<< NOTHING CAN CONVINCE THEM ~ MAIN ~ CAN'T ARGUE WITH SCIENCE >>
BELIEF WATCH
* Most Americans believe in God.
* Most Americans believe in miracles.
* Most Americans believe in the literal truth of Old Testament stories.
* Most Americans believe in creationism.
* Most Americans believe in ghosts.
* Most Americans believe in angels.
* Most Americans believe in global warming.
Maree I don’t believe in any of those either. But I have to say global warming isn’t something that you can believe in or not. It’s either happening or it isn’t.
Posted by Matthew Lawrence on 2007 02 07 at 03:31 AM • permalinkNobody thought to put the Great Pumpkin on that list?
Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2007 02 07 at 03:34 AM • permalinkIt’s grossly unfair that other people have experienced miracles, thereby solidifying their belief in God and increasing their chances of entry to heaven, when I haven’t and am forced to continue wrestling with the uncertainty of how our universe was created, if I have a soul, if I have to go to church to go to heaven - if there is a heaven, or any sort of afterlife - and would I actually like it even if I do make it.
Show me a sign, O Lord, show me a sign! (And please, something obvious, not one of those ambiguous is-it-coincidence-or-Act-of-God signs You’re famous for). I’ve one of those brains that refuses to take a leap of faith - not consciously, anyway.
And if most Australians believed in voodoo, or witchcraft, or astrology, John Howard would have to be very careful to avoid offending them. He’d make noncommittal noises about spells and incantations (“You’ll have to ask Janette about that, heh-heh”), he’d be photographed shaking hands with the Grand Magus, he’d probably have Madame Zingara (“Sees all, knows all”) made Australian of the Year. As it is, he just has to avoid scaring the global warming hysterics.
Dminor asked:
Show me a sign, O Lord, show me a sign! (And please, something obvious, not one of those ambiguous is-it-coincidence-or-Act-of-God signs You’re famous for). I’ve one of those brains that refuses to take a leap of faith - not consciously, anyway.
Careful, many tales of various deities show that they tend to have a very demented sense of humor… ;-)
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2007 02 07 at 03:48 AM • permalinkI believe if you plant a feather a chicken will grow.
I also believe I saw Jesus at the train station recently. He was drinking Penfolds Sweet Sherry and speaking in tongues.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 02 07 at 03:51 AM • permalink“Most Americans believe in God.”
Might as well. Only an irrational person would refuse to believe, because not believing gains you nothing, except the possibity of offending a being who is reputedly all-powerful. OTOH, if you do believe, this is supposedly pleasing to God (and having an all-powerful being on your side is a real, real good thing), and, if it turns out you’re wrong, and there isn’t a God, you lose nothing.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 02 07 at 03:53 AM • permalinkDminor - Do not temp tthe Lord thy God. Please refer to Deuteronomy 6. You are asking to be smoten!
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 02 07 at 03:54 AM • permalinkI believe Richmond will win the premiership.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 02 07 at 03:56 AM • permalinkPeople believe in stuff, it’s just a question of what. There are positive ‘myths’ that encapsulate life-affirming truths and, on the other hand, unmitigated bullshit that serves to drive whole societies, lemming-like, off cliffs.
Apparently Americans are stupid because they went in for God, economic enterprise and liberty rather than Marxism. How’s that worker’s paradise working out for you, Boris? Da, you heap big secular humanist, in Soviet Russia, gulag imprison you!.
How you going there, North Korea? That whole communism thing been a success? How’s the glorious islamic caliphate of Afghanistan holding up these days? How’s that European socialist welfare state going? In fifty years the taxes from one spotty French teenage McDonalds worker will be supporting seven octogenarians and two hundred and forty-eight muslims. They’ll have to tax that kid at 4000% of what he earns.
Poor credulous America.
“Deuteronomy 6”
Now, you have a problem because you have to figure out which God you’re going to obey.
Luckily for me, no Gods are currently demanding that I do this that or the other, therefore I’m at little risk of of being destroyed from the face of the land.
I hope.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 02 07 at 04:07 AM • permalink“Most Americans believe in miracles.”
Just the other day I heard a lefty tell the truth.
Miracles do happen.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 02 07 at 04:10 AM • permalinkI caught the doco on SBS about infamous US atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair on SBS last night. While it’s clear she was a gadfly and serial provocateur, the heat she took from both institutional America and many individuals does call into question just how her Constitutional freedoms were respected.
Personally I’m a non-prostelysing atheist myself, perfectly happy should anyone find strength and comfort in religious belief. But unable to swallow the basic premise myself. The whole God the creator thing, intent on micro-managing everything and everyone.It just seems much less plausible than the big bang/evolution theorum. But that’s just me.
#14, Amos,
God’s okay as long as people keep it to themselves. I have a quiet belief that sustains me. However, I would never in a minute inflict it on you or anyone else. That was always the trouble with communism, and it always will be the trouble with islam, if you don’t believe you must be forced to believe.
As long as its not compulsory I dont care what people believe. If they take a polite no when they do doorknocking I dont mind that either. I dont like being “guilted” into being nicer because they bring a child with them though, that shits me.
