A few days ago, Rabbi Adam Jacobs posted an Open Letter to the Atheist Community on the Huffington Post. Since he more or less began with 'atheists don't really exist' I found it arrogant, offensive and ignorant and unworthy of my time to respond. Jacob claims he was a former atheist. His understanding of atheism ( and science, for that matter), however, is so inaccurate that it's no wonder atheism (and science) do not 'work' for him.
However, there were some excellent replies, and I'd like to direct you to one by the Philadelphia Atheism Examiner, Staks Rosch, and present another here - a guest column by Philadelphian Dr. Glen Loev, a retired dentist and member of the Board of Directors of the Freethought Society. Glen engaged in an email discussion with a friend of his about the article, and this piece is addressing that.
Here, then, are Glen's thoughts about Rabbi Jacob's commentary. I thank Glen for giving me permission to post this.
---
I will do my best to keep this reply as concise as I can, and although there are many points, I will touch on the most "important" (Plus the ones that are easiest to rebut. Although in this case they are often the same. :-) As usual, I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts in reply...
To take on his points, one-by-one:
1) That there are no "true atheists". His fallacy is that the term "atheist" does not refer to someone who is 100% certain that there are no gods. I know of not one who makes that claim, either personally, from meetings/lectures, or from books or famous people, like Dawkins, Hitchens, Weinberg, etc. (as mentioned in the article). It doesn't take much thought to realize that it is impossible to prove 100% that anything does not exist. Atheists have simply reached the conclusion, and therefore believe (that is, go on the working assumption (until shown evidence otherwise!) that the chance of their being any gods is very very very small. Similarly, while we don't use the term, one could correctly be referred to as an "a-pink-unicornist" for holding the belief that pink unicorns are fictional, even though one can't say that they don't exist with absolute certainty.
2) That because there are "experts" on each side of an issue, therefore the result is always going to be a "draw". First, the vast majority of top scientists, in the U.S. at least, some 95% I think, are atheists/agnostics. (I can hunt up the link to support that if you wish.) This claim is like saying that because there are some scientists who say that global warming is nonsense, or that there are a few scientists who still say that smoking doesn't cause cancer, that those issues will always be a "draw" and so we can't come to any conclusions. It's doubtful that it will ever be possible to resolve this to everyone's satisfaction, let alone prove one way or the other is absolutely right. Still, evidence continues to mount on the side of the scientific method (reducing the "gaps" in our knowledge that the concept of supernatural gods explains), and none forthcoming from any of the religious communities (or any god, for that matter, who could chose to let us know, with an obvious miracle demonstrating "his" existance any time he wanted). It seems to me that in the future religions will lose their appeal based on their incorrect factual claims, and (I hope) remain as sources for exploring good ethical and moral ideas.
3) That (I have to quote his line, because he has the rebuttal already in his statement, although he doesn't realize it! The rabbi is not such a clever guy, it seems.) "You will point out all of the violence carried out in religion's name. We will point out that equally severe evils have been perpetrated by secularists such as Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot." Note that the rabbi mentioned violence carried out in religion's name. There are many examples of course, including the biblical accounts of genocide, to the inquisition in the middle ages, the crusades, the pogroms of eastern europe, to the Jihadists of recent years, Sept. 11th. and just recently, the poor governor in Pakistan who was murdered because he dared take the side of a Christian woman who said something unflattering about Mohammed. And much much more. Yes, unfortunately there have been non-religious bad guys as well. Hitler was Catholic, and never renounced his religion, and actually made statements affirming his faith, BTW. But the point is, the non-religious tyrants did not commit their atrocities in the name of atheism, rather because they were ruthless dictators. Sam Harris put it so well: "People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable. - Sam Harris, December 24, 2006, Los Angeles Times"
4) That religious people are correct in the belief that science has its limitations, but atheists don't accept that point. Wrong. Atheists also accept that there are limits to the scientific method; Subjects such as art, literary fiction, morality, the experience of emotions, etc. are beyond the scope of science. What atheists object to, are the claims by religions that do fall into science's purview: The claim that any gods actually exist, not as an idea, but as something real, as well as the historical accuracy of certain events and miracles, is something that the scientific method is appropriate to use, in order to separate fact from fiction. Claims that that the earth is some 5000 yrs. old. Religious people apparently ignore the scientific method when it suits their purpose, that is, when it is in conflict with their faith.
