empirical and mathematical foundations (http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/dm_evidence.htm, for just one example). The existence of God is not.
“love usually refers to a deep, inffable feeling of tenderly caring for another person”
That's an inaccruate definition. I don't think the word "ineffable" is appropriate. Did you make up this definition yourself? Let's use this instead: "noun, a strong positive emotion of regard and affection." Here's the link I used for the definition: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=love.
"Can you explain why you think that is evidence horribleness, cruelty and injustice? Why is injustice? What justice is? aren´t you 'mistaking conditional hipotesis with facts'"?
I'm sorry, but you just are not clever enough to accomplish the rhetorical turnabout that you are attempting.
I can indeed explain why the passages I have cited demonstrate God's horribleness, cruelty and injustice. But the fact that you are asking me this shows you do not understand argument:
(1) I have made a claim: As depicted in the Bible, God acts horribly, etc.
(2) As evidence, I have provided direct links to passages in the Bible where God murders someone or has them tortured or fails to act, etc.
Therefore, I have met my minimum burden for presenting a case to you. I have not confused my hypothesis for fact but have instead given you the means either to agree with the hypothesis or to challenge it. You may, for example, try to challenge by arguing the meaning of the word "cruelty" and trying to show that none of my given examples meet that standard. Or, you might try to suggest that I have no standing to assess God's actions and determine them as "cruel" or "not cruel."
But you see -- we all see -- that I am allowing you to inspect my argument and deal with my evidence. However, you have not addressed either my claims or my evidence. Instead, you keep trying to evade the discussion by engaging in meaningless theorizing and in failed rhetorical parries.
"Also you call yourself atheist, but at the same time 'I cannot tell you with 100% certainty that God does not exist.'"
An atheist does not need to have 100% certainty that God does not exist. It would be intellectually dishonest of me -- or anyone -- to try and claim such certainty. That you make such a statement in seriousness indicates a few things to me: (1) You have a prejudiced view of atheists and atheism, (2) part of your prejudice involves making atheists as 100% certain as you seem to be, (3) you do not really want to talk about your bible or your god, and (4) you have no answer to my claims.
So now I must ask: What are you trying to accomplish here? I invited you to talk about God and you cannot. I hope at least you are learning some positive lessons.
“Incorrect. These terms do not refer to entities themselves but rather to properties that entities have, theoretically speaking.”
ReplyDeleteDo you understand what are you saying here? You try to denie what I said, with what I said. Actuallity and potentiallity are propertis of entities, entity is somthing that exist by definition, so if God have the proper of actuallity should be an entity, have also the propertie of existence.
“This is also a false statement. The existence of dark matter is asserted from empirical and mathematical foundations (http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/dm_evidence.htm, for just one example)”
Larry, I tought you were better than me reading raw data. If you take five minutes reading your link you will see: Scientist measured the mass of brilliant bodies of many galaxies included our galaxy. Then they measured the position and the speed of this bodies. Then they applied the gravitational law formula and. Surprise! founded that the mass needed to avoid the brilliant bodies of the galaxys scatters in the universe is ten times de mass measured. How you can explain this 1) The measurements are wrong 2) The gravitational law is wrong(or not universal) 3) We should beleive there is another quantitie of mass we can´t see that keep togheter the galaxies.
I would bet you that Dark Matter will end up in the list of immaginery scientific stuffs like flogisto and eter.
“An atheist does not need to have 100% certainty that God does not exist.”
S: (n) atheist (someone who denies the existence of god)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheist&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=0000
So, are you an atheist or not? You denie God exist or God has a probability to exist?
“Or, you might try to suggest that I have no standing to assess God's actions and determine them as "cruel" or "not cruel."”
Thank you form bringing up my point. As you mention before
“this is all love and we puny humans should just shut the fuck up and be thankful because we are not in a position to criticize God”.
This is one of the explanation for what you readed, God is possible and is also posible He is Love.