Never had these “religous” tracts yet though
This cult was mainly made up of ex-hippies.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 02 07 at 04:26 AM • permalink“Most Americans believe in the literal truth of Old Testament stories.”
So what? It isn’t going to hurt you if you believe that God created the heavens and the earth in seven days, and it isn’t going to help you if you refuse to believe it.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 02 07 at 04:27 AM • permalinkAustralian and believe in all of the above; although unsure about the extent of global warming and the proper exegesis of the Old Testament (how much is history and how much myth, etc.)
Still waiting for God to appear in apocalyptic glory declaring ‘Yes Ben, it’s all true, you’ve been right all along and I suggest you buy stock in BHP sometime in the next month’ though. Let me know how you go with that, dminor, I might hassle you for tips later on if it all works out.
And all of those rely on faith as opposed to rational facts or science. Still as long as they keep working hard and making the US successful who cares?
Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge on 2007 02 07 at 04:34 AM • permalink“It just seems much less plausible than the big bang/evolution theorum.”
Practical skepticism:
It’s safer not to believe in the big bang theory than not to believe in God, because you won’t burn in hellfire for eternity if you refuse to believe in the big bang. Risking the wrath of a few astronomers and theoretical physicists doesn’t worry me too much.
Also, I haven’t ever seen any primordial monoblocs explode into a full blown universe.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 02 07 at 04:35 AM • permalinkGee, who really cares about these polls since most of the world believes in a God, or some gods or a belief in a higher reality and has been for thousands of years. They don’t tell us anything new.
It is what some people do with it that can be a problem (i.e. Islamists). Why don’t these idiotic journalists go to the Middle East, interview the population there and then see how may of them believe that the infidels should die, as guided by Islamic religious beliefs?
Posted by The Best Infidel on 2007 02 07 at 04:49 AM • permalink#24, Dave Surls, “Most Americans believe in the literal truth of Old Testament stories.”
Most muslims believe in the truth of the koran.
“So what? It isn’t going to hurt you…”
Umm, yes it is, if you and Mohammed get into an argument. Why not keep it all under the belt? I couldn’t give a flying f… what a person’s religion is, as long as it’s not in my face.
One of the most fascinating developments of the recent century is the voluntary dying off of secular societies. It seems God can do without man but man can’t do without God, and I say that as an atheist.
Any western non-believer had better come to terms with this reality or the muslims win by default and spread their inferior culture to ex-Christian territories though the sheer abdication of reproductive responsibility by those ex-Christian societies. As far as I can tell, it’s a phenomena with absolutely no historical precedent. The Romans had to destroy themselves with civil war before anyone else could take them down. What’s happening in the post-religious west is truly bizarre.
“Congressional Global Warming Poll: 95% of Democrats Buy It, 84% of GOP Don’t”.
Posted by Ed Driscoll on 2007 02 07 at 05:06 AM • permalinkWho burns in hellfire for eternity?
1# A pedo,murderer or thief that believes in God
2# An atheist
Posted by armageddon on 2007 02 07 at 05:11 AM • permalink“#27 Nor have I successfully assembled a working television set by slamming a box of components against a wall.”
Bob, that’s an exercise in futility, because even if you pull it off, all you’ll have is a working television set.
IMO, it’s more desirable to take a working television set and then use the wall to reduce it to a set of components.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 02 07 at 05:14 AM • permalink#27 Dave Surls:
I don’t know where you get your definition of scepticism from, but I believe it is a questioning of accepted belief or dogma.
#28 Texas Bob:
A poor analogy. TV haven’t always existed, they evolved from simpler electronic devices and instruments, and before that non electronic components.I make my own mind up in this world, not having to refer to ancient texts or asking inane questions to an Imam.
#30
You need to read what I said again.
As far as I can tell, no one has EVER been harmed by simply believing that the stories told in the Old Testament are the literal truth.
It isn’t going to shorten your life expectancy if you believe that Adam and Eve got booted out of the Garden of Eden.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 02 07 at 05:19 AM • permalinkMine eyes have seen the Gore movie
And been quite overawed;
He is trampling on the skeptics
With his scenes of wilting sward.
He hath loosed the loose consensus
Gainst which we can’t say a word,
Debate is now forsworn.Gore-y Gore-y sees right through ya,
Gore-y Gore-y sees right through ya,
Gore-y Gore-y sees right through ya,
Debate is now foresworn.“#27 Dave Surls: I don’t know where you get your definition of scepticism from, but I believe it is a questioning of accepted belief or dogma.”
A better definition…
Sceptic
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
If someone asserts that it’s a fact that the sun rises in the west, even though this isn’t a generally accepted fact, I’m sceptical of the claim, just the same.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 02 07 at 05:30 AM • permalinkAnd as an American, I respond:
* Most Americans believe in God. Yes
* Most Americans believe in miracles. Yes
* Most Americans believe in the literal truth of Old Testament stories. Yes
* Most Americans believe in creationism. Yes
* Most Americans believe in ghosts. No
* Most Americans believe in angels. Yes
* Most Americans believe in global warming. Is this a trick question?
5 out of 7. I’m 71% on the way to being a Most American I guess.O/T
Tim, can we have a poll for most ordinary Aus Parliamentarian?
I nominate Senator, the Honorable Christine Milne.