5) That because Jews have contributed to the development of western morality, and to the betterment of mankind, that atheists are wrong in saying that religions are inherently bad. I am of the impression that a very big majority of atheists don't think that religions are inherently bad; rather that they are inherently wrong in their foundational claims. Although I do feel it is a bad thing in general to believe claims that don't have evidence to support them. This is "magical" thinking, and is not a good way for people to make sound judgements. By promoting uncritical acceptance of dictates from unfounded sources, it can lead people to believe all kinds of nonsense - alien abductions, superstitions, faith healers and other quacks, and worse - if its OK to suspend your rational analytic thinking, a critical, challenging, "show me the evidence" approach, then one will be more easily swayed by the charismatic leader, even if that leader is a tyrant.
6) That atheists believe the complexity of the universe and of life on earth is purely random, and that we have "faith" in untestable scientific theories. Response Part one: Yes, there are random events at the bottom of evolution, but there is also natural selection; the junk disappears and the changes that are advantageous in some way remain, that way improvements build on improvements, and there's no need for a supernatural guiding being to push things in any particular direction. Response Part 2: Atheists (scientists) do NOT have faith in their (our) theories. Theories are the best current explanation that accounts for all available evidence. When new evidence comes along, theories are updated or tossed. It's not faith. There are some fundamental assumptions, "beliefs" if you will, but none are dogma; all are open to modification, and based on experience and observation. This is the opposite of faith.
7) That even Darwin believed in God (the implication being that if he did, everyone should). Darwin was a very bright, insightful guy, and a wonderful scientist - but also a product of his time. He lived in the mid 1800's, at the very beginning of the industrial revolution, when modern science was really in its childhood. Just as Thomas Jefferson was a wonderful, brilliant man, with great ideas about forming a new, better system of government, still he, also a product if his time, was a slaveholder. We can't know, but I would bet that if Darwin had been born in 1950 instead of 1830, the chances that he would have been an atheist are much greater. (Note by CER: Darwin's beliefs in a God are questionable at best. There are numerous writings of his in which he discusses this. Whether he was atheist or not, he most assuredly questioned the existence of deities and felt there was no evidence for them. See the Wiki article "Charles Darwin's religious views"
------
My thanks to Glen for his generous permission to post his thoughts. We invite your response!
Comments
Thank you, Carol, for another fabulous article! I really admire your commitment to our cause. By the way, I can say with absolute certainty that there are no gods. None!
Thank you, Glen! Sorry! I got the authors confused!
Wow. There must of been a huge turnover in scientists since this study in 2005: http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-disc...
I am curious to see where the 95% quote comes from, since they offered to cite.
I believe the 95% number is actually members of the National Academy of Sciences, not all scientists.
@Noble Baker, even putting the question of "greater" and "lesser" scientists aside, I see no data to support that - BUT I can find similar unfounded assertations.
Here's another study that answers that question in a more direct way to what was posited and comes up with lesser numbers: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Men of science who are using unsupported claims to construct their positions is not only a peeve, but I would argue such should exclude them from any "greater" scientist column, if not science itself.
85% of American Academy of Sciences are Atheists. The type of science done makes a big difference. Biologists being least likely to believe and mathematicians and Physicists the most likely. The abstract vs concrete nature could be the key (Fuller 2010), His article largely argues against atheism, so is unlikely to be biased in the wrong direction.
Fuller, S. 2010. What has Atheism ever done for science? p. 57-78 in Religion and the New Atheism: A critical appraisal. Brill.
I find this statistic in his text ironic considering what he is trying to argue.
George P. Stavropoulos
e-mail: stavropoulos34@ath.forthnet.gr
www.thefreegpdlibrary.edu.gr
Dear Atheists, Agnostics, "Believers": Feb.16, 2011.
You must consider whether there is any law that does not unfailingly imply its own pre-existing lawgiver!
Man-made laws affect human affairs. Lawmen spend their lives trying to avoid conflicts in law! So, a solid fact demands a clear and honest answer:
Fact: The law of gravitation is universal; from it, absolutely nothing material escapes!