To make your point you should explain “on empirical basis”, “in the observed reality”
without “theorizing garbage” and not mistaking “hypotesis with facts”
What is like this emotion you call love, what is just and injust, why is wrong murder or torture so you can prove the Bible histories do not fullfill your dfinition.
“I invited you to talk about God and you cannot”
I´m trying to talk about God, and you keep talking about the Bible.
“Do you understand what are you saying here? You try to denie what I said, with what I said. Actuallity and potentiallity are propertis of entities, entity is somthing that exist by definition, so if God have the proper of actuallity should be an entity, have also the propertie of existence.”
ReplyDeleteNo, there is an important difference between what you said and what I said. What I am saying is that actuality and potentiality are theoretical properties, and I am further saying that God is a theoretical entity. You have assumed that actuality and potentiality are real properties and that God is a real being. But you have not established the reality of either God or Aristotle’s categories. For the sake of discussion, I am willing to grant you “If God exists then he would be a pure actuality.” Please notice the “if.” Now, what is the point you are trying to make with all of this?
“I would bet you that Dark Matter will end up in the list of immaginery scientific stuffs like flogisto and eter.”
You might be correct about what eventually happens to the concept of dark matter. But everything you’ve said supports my contention that “The existence of dark matter is asserted from empirical and mathematical foundations.” The assertion will stand or fall on those foundations. In contrast, the assertion of the existence of God has no similar empirical and mathematical foundations. If it does – and perhaps I am wrong about this – then please show me these foundations.
“S: (n) atheist (someone who denies the existence of god)“
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheist&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=0000
I do indeed deny the existence of God, with as much certainty as is intellectually honest. I have never seen or heard any evidence that sustains the concept of God as being a true explanation. I really don’t see why this is so hard for you to accept.
“Thank you form bringing up my point. As you mention before ‘this is all love and we puny humans should just shut the fuck up and be thankful because we are not in a position to criticize God’. This is one of the explanation for what you readed, God is possible and is also posible He is Love. “
I reject your assertion that, if God existed, I would have no moral authority criticize him. If God existed and he was responsible for my existence, he would nevertheless have no permanent authority over me or my behavior. He would not be allowed to demand anything from me in return for my existence.
It is possible that God is Love (and I have given you a definition of love). It is possible that Mog is Love. It is possible that God is a nasty surprise in a sandwich. However, what’s actual – as opposed to possible – are the behaviors of God as documented in the Bible, if you believe the Bible. I reserve my right to disapprove of that behavior and to call it wicked. I suppose now you want my definition of “wicked,” but I will not give you one. I have made my case. As far as I can recall, all you have said is that God “showed” you love. Do you have anything else in support of your position?
“I´m trying to talk about God, and you keep talking about the Bible.”
No, as I see it, you are not trying to talk about God. You’re trying to talk about imaginary categories such as “pure actuality.” But I don’t wish to be unfair. What, or what else, do you have to say about God?
“No, there is an important difference between what you said and what I said. What I am saying is that actuality and potentiality are theoretical properties, and I am further saying that God is a theoretical entity. You have assumed that actuality and potentiality are real properties and that God is a real being. But you have not established the reality of either God or Aristotle’s categories. For the sake of discussion, I am willing to grant you “If God exists then he would be a pure actuality.” Please notice the “if.” Now, what is the point you are trying to make with all of this?”
ReplyDeleteOk, instead of saying wrong you can say only if God exists.
“You might be correct about what eventually happens to the concept of dark matter. But everything you’ve said supports my contention that “The existence of dark matter is asserted from empirical and mathematical foundations.” The assertion will stand or fall on those foundations. In contrast, the assertion of the existence of God has no similar empirical and mathematical foundations. If it does – and perhaps I am wrong about this – then please show me these foundations.
It can be so easy! Why don´t you Hairs God instead of Dark Matter? Now we have the empirical ans mathematical foundation of God, an antropomorfic God that keeps the galaxies togheter with His hairs. Also we can asume scientifically demostrated God because abiogenesis is not possible with the actual kwoledge of biochemistry. And we can demostrate the existaance of God until we can demostrate the existance of the Higgin´s Boson.