Green, check.
In on a casual vacancy, check.
Shrill and ineffectual, you bet.She’s got the lot!
Posted by boxofmatches on 2007 02 07 at 05:42 AM • permalinkI’m not going to get into a religious debate. Just want to mention that the argument in #9 is a tremendously goofy argument that is equally applicable to Islam. Or anything else, for that matter.
David Koresh was the second coming of Christ. If you don’t believe that, you’ll spend eternity as Michael Moore’s hemorrhoid. Go ahead, believe it, you’ve got nothing to lose.
I hope the religious folks don’t think Tim’s bagging religion. He’s just doing what I do - when confronted by a lefty calling me a stubborn denier who’s in the minority, I point out other things that I - and said lefty - are in the stubborn minority about. Never works, though - because it’s science, dammit! That’s when I tell the lefty that I’m suffering bilious humors or something else old-time-sciencey.
#39: Texas Bob:
Yep, back late last year. Looking forward to my next overseas assignment. Working and living in other cultures, rather than just travelling through them, is a real education.I won’t argue the point with you anymore, not because I’m backing down or believe you are right, but I don’t think this forum is for a debate on creationism vs evolution, or religion vs atheism. I’ve been to several online forums that debate that stuff, and although I like some of the arguments and logic used by some thoughtful people, it tends to be a pointless exercise. Some of the threads went to 1,000s of pages! We’re still on page 1 of Tim’s thread.
If Tim or Andrea allow the theme to continue, I might me tempted to rejoin and continue on from #39.
Cheers ...
Ah yes, but what do Americans believe about Hillary?
Last night I watched Lateline with Tony Jones interviewing Dick Morris. I wasn’t sure what to expect but I did think Jones was looking for a good opinion about Hillary Clinton from Morris. Well it didn’t happen and Jones looked quite uncomfortable at times. LOL.
Read the transcript or watch the video. Podcast is available here .. Select Feb 6 Tony Jones talks with Bill Morris, or go to the main page , latest program 06/02/2007 and select from RHS pane.
And it looks like Morris believes Hillary is a crook. Comments anyone?
Well according to the good folks at the Landover Baptist Church (motto: “Where the worthwhile worship. Unsaved are not welcome” Now that’s what I call Christian charity) the Old Testament allows us to:
- Beat our slaves to death but avoid all punishment if the slave survives for a couple days after the beating (but if we poke out an eye or knock out a tooth, we must let them go free).
- Kill all the men in any community we happen to invade, and enslave the women and children.
- Expect that a slave must completely obey and fear his master, even if his master is cruel and unjust.And best of all, that:
- God allows a man to sell his daughter into slavery. And the situation is not unbearable for her since, if her master takes her as his wife and she does not please him, he must set her free.So, would one or more of those 60% of Americans who attest to believing the literal truth of the Old Testament please let me know where I can collect my quota of daughters?
I have a sinkload of dishes and a filthy car that aren’t going to clean themselves damnit.
#44 Peter TB
In the poll, 53 percent of adults say “God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it.”
Call me sceptical - but I find that statement really hard to believe.
Depends how one interprets what the Bible is decribing. I notice that the Pope’s interpretation of that (from the Regensburg Address) seems to me to be that we were created as rational beings.
Now, filter that though a bunch of hardscrabble subsistence farmers living in a war-zone and having lives ‘nasty, brutish and short’for couple of millennia and it is going to get a bit swirled around.
(Which raises the question of just what mohammad the paedophile’s excuse was.)
Which is why I trust the Pope to nut it out for me (that’s his job), then I’ll have a look and see what I think.
Rationality and free will. Makes us different from animals and muslims, man.
MarkL
CanberraI’m an American and I believe in Global Warming. According to NASA Mars is getting kinda hot these days.
As far as God is concerned, I kinda figured seeing as how he created everything, then he created the laws of physics too. Whether anyone else wants to believe that is strictly up to them ‘cause we all have free choice. ‘Cept for the mufsidun. (mufsidun=thug or unholy warrior) (hirabah=sinful war)I don’t know people. This is the most thorny question I’ve dealt with. I was raised in a conservative Baptist home. My mother is devout, an ardent evangelical believer. I, on the other hand, am an attorney, accustomed to using logic and critical thinking.
I’ve tried to find answers to whether God exists in the Bible, but I seem to find only circular thinking there. So I try to augment my knowledge by reading ancient history, trying to figure how we got to here, from there, in our beliefs. (Hence my appreciation of MentalFloss and his acumen).
I have questions, serious serious questions, about the existence of God. My mother knows this and prays for me. My siblings worry about the state of my soul.
But just when I become close to scoffing at them, sure in my belief that their belief is a fairy tale, something always seems to happen that opens the issue back up to question.
I haven’t figured it out yet. But it’s just a matter of time. Give me a few days. I’ll get back to you with the answer.
Posted by wronwright on 2007 02 07 at 06:31 AM • permalinkIt’s my belief that atheists and fundy’s are equalling annoying and should be shot.
If this turns into a theology thread, I’m leaving.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 02 07 at 06:34 AM • permalink32. Amos
I can point to one i have read on a lot and another i have only passing aquaintance with. The Cathars (although being persecuted) didnt help themselves much by being majority cellibate.