Question: Whom did the law have as its own lawgiver?
Before building anything, engineers apply their intellect to the task before them. If the world were built, an Intellect must have applied Itself to that task!
I, an engineer/scientist, have satisfactorily asked and answered the question, using the never failing complete dimensional analysis of Newton's law! The findings debunk the theory of relativity, and question the foundations of the quantum theory found wanting by both Einstein and Dirac! The findings presented to science in 1986 have not been overturned and are still being suppressed!
Current methods and theories have come nowhere near providing the answers the dimensional analysis gives!
Forgetting all prejudices, please study the website included in the letterhead, and let the world know!
Comments, and if there exists solid disproof are welcome!!!
GPS—
You are making a category mistake. Law is a word that can have different meanings (6 according to Merriam Webster online). In this case you are referring to human laws in one case: "a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2)". There you have a lawgiver, a "controlling authority". In the other case you are referring to laws of nature: "a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions". This does not imply a lawgiver; it is simply an observation of the way things work. Consider that it is possible to disregard human laws, but it is not possible to disregard laws of nature.
Dear Noble Baker:
If you are referring to my comment, please note that we are not slaves of what past dictionaries defined, but are free to consider the objective hard facts, APART from theories and hypotheses: A law is a law, and as such it implies its author, known or unknown it matters not. The crucial question is: who instituted the laws of nature—in ALL their mathematical stringency? Surely the Democritean atoms did NOT know mathematics, nor did they convene in congress to institute the mathematical laws of their future behavior! So, WHO made them behave according to Law? The analysis of Newton's law and the observed hard natural facts show that the universe behaves in exact recognition of its own UNFOLDING FINITE age! Thus, the law it obeys WAS PRIOR to its zero age, whether we like it or not!
If you have the training to think both as a STRICT Logician AND a Scientist, kindly consider thinking afresh! We have NOT been taught all we need to know in the strictest of terms! Leave the trodden path and study my website!
GPS—
Dear GPS,
You might want to read my reply to you again. Why is it possible to disregard a human law but not a natural law? Doesn't that imply that they are different? There are many words in English that can have multiple meanings. Maybe this is not the case in Greek. That might be the source of your confusion.
I did try to visit your website but it does not seem to work.
Many years ago I watched a documentary on people who still believed that the moon walk was a hoax. I remember in particular one man who told the interviewer, “You will never convince me that the moon walk was real.”
This is the challenge with most “believers.” They believe because they want to believe and for no other reason. To take their god away is to take their worldview away, and they’ve invested so much of their life into it that they refuse to let it go. Therefore, they must try to defend it, no matter how silly their arguments.
This isn’t a logical debate. If it were, I suspect they’re be a lot more atheists or agnostics. If nothing else, those on the “pro-god” side wouldn’t be so desperate to defend their beliefs even against observable science. It’s an emotional debate. Those who still cling to god do so out of fear, which is visible in many of their arguments. They fear being alone in the Universe. They fear that there isn’t someone to run their lives because they feel out of control. They fear that if they get it wrong there will be punishment forever. They fear that on their own, they can have no purpose. Basically, they fear being alone (or being on their own—I call it—growing up). Most of their arguments are simply a list of their fears.
Atheists don't get to come to God when they are burning in hell! Think about it!
Huh?
Perhaps you should have put some thought into this.
You may be Anonymous here, but God knows what you did last Summer! See you in hell, sucker! :-)
So you believe in and worship an entity that would create me knowing that I am destined to be tortured for eternity? You seem like a really horrible person!
apastafarians don't get to come to the Stripper Factory or Beer Volcano! Think about it!
Repent, or yee shall have flat beer and strippers with herpes! The pastafarian hell awaits, think about it!
George P. Stavropoulos
e-mail: stavropoulos34@ath.forthnet.gr
www.thefreegpslibrary.edu.gr
Dear Noble Baker:
You and all please forgive me! The mistake truly was wholly mine! My CORRECT website address is as NOW shown above!