You give me something I never tought exist the empirical and mathematical foundation of God.
“I do indeed deny the existence of God, with as much certainty as is intellectually honest.”
So you deny something there is a chance exists.
“I reject your assertion that, if God existed, I would have no moral authority criticize him. If God existed and he was responsible for my existence, he would nevertheless have no permanent authority over me or my behavior. He would not be allowed to demand anything from me in return for my existence”
In your words, this is your worship. Any empirical or not empirical prove about that?
“It is possible that God is Love (and I have given you a definition of love). It is possible that Mog is Love. It is possible that God is a nasty surprise in a sandwich.”
And according our mind we cannot be sure that any of that possibilities are wrong. But you still denies all of them.
“However, what’s actual – as opposed to possible – are the behaviors of God as documented in the Bible, if you believe the Bible. I reserve my right to disapprove of that behavior and to call it wicked.”
Again, this is your worship. Any empirical or not empirical prove about that?
“No, as I see it, you are not trying to talk about God. You’re trying to talk about imaginary categories such as “pure actuality.” But I don’t wish to be unfair. What, or what else, do you have to say about God?”
And you? What were you talking? aren´t this imaginary categories:?
empirical basis,
observed reality
theorizing garbage
mistaking
hypotesis
facts
emotion
love
just/injust
wrong
murder
fullfill
definition.
"It can be so easy! Why don´t you Hairs God instead of Dark Matter? Now we have the empirical ans mathematical foundation of God, an antropomorfic God that keeps the galaxies togheter with His hairs. Also we can asume scientifically demostrated God because abiogenesis is not possible with the actual kwoledge of biochemistry. And we can demostrate the existaance of God until we can demostrate the existance of the Higgin´s Boson."
ReplyDeleteI am sorry but I am having great difficulty reading and understanding this. Your abiogenesis comment seems like an argument from ignorance (we don't understand abiogenesis yet, therefore God). Same thing with your comment on the hypothetical Higgs boson. In both cases, abiogenesis and Higgs, you are not providing any positive empirical or mathematical data to support your contention that God exists.
"So you deny something there is a chance exists."
Yes I do, but you have not read carefully, as seems to be a bad habit of yours. You have conveniently forgotten to see that I added "with as much certainty as is intellectually honest." I am denying God with less than 100% certainty but as much as is reasonable.
What is your certainty of God's existence? 50 percent? 20 percent? 99 percent? Why?
"In your words, this is your worship. Any empirical or not empirical prove about that?"
I'm sorry, but again I cannot understand what you are trying to communicate. I don't see where you get the word "worship," but I think you misunderstand what that word means.
"And according our mind we cannot be sure that any of that possibilities [possibilities such as "God is Love," etc.] are wrong. But you still denies all of them."
It may be true that you and I cannot be sure that the possibilities we have discussed are wrong. But then neither can we be sure they are correct, right? I suppose you think I am being intellectually arrogant or delusional, but I think this discussion shows that to be untrue.
As usual, you end your comment and you have not said one word about God. This is exactly why Atheists have to talk about God, because believers cannot do it and are unwilling to. You don't worship God but yourself and you are desperate not to have to admit it.
Let's shift a bit, since you don't want to talk about God. You mentioned before that you had some sort of experience with God. Do I have this correct? If so, would you please share what your experience was?
“I am sorry but I am having great difficulty reading and understanding this. Your abiogenesis comment seems like an argument from ignorance (we don't understand abiogenesis yet, therefore God). Same thing with your comment on the hypothetical Higgs boson. In both cases, abiogenesis and Higgs, you are not providing any positive empirical or mathematical data to support your contention that God exists.”
ReplyDelete1) Gravity fails to explain some observation.
2) You accept it as positive empirical and mathematical evidence of “dark matter”
3)Dark matter and God are hipoteticals entities that can explain what gravity fails
4) Mathematical evidence of God.