For a whole nation Id suggest looking at the Byzantine empire. They actually had to pas laws restricting the numbers of people joining monastaries because of the huge drain on them, militarily, and population wise. Their own internal religous schisms and over-religosity greatly speeded their downfall.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 02 07 at 06:45 AM • permalink“I’m not going to get into a religious debate. Just want to mention that the argument in #9 is a tremendously goofy argument…”
I’m willing to be convinced.
Show me how the act of believing (only) in God can hurt me.
Show me how the act of refusing to believe (only) in God can help me.
If you can do that, I’ll admit to the goofiness of the argument.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 02 07 at 06:50 AM • permalink#60 No worries from here. I keep my beliefs more or less to myself unless asked. Which this thread seemed to do.
That’s the beauty of a free society. We’re pretty much free to believe as we choose and not have our heads sawn off because of it. I have no intention of stuffing my beliefs in anyone’s face, nor do expect to be kicked in the jimmy because of them.
I can hold a civil discourse with most anyone, but don’t care to be insulted for what I choose to believe. When that starts happening here, like you, I’m leaving.This poll puts me in mind of Mark Twain:
“When I find myself in the majority, it’s time to reconsider my position.”
Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2007 02 07 at 07:02 AM • permalinkIt seems rather unusual to me for an opinion pollster to be asking people whether they ‘believe in’ what is supposedly a scientific matter. For example, you wouldn’t expect to be polled on whether you believed in gravity.
This reflects the fact that the global warming debate at the moment is definitely not settled and indeed is far more religious in nature than scientific.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2007 02 07 at 07:19 AM • permalinkRexW, you do realize that the Landover Baptist Church site is a satire site. Or maybe you don’t.
God, religious arguments are dull. I think it’s safe to say that whatever my fellow citizens believe, very few of them actually answer polls.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 02 07 at 07:27 AM • permalink#43 Texas Bob:
You’re still here, so am I. I’m trying to do some work, but I’m a bit like my kids doing homework, they tend to have MS Word open (writing an essay!) with MS Messenger and a game or two at the same time. You don’t have to be a genius to know what they’re really doing.I’d like to follow on from wronwright. My fundamentalism finished when I was about age 9 at Sunday School when I asked too many questions and was told not to do so. My more liberalist faith continued up until several years ago. I had a few episodes returning to the flock in that period. I had the same thought as David Surls here, why not have a bet both ways. But it wasn’t doing anything for me. David asks, what harm does it do anybody. For me, it was the mental juggling of what I know from what I see, hear, touch, etc, against belief. It didn’t add up. I would’ve been telling lies to myself from what I know now of the world and universe. In reply to Dave’s challenge at #62 above, I’ve answered it. It harmed me. Not any more.
Just read your latest. I love flying in helicoptors. Did it a lot many moons ago. It vas wunderbar.
Cheers ...
Stevo, I enjoy flying in them too, except I keep thinking about how the whole thing is held up by one nut (the Jesus nut…. Hey! That fits right in this thread.) I suppose they call it the Jesus nut, because that is that last thing everyone on board screams if it suddenly comes off mid-flight.
I hate single-points of failure.“As far as I can tell, no one has EVER been harmed by simply believing that the stories told in the Old Testament are the literal truth.”
Dave, literal belief can in fact harm you if, like some sects, you believe that God has forbidden you or your children to have a transfusion, or to use immunization. Likewise, some extreme Anabaptists sects forbid insurance as a form of gambling (as do the Mohammedans) - and reject lightning rods as a kind of insurance. So, yes, literal belief can hurt you, if you carry it to what I consider to be a lunatic extreme.
As for me, I’m a practicing Catholic. In no way do I take all of the Bible as literally true, in the sense that ... well, I ws going to say “that a newspaper is true”, but I don’t want to insult Scripture like that! There’s a core of literal truth, plus a fair bit of literary expression.
For example, I don’t think that the prophet Jonah was literally swallowed by a whale. But the scene later in the story, when the city of Nineveh repents and Jonah gets really pissed off because God doesn’t destroy the city - I guess Jonah felt he deserved to see the sound-and-light show - is absolutely dead-on about how we humans think, and how perverse we can be at times. To that extent, at least, the story is quite true.
Religion helps me to think seriously about what it means to live a good life, how I should behave in difficult situations, and what values I want to nurture in my children. As for life after death, heaven, hell, and swo on - I’ll find out soon enough.
Posted by Urbs in Horto on 2007 02 07 at 08:44 AM • permalinkOne of the most fascinating developments of the recent century is the voluntary dying off of secular societies.
Huh?
There are only two reasons people choose not to be Christians.
1) They’ve never met a Christian.
2) They have.Heh.
Just want to mention that the argument in #9 is a tremendously goofy argument that is equally applicable to Islam.
It’s Pascal’s Wager, and it’s based on a false dichotomy: that either the Christian God exists, or that no God exists.
Or to put it another way: You die and get to heaven, and there’s Buddha laughing all over his face and sends you back as a worm.
As an American I believe that you can believe what so ever you’d like to, so long as you allow me the same courtesy.
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2007 02 07 at 09:08 AM • permalinkPeople sure do obsess about what Americans believe! I’d say I wonder what Europeans believe ... but I really don’t give a crap.