I read your first reply again! I request that you begin thinking afresh! Human laws ARE subject to OUR free will. The Laws obeyed by the Universe are NOT! Newton did NOT institute the law of gravity, he only discovered its controlling ALL matter! What the correct dimensional analysis of it does is showing how truly intertwined are ALL mathematical laws, physical properties and complete constitution of the material universe. All this demonstrates Intelligence having had been at hard work BEFORE the material universe came into being at age 0, that marked the beginning of PHYSICAL time!
If you will, send me your e-mail address and I shall send you additional introductory material showing what current theories swallow up unchewed!
Dear "Believers":
God is everywhere! So, He is in Hell too; or, rather, it in Him! His Love soothes and refreshes, or burns, according to how WE stand before the Truth, which it takes Courage to face and to love! Most priests choose to scare you, not to make you stand tall and erect, both in body and intellect!
GPS—
First scientific laws are not equal to legal laws. Legal laws are rules that people make to restrict what other people should do; scientific laws are descriptions of the way certain things occur in nature, they are not made, only studied.
Second, Newton's laws, while found useful in low gravitation environments such as on planets, don't work well for higher gravitational environments. That's where Einstein's theories came to be more effective. But if you really were a physicist, I would expect you to already know that. see here for more: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/einstein.html
Stavropoulos...Just no.
A scientific "Law" is not an order or a command. If it was an existent thing (like a legal "law" is) then you would run into the dualistic paradox where two unlike things (Laws and physical entities) are unable to interact. The Law is a description which was created by man. The process is inherent to the physical makeup of the constituent entities. The fact that two puzzle pieces fit together doesn't mean that there is a law of puzzle pieces that forced them together. It is merely the intersection of two physical objects that have well recognized physical properties (such as mass).
The only grand mystery is why people come up with such inane ideas as divinely commanded laws which force the universe to behave according to the rules.
As an unapologetic atheist, I don't care what the Rabbi or any other believer thinks. They have their opinion and I have mine. That is all that matters. Quibbling about who is right and who is wrong is pointless since none of us have "the inside scoop". We just each have our own personal beliefs.
There was a time when after some blowhard believer said something provocative, I would get pissed and say something equally provocative - but I soon realized we weren't getting anywhere. We were both just pissing in the wind. Therefore, to all you faithful flamers, flame away and be satisfied in your beliefs if they make you feel good; just know that many of us without beliefs are completely satisfied with our lack of belief and life in general and feeling just fine.
Dear D'n:
Kindly confess, if you truly have the wherewithal, that there is a crucial difference between a "scientific law" and a Law of Nature. I am talking ONLY of the latter! And I dare ask "WHAT ARE ITS FULL ANTECEDENT AND CONSEQUENT INTELLECTUAL, LOGICAL, MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL SOURCES AND EFFECTS, as the case may be"? Intellect, Logic and Mathematics are NOT products of chance or indeterminacy!
Kindly consider not exposing yourself by demonstrating ignorance of the related matters, confusion, denial of inescapable conclusions, fear of asking, fear of learning, denial of having been misled, ignorance of the power of the dimensional analysis of scientific equations guaranteeing both their own correctness and the correctness of their consequences!
If you have the courage to learn, just open the website and STUDY! Anything else is desperate obfuscation attempting to pass as knowledge! All those who have been challenged since 1986 and have found no counterargument to do them honor, are not fools! They simply hide in their own silence! Having found that their boat leaks badly, tremble at the thought of rocking it, lest it sink with them still on it!
Do yourself the honor not to stand by them!
GPS—
“Intellect, Logic and Mathematics are NOT products of chance or indeterminacy!”
But they are constructs of human thinking. Humans measure intellect based on purely arbitrary measures, such as how well you can read and write (human language), how well the individual can recognize spatial distribution (a human construct), how well an individual can memorize facts and figures (also human). By our human definition of intellect, Albert Einstein was told he would never amount to anything. Logic is also a human construct. Logic is defined partly as “reasoning.” Well where does that come from? We “reason” how the world around us works, but it still comes back to an individual approach. We defined what logic is, how it functions, and how it applies to all of our disciplines—then we teach it to the next generation, adding new insights from our own experience. Mathematics is simply how humans measure and describe their universe. While the principles or functions of mathematics are universal, the “definition,” or the description is human. Even in mathematics, it’s all based on human input. 2+2=4… supposedly. However, if I have to apples, and I add two oranges, do I have four apples? No. But I do have four pieces of fruit. So what 2+2= is still subject to human definition. So even in mathematics, there’s an element of human construct to make it work.