Other 1s that can bring to 4s
Biochemistry fails to explain polimerization of RNA prove of God
Fisics fails to explain Bif Bang and create Higgs boson prove of God
I do not beleave this is true, this is what your way of thinking follows. Relaying on science do not prevent asserting the existence of imaginary being
"with as much certainty as is intellectually honest."
Honest: isn´t it an imaginary category? Why are you always talking about this imaginary categories?
I am denying God with less than 100% certainty but as much as is reasonable.
Youcan explain as many times you want, it remains a contradiction to deny something you are not sure exist.
What is your certainty of God's existence? 50 percent? 20 percent? 99 percent? Why?
100%, but I reached by my own only 50%, the other fifty is a gift.
“Let's shift a bit, since you don't want to talk about God. You mentioned before that you had some sort of experience with God. Do I have this correct? If so, would you please share what your experience was?”
Reading G.K. Chesterton “Orthodoxy” My mind was opened and I understood my consciousness is not wrong.
"I do not beleave this is true, this is what your way of thinking follows."
ReplyDeleteEvery time you try to characterize my "way of thinking," you get it wrong. Why don't you ask me what I think instead of trying to tell me what I think?
"Youcan explain as many times you want, it remains a contradiction to deny something you are not sure exist."
No, it's not a contradiction. To deny the existence of something means to express doubt that it exists. By denying, I signify that I have very serious doubts. Fortunately, I also have empirical and logical evidence that points much more to explanations other than "God." Indeed, I have real evidence that leads away from a god explanation and you have no evidence that leads toward a god explanation (your arguments from ignorance, notwithstanding).
Your position, on the other hand, is irrational. You assert the existence of God although you cannot be sure he actually exists. Of course, you also affirm the existence of Mog, whom I made up on the spot, which means that you have acted as an idolater before your professed Lord.
In any case, for you to claim 100% certainty of God's existence is intellectual arrogance, especially since it seems your closest "experience" of God is reading something by G.K. Chesterton. I thought maybe God had talked to you or something like that.
But again, you are not interested in God. I find God fascinating. What do you make (no pun intended) of Deuteronomy 23:12-14?
"You shall also have a place outside the camp and go out there, and you shall have a spade among your tools, and it shall be when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and shall turn to cover up your excrement."
"Since the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to defeat your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy; and He must not see anything indecent among you or He will turn away from you."
What is it you do in real life, Blas?
Wow Larry Great arguments. I love your precise answers and explanations. It amazes me that 95 percent of the US believes though i just read a report that mexicans went from 6 %-12% as non religious. I will use some of your arguments if it is ok with you as they are spot on. I have to go now and worship the flying spaghetti monster and put on my pirate outfit while reading "Godless" by Dan Barker.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing he's a grammar teacher. Just kidding. Actually he sounds more like a student. An elementary school student. Sorry for the Ad Hominem attacks but wow, Larry, you sure have an infinite amount of patience it seems.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you call or classify "God"?
ReplyDeletelarry, your fighting an uphill battle wearing roller skates in the rain...like my metaphor? People like Joshua and Steve are very stuck in their ways much like we are about Atheism, it is a romantic ideal to think you can make some kind of intellectual head way against them. I love to discuss religion and God's and such, but it all just leads to this : "Logic, logic, logic, long words, logic" VS. "belief, belief, belief, incoherence, belief"
ReplyDeleteI hope that wasn't too confusing, but I like reading your posts Larry, keep thinking free.
James,
ReplyDeleteThanks, but I am not fighting anyone. I know I tend to bait and "trash talk" a little, but really my personal agenda is simply to express my reasoning in as precise and honest a way as possible.
In blogs and life, it's difficult not to parrot someone else or put on a front. It's difficult to be genuine. But this is really my goal.
I'm tired of hearing the terms faith and belief. They both mean "I don't know" Don't tell me what you "believe" in, tell me what you know and only what you can show proof of.
ReplyDelete