Posted by Shaky Barnes on 2007 02 07 at 09:43 AM • permalinkIt’s also quite amusing when atheists will cite a negative experience with a Christian at some point in their lives, or a few examples of Christians who didn’t live up to their beliefs (the entire point of being a Christian is admitting you can’t live up to it but that’s another post) as a good enough reason for dismissing all Christianity out of hand, but don’t seem to think Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Hitler and Communist Albania argue for the dismissal of atheism.
79. ““As far as I can tell, no one has EVER been harmed by simply believing that the stories told in the Old Testament are the literal truth.”
Dave, literal belief can in fact harm you if…”
...you are a blithering idiot.
That aside, believing that every word of the Christian scripture is a normative declaration of some sort is almost the inverse of believing the stories are true, isn’t it?
Now, can I think of a religion where almost every praragraph is a self-contained edict direct from God? I think I can!Hey Tim, you forgot to itemize UFOs! Must be up there, the otherwise brilliant History Channel panders to the lowest common denominator on a regular basis with UFO shows. (Meanwhile the Sci Fi channel shows wrestling, go figure…)
Posted by Shaky Barnes on 2007 02 07 at 10:10 AM • permalinkI find the various state constitutions that prevent atheists from holding office, or in some cases, even being able to act as a witness in court to be Scary.
See Maryland:
nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come.”
Mississippi :
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.
North Carolina :
Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God
And I thought Queensland was strange. Well, it is. Just not comparatively.
Texas:
“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”
So it behooves all practicing atheists to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for example.
I sincerely hope these constitutional oddities are honoured more in the breach than the observance.
And it looks like Morris believes Hillary is a crook.
Can’t argue with that. Look who she married.
As for polls…...I ignore them. Disraeli’s quip “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics” will ring true forever.
Even if 72% of American high schools don’t offer basic statistics to their students.
(And, yes, I made that up! :-P)
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 02 07 at 10:46 AM • permalinkFor the record, I like the Buddhist way: live the right kind of life (they get wordy, but they mean according to the Golden Rule), and worry about whether there’s a God when you’re dead.
Works for me as well, although I didn’t realize that was the Buddha way…..frankly, I find the topic of religion, as applied to the existance of God, to be tedious. Either God exists, or God doesn’t exist, and arguments either way is based on pure faith.
However, the topic of religion, as applied to people, is a different matter. That’s fascinating, and has a very practical application, and can be very enlightening, not to mention humorous.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 02 07 at 10:52 AM • permalinkAs far as I can tell, no one has EVER been harmed by simply believing that the stories told in the Old Testament are the literal truth.
Sure. Just ask a Philistine. Or a Canaanite. Oh, wait…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 02 07 at 11:00 AM • permalink#83 Those are all calculated risks, not leaps of faith.
You have reasonable confidence in doing them since you’ve seen lots of other people do them repeatedly without things going wrong. You’ve seen/heard of things going wrong to - but rationally it seems a rare enough occurrence that the benefit is worth the risk. It’s not “belief” as such, just acceptance that the risk is low enough that it’s worth taking.
I’m yet to see someone be turned into a pillar of salt for disobeying an order from God. I’m yet to get a first hand account of what happens after death - let alone enough of them to have any idea of the odds.
Tim, this is a pretty contrived and maipulative post
I am catholic, so I guess I believe in God and also in miracles.
Not in any of that other stuff.
jlc
Posted by Jack from Montreal on 2007 02 07 at 12:05 PM • permalink* I believe in God.
* I believe in miracles.
* I do not believe in the literal truth of all of the Old Testament stories.
* I do not believe in creationism.
* I do not believe in ghosts.
* I believe in angels (though not in the touchy feely faux religious way Hollywood does).
* I believe the average temperature on the planet has gotten a little warmer, though because of highly complex reasons one of which may be an increase in carbon emmissions, but that most of the reason is natural.
Just to straighten everyone out.
# 97 Your “belief” is that it’s safe to do all those things, based on the evidence and testimony of others. There’s no guarantee that your experience will be safe in any of the cases, but you have enough faith, based on your knowledge and observations, that you’re doing the smart thing, that it’ll turn out all right for you.
No difference from Christian faith whatsoever.
There is exactly one recorded instance of somebody being turned into a pillar of salt for disobeying God, no proof it didn’t happen, and not knowing what happens after death is, well, um, the whole point of faith in the first place.
And just to use a favorite atheist line of logic miracles, God, angels, ghosts, the Old Testament stories have never been disproven. “Creationism” is a meaningless term, everybody has their own definition of it.
Show me how the act of believing (only) in God can hurt me.
Show me how the act of refusing to believe (only) in God can help me.
Show me how the act of believing (only) in The Easter Bunny can hurt me.
Show me how the act of refusing to believe (only) in The Easter Bunny can help me.
See? Kinda goofy. But to each his own.
#102, no my belief is based on the fact that I’ve done them myself numerous times. And did so from when I was a child - before I had a choice in the matter (well not all of them, but some variation of them).
I also have statistics from the billions of times they have been done, and the number of times things go wrong.
None of that applies to the question of the existence of God.