2
Everything you’ve mentioned here is purely human in construction and whether or not it needs consciousness to function is still being debated. The Universe functions on its own without any outside help. In about seven billion years when our own sun swells to swallow us and then implodes upon itself, the universe will still be expanding on its own, without us telling it that only god can make it do so.
So you’re right, they not products of chance. They’re products of human thought.
Dear Ben Tousey:
That we are the ONLY species we know possessing and using Intellect, Logic and Mathematics does NOT logically make us the unique possessors of them! But what really are we? Materially, what other than a collection of the ultimate Democritean atoms arranged in a PARTICULAR pattern? Would you insist that Intellect, Logic and Mathematics are qualities of the Democritean atoms and the products of chance and indeterminacy? Or that WE are mere chancy and indeterminate assemblages of those particles? Is it not beyond dispute that we largely (except for most unfortunate freak accidents) reproduce our pattern? Do you really believe that this happens by chance and indeterminacy? If not, how is it done if not by LAW, that WE have NOT instituted? Would you say that the original Democritean atoms convened in congress and agreed that some of them get so arranged as to produce and reproduce our pattern that we observe? Would not that constitute a Law seeing to our being as we are? Would you not agree that laws see to desirable objectives? What then will you say was the exact ultimate objective of the Democritean atoms that convened in congress in order to bring us into being, so that through us that objective be attained? Are you really prepared to assign to Democritean atoms qualities they CANNOT POSSIBLY have, that you refuse to assign to God?
First of all, George, I don't know what you mean by "chance." It's taken billions of years of evolution to get us to where we are at this point. That's not chance per se, that's a lot of trial and error. A billion years gives nature a lot of time to tweak it's product.
And finally, if we follow your logic, the only conclusion we can arrive at is that god, however you define it, was also created at the big bang. Nothing existed before the big bang, not even god. Therefore, if there is a god, it was created at the big bang and is itself a product of evolution.
2
Besides, the Universe, of which the Democritean atoms are its basic constituent parts, HAS a CERTAIN age. Before its age zero, it simply did NOT exist! What, then, brought it as a whole into being? The "energy of the field"? But these are concepts WE HAVE DEVISED EX POST FACTO in order to "explain" the Universe! So, we may NOT use them as the ANTECEDENT CAUSE of the universe! In order to avoid any antecedent cause, you are obliged to accept the universe as having always been there, of having an infinite age! But you forget that what we call the law of gravitation is the one side of the coin, other side of which is the law of the expansion of the universe, moderated by its self-gravitation! Even so, if the universe has always been, its age is already infinite, and accordingly, it ought to have had already dispersed into the bottomless abyss where NOTHING can be seen, let alone intelligently converse!
If you can intelligently resolve all these matters without the ANTECEDENT CAUSE we simply call God, I will tip my hat to you!
Confess that our wellbeing (for which we seem to care exclusively, which hardly distinguishes us from all other animals except for our still underdeveloped intellect!) must be spent to achieving an objective consciously set higher than at the level of animals, that cooly seen, and left on their own, produce only feces!!! Can just that be an acceptable objective for a civilized(?) human society?
Ben, as I open the computer, I find your comment (posted 12 hours ago) following the FIRST part of my answer to you. So, you MISSED the second part of my answer posted 16 hours ago, and only 3 minutes after the first part!
You say you miss my meaning of chance. You have not read the pertinent articles in the "Encyclopedia of Ignorance", nor my analysis (in one of my books offered in my http://www.thefreegpslibrary.edu.gr site) of the method of R. Dawkins as presented in his "The Blind Watchmaker". The method of trial and error implies that the evolutionary process has an UNKNOWABLE and thus UNCERTAIN objective "in mind" that it does not know how to construct once and for all, but SOMEHOW at each step SELECTS (i.e., LOCKS ON) a particular result on which it PREFERABLY continues building! HOW does it know how to make THAT selection by which an UNKNOWABLE and thus UNCERTAIN objective can be reached at some UNKNOWN future time? Very many lower animals have been around very much longer than we have and are doing O.K.! So, they MUST be judged MORE adaptable than we are! For WHAT purpose are we needed for evolution to construct US? And where are the fossils of all those innumerable trials that did not make it? Confess that without an objective, the trial-and-error method has no place, and the "coin" IS AT EVERY STEP TOSSED; so, there can be NO "locking in"!