Sure I can see that being religious is statistically safe enough - sure some people end up in suicide cults and so on, but the vast majority of people turn out fine. Just like I can see that eating in a restaurant is safe enough - sure some people die from food poisoning, but the vast majority turn out fine.
That’s the risk half of the equation.
I can see from first hand reports, my own experience, and the statistics of starvation that eating out at a restaurant does provide me with the food I need to survive (assuming it’s not McDonalds…). The religious side though I have no data - I have no first hand reports, personal experiences, or statistics of people going to heaven or hell for eternity. Hence I can’t determine the benefit.
When the guy at the fruit stall says “give me $5 and I’ll give you this fruit salad that will provide you some energy and reduce your hunger when you eat it” I’m not making a leap of faith by doing so - I have a lot of evidence that eating that fruit salad will do those things.
When the guy at the fruit stall says “give me $5 and I’ll give you this grape that will provide you with eternal life in heaven when you eat it” I am making a leap of faith by doing so - I have no evidence that eating that grape will do that.
I have plenty of evidence that I can get from A to B by driving a car. I have no evidence that accepting Jesus and attending church will get me into heaven.
#50: are you sure Michael Moore isn’t actually Goering with Goebbels shoved up his fundament?
#83: i always like to say that the reason i don’t gamble is that i’ve been pushing the odds ever since i was a child (having nearly died in infancy), so why push my luck even further?
anyway, it seems to me that with the abstract nature of modern physics, the only intellectual difference between the Christian creation story and the scientific creation story is that in one case you’re placing your faith in someone’s theology, and in the other you’re placing faith in someone mathematics.
Zoe,
The passages in the state constitutions that you cite are superceded by article VI of the US Constitution, which states, “... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Posted by Urbs in Horto on 2007 02 07 at 02:23 PM • permalinkI used to believe that Paulina Porizkova was God.
But then she married Ric Ocasek.
I still have trouble sleeping.
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2007 02 07 at 02:23 PM • permalinkDamn Wronwright is a Lawyer?
How could a just and loving god allow that to happen?
Now my belief system is all screwed-up.
Posted by joe bagadonuts on 2007 02 07 at 02:39 PM • permalink#106 Frankly I don’t have enough faith to believe the non-Creation account which wants you to believe that everything just started with blind luck, given how astoundingly complex creation is.
With a theistic creation you have to accept the brute inexplicable fact of God. With non-theistic creation you have to accept the brute inexplicable fact that complete chance gave rise to order detailed enough for the likes of DNA and protein structure, just for starters, and the odds of that alone run into more zeroes than I can count.
My faith isn’t quite robust enough for that, so I’ll stick with God as the most sensible, intelligent, logical, rational explanation for Creation. How he did it I don’t know, I read the first couple chapters of Genesis as more of a liturgical hymn, but I know that somehow God did create everything.
#104: You have statistics from the billions of times people have eaten in restaurants, flown in planes and deposited money in banks, et cetera, and the number of times things have gone wrong? Wow, I’d like to see those stats.
I never said statistics proved the existence of God. Faith is not proof. I can’t prove to you that I love my wife and you can’t prove you love yours, you can’t really prove you’re your parents’ child, much less that this airplane trip, this car drive, this restaurant meal won’t kill you. We take all that on faith.
My point wasn’t that being “religious,” whatever that means, is “statistically safe,” all I was doing was pointing out that we exercise quite stunning amounts of faith pretty much every day in activities we don’t think too much about, and that this is the exact same quality of faith required to believe in God—look at the evidence, make your decision.
People who say they’re too intelligent or logical or rational or whatever to make a leap of faith to belief in God make exactly such leaps all the time, they risk their lives on leaps of faith daily, their ability to leap isn’t the issue, it’s simply what they’re willing to leap to.
#112 There’s a different between faith and risk.
I risk flying in a plane, because the benefits of being able to get to the other side of the world in a day are worth the risk of dieing in a fireball. There’s no faith there - I don’t have faith that the plane won’t crash, I know that in the 15 million or so 747 flights, 24 of them have resulted in passenger dieing due to the flight (ie. someone choking on a peanut on the plane doesn’t count) (stats are 3 years old or so by now). The 0.0002% chance the plane I’m on will kill a passenger (and that I’m that passenger - which is likely enough since usually a bunch die in the one event) is worth seeing the family.
I don’t have faith that the plane won’t crash - I know some will. I just know that it probably won’t be the one I’m on.
Sure the laws of the universe could suddenly change and my chair could turn into a pumpkin causing me to fall off it. Assuming that won’t happen isn’t “faith”, it’s extrapolating what has (and has not) happened in the past.
There’s no evidence for God’s existence (or against for that matter, since according to most religions God intentionally doesn’t make himself observable, testable, and so on) that can be used to make those extrapolations. Hence it’s by faith - and many religions have a belief that that faith is fundamentally important. It’s belief because someone said it was true, with no way to test. Bit like global warming being caused by trees protesting against idiots chaining themselves to their trunks by holding their breath.
As for stats on things, numbers are very easy to find in this day and age:
For example food poisoning from eating out:
1. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no5/mead.htm estimates that there are 5000 deaths in the US a year due to foodborne diseases.
2. http://www.restaurant.org/rusa/magArticle.cfm?ArticleID=138 claims 53 billion commercially prepared meals a year.
3. Thus 5000/53000000000 -> 0.000009% chance of dieing due to having a meal out.
4. Of course that’s an overcount, since the 5000 includes non-eating out cases, so an upper bound but ballpark wise that’s good enough for me…
The exact same thing can be done for the others thing, there’s plenty of data available for number of deaths in car crashes, air crashes, etc. And for number of “trips”...
Deposited money in banks - there must be already compiled stats somewhere but I can’t be bothered looking. The existance of FDIC means the numbers are somewhere - accountants like them after all. Of course if you believe a housing bubble is about to implode the US economy and blah-de-blah then you probably want the you may want 29/30 stats instead…
Hi Sam,
Thanks for the stats, I guess crude guesstimates are better than nothing, they do illustrate the point.
I think we’re actually saying the same thing, I don’t see where you differ with what I’m saying about faith, which is that you can’t conclusively prove or disprove God, you accept His existence on faith or not.
I don’t know if you consider such faith a rational faith, as you contend the faith to ride airplanes and eat in restaurants is, and I’d agree; I see, given the mathematically silly alternative to belief in a Creator God, that faith in God’s existence is as logical and sensible as it gets.
Take your numbers on the safety of eating out and flying and multiply them by almost inconceivable exponential factors and you have the probability that the universe as we know it today formed by chance. If you have enough faith to eat in a restaurant and fly in a commercial jet then, my friend, you certainly have enough faith to believe in God. The issue at that point is your reasons for denying God’s existence.
#114 I think the difference is that even if the probability that the universe was created by chance is so small*, the chance it was created by some arbitrarily chosen God would be just as small**.
So accepting either explanation is fact is a “leap of faith” so to speak. However, the first one doesn’t have any affect on anything. I can believe it or not believe it and my life does not change. The second one calls for differences in my life if I believe it or do not believe it, well for most religions anyway.
Personally I don’t accept either as “truth”. The current scientific theories are interesting (and there are lots of them, and they contradict each other) ideas. I enjoy science and hence I find them interesting things to think about on occasion. The religious theories (that’s the wrong word, but it’ll do for now) are also interesting. I enjoy religious philosophy too (I’ve started on both a PhD in Computer Science (not real science but if you squint…) and a Certificate in Theology but never got around to finishing either - I’m good at starting, not so good at finishing :).
However the “I don’t care” approach has the same result as the “The Big Bang is a fact” leap of faith - which to me means there is no leap of faith, people are just sloppy with their thinking.
* I don’t know if I agree with that premise - it’s assuming there’s only one shot, if an there’s a 1 in X chance, but 1 billion times X universes have popped into existence then the chances that some of them got “lucky” are good).** The universe being created by a god who doesn’t care about it, other than as toy he got bored with millenia ago and hence ignores it seems just as likely to me.
Sam,
Thanks for the post. I’m no mathematician, you’re ahead of me on that, no doubt, but just logically I can’t buy your line that no matter how astronomical the arithmetic is against the universe coming into being by sheer chance the odds of a God creating it are equally tiny.
We have a universe. Fact. It is what it is. Fact. It got here somehow. We’re not inducing “What if a universe existed with DNA and trees and oxygen and humans, would it make more sense for it to have occurred randomly or by some Intelligent Design?” We’re deducing “We have a universe with DNA and trees and oxygen and humans, does it make more sense to assume random chance or Intelligent Design?”
Given the sheer odds of random chance, and all the intuitive clues for Intelligent Design (the existence of Robert Fisk, of course, being the anomaly), believing it all came about by Intelligent Design is by far the more obviously intellectually satisfying option. You have to strain as hard intellectually to deny the existence of an intelligent designer as you do to accept the random chance explanation.
But I think you put your finger on it with the comment that if it’s all random chance it makes no difference to you, whereas if there is a God, well, that might impact your life in ways you might not wish.
Nobody ever said the heart bone wasn’t connected to the head bone. Intellectually atheism’s a petulant schoolboy’s philosophy easily debunked as child’s play, but emotionally it’s a powerful refuge against God and the implications that His existence might have.
It’s amazing to me how quickly atheists I try to debate retreat into almost infantile temper tantrums, I wonder “Can’t they see it?” Almost to a person they’re intelligent, sophisticated people otherwise, but their religion of atheism is such an emotional hot button they simply, literally can’t think straight on it, you might as well be insulting their mother.
Anyway, best of luck on your studies.
Clubbeaux, your posts sound contradictory. On one hand, you claim a leap of faith, but on the other, base it on overwhelming evidence/logical conclusion - at least as you see it. That’s not faith, it’s deduction.
No way would I ever claim to be too intelligent for religion. Plenty of people smarter than me out there who believe in God, and I’m sure they - like you - have their good reasons. For all I know, it’s my lack of intelligence preventing me from putting all the pieces together.
But overall, I have to agree with sam. This everyday “faith” you talk about (flying in a plane, eating at restaurants etc) is nothing of the sort, as each of those actions is accompanied by doubt.
I certainly ain’t smart enough to work out the probability of chance vs intentional creation of the universe; it’s a concept my brain has trouble with either way.