You could also read The Spiritual Universe by Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D. He's a physicist that claims that the reason we're here is because of "spirit's" or the "universe's" addiction to matter, and therefore out of the Dirac sea it must constantly manifest. He's got enough physics behind him to at least make a valid point.
As to fossils, what do you think dinosaurs are? We have tons of evidence of things that nature threw away. You can step into any museum and see evidence of nature's past attempts.
Before I would read your analysis, aka your book, I would first have to check out a couple of things. First of all, your credentials. What universities have you taught for? Has your work been peer reviewed? What research have you done? What does you bibliography look like? Are you a scientist or a fundamentalist trying to prove a point (despite what ID says, you cannot be both). Those are all things I look for when I pick up a book. Since I am not a physicist myself, (though I do have friends who are) this is how I assure that I can trust the books I'm reading.
2
Ben, Also please read the "Physics Has Its Principles" in http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp, discussing the Causality Principle.
Greetings!
I think we can all agree in the existence of the FSM.
Dear Ben:
It saddens me that you do not read carefully: Face it: It is either Law or Chance, and NOTHING escapes, even the in-womb processes! Where are the fossils of the ABORTED monstrosities, even those of dinosaurs? Where are the (FAR FAR MORE than us perfect specimens) MALFORMED humans that somehow can still walk the streets despite the in-womb accidents they suffered that were not life-critical? So, where indeed hides Chance? In its absence we only have LAW, AND some rare accidents TO REMIND US what is normal, i.e., under the LAW, that implies LAWGIVER, no but or ifs!
I do not waste my time reading science fiction; I prefer to question and think through every word, to fit it in the unquestionable hard facts! I do not trust-believe books others tell me to, until after I find them to contain no self-contradictions AND to agree with the hard facts, NOT with the suppositions of the "famous"! Consider: The Nobel money rewards ARE blood-stained! Think of TNT! The main interest of the "peer-review process" is to ensure that the fame of those on top is NOT shaken! It is just another Inquisition! How different is that from the internal mafia operations? You do NOT get to be a professor when suspected to rock the boat, and you ARE dismissed when you do!
(Continuing below)
Credentials? Who accredit them? The Inquisitors? Do you still trust them? Face it: the world IS IN DIRE STRAITS DUE TO ITS TEACHERS! Ask your physicist friends: were they taught to AVOID logical contradictions, ALWAYS to re-examine their assumptions, NEVER to confuse physical quantities and dimensionless numbers (of which BOTH Einstein and B. Russell have been guilty), and to conduct CAREFUL AND COMPLETE DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS OF THEIR EQUATIONS? Ask them to apply it to Newton's Law of Gravitation and show you the results. Then compare them with mine!
Whom I have crossed swords with? Read the 7th and 8th books in my site! Note their WILLFUL evasions and absence of reply! As an educated man, you SHALL understand more than you think! Caution!: Be honest with yourself!
I am GOOD engineer, always questioning the safety and quality of structures and processes, physical and intellectual. I avoided and turned down opportunities to teach, spent all my life in research for a living and studied the material of the 1st book in my spare time, what I had of it! At 76½, I seek no money from this effort, hate exploitation of it by others seeking benefits for themselves, seek no fame; only that I do all I still can to help others see at last the lies still being told as the Truth, whether from the "scientific" or the "religious" camp!
This cannot go on as so far! When you have something CONCRETE send me an e-mail!
Fair well,
GPS—
"I do not waste my time reading science fiction; I prefer to question and think through every word, to fit it in the unquestionable hard facts!"
I kind of gathered that. Most of what I hear from you sound a lot like just plain old "fiction," not a lot of science involved.
Gerorge summed it up, "Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bull*** story. Holy S***!”
Gerorge summed it up, "Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bull*** story. Holy S***!”
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!