As you may have guessed by now, I’m agnostic, not atheist. I give credence to the notion of a God, but can’t for the life of me figure out how such a divine being operates.
And I’m hoping we can drop the argument here, as I think this is one of those issues everyone has to work out for themselves, by themselves.
/boring theology post from Dminor.
For the record, I’ve never had a problem reconciling religious faith with science. Never. But, then, I’m not a Bible literalist (nor a Darwin literalist, for that matter). Again for the record, I believe there are people all over this earth walking a path to Jesus whether they do so consciously (as believers) or not. God loves us all and I don’t think religious fervor, or lack of same, enters that particular equation.
I have an open mind about ghosts and I think you all know where I stand on gerbil worming.
I would be surprised by the poll finding that 60% of my fellow countrymen believe in the literal truth of Old Testament stories IF I believed in polls.
Wronwright: I, on the other hand, am an attorney, accustomed to using logic and critical thinking.
Ah, a minority in your field, I see.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 02 07 at 06:12 PM • permalinkWhy don’t we have surveys on all the nutty things believed by the Leftoids? Like ‘healing crystals’ and ‘feng shui” and such?
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2007 02 07 at 06:22 PM • permalink124 Clubbeaux, well put.
<<You have to strain as hard intellectually to deny the existence of an intelligent designer as you do to accept the random chance explanation.>>
I think a lot of atheists adhere to their faith system (which it is) mostly out of pride—intellectual vanity.
1. They don’t want to look silly, believing in something they can’t see.
But belief in God is not at all comparable to belief in ghosts or fairies. And if they do believe and there turns out to be no God, when they die no one is going to say, Ha! Fooled you, stupid!2. They think they are clever and can figure out (or Mankind will figure out) everything there is to know about the cosmos, given time. Never mind that we all (including scientists) believe in stuff we can’t see or prove or properly explain, and that no one (not even scientists) has more than the feeblest grasp on the totality of life and the universe.
We know a lot about a few small things (the people around us, our pets, our immediate surroundings), have an extremely confused notion of their wider context, and know practically nothing at all of the mysteries of how life and consciousness came to be, and how minds interrelate, where evil comes from, and what love is.
Those mysteries are our clues to God.
Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2007 02 07 at 06:44 PM • permalink#34, armageddon
Who burns in hellfire for eternity?
1# A pedo,murderer or thief that believes in God
2# An atheist
Possibly both categories of people. After all, the Devil believes in God but has this big problem of being in rebellion against Him. See Merlin’s post at #121.
Also, what Clubbeaux said.
Clubbeaux
Sure atheists have their share of nutters but that not unique to any belief.
No one has nocked on my door trying to sell a none belief in God.
Posted by armageddon on 2007 02 07 at 07:12 PM • permalinkOK Janice
1# a pedo,murderer or thief who has sort forgiveness from God.
2# An atheist who has done none of those things.
Who burns in hellfire for eternity?
Posted by armageddon on 2007 02 07 at 07:26 PM • permalinkSome more American trends. Apparently Democrats are twice as likely to be pierced than Republicans.
#9 Ha! Pascal’s wager! The problem here is that there are 7000 extant gods on the planet and the probability is that I will not believe in the right true one.
Therefore Pascal’s wager fails.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 02 07 at 07:46 PM • permalinkI haven’t read all of the comments, so forgive me if I repeat.
There was a time when the consensus was that the earth was flat and sat at the center of the universe. The fact that everybody believed it didn’t make it so. Nor did the facts change when someone was burned at the stake for daring to question the received wisdom, though man’s progress towards a healthier, happier, longer, and more comfortable life was obstructed. Reality exacts a justice of its own when it is ignored or acted against.
Now that I know my hubby, my chaplain, my mother, & my cats are not G-d (and I guess Tim, paco, wronwright, mentalfloss, mr bingley, Texas Bob & frolickingmole are among the not-G-ds, too), I’ve come to the conclusion that I JUST DON’T KNOW. So I do my best to follow the Golden Rule - a tenet that many religions have in some version, I think? And that works for me.
Well, the Golden Rule & CYA…with backing from the United States Marine Corps!
Texas Bob,
#20 I’m praying to raise your dissonance to Dmajor
Just letting you know I got the joke and I’m not a musician. Very funny.
And I hate to think where gorebal warmening would be today if we still used thermionic valves in all our electronics.
And it’s good to see you’re apparently in top form. We oldies worry about you, kid.#68 Andrea:
God, religious arguments are dull.
In my time in the Force, (the olden days) there were three topics banned from discussion in the mess; Religion, Politics and Ladies.
Sex with blokes was not widely discussed in those days so that left only the day’s flying to discuss.
It was what we really wanted to talk about anyway.“#9 Ha! Pascal’s wager! The problem here is that there are 7000 extant gods on the planet and the probability is that I will not believe in the right true one.”
There’s no problem…just believe in all of them
What could it hurt?
Personally I don’t deny the existence of any God or gods (as if I could possibly KNOW that they don’t exist…you would have to have godlike powers yourself to do that). What good would it do me?
Same thing for the easter bunny. There’s no percentage in me denying the existence of the easter bunny…and besides, I need the eggs.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 02 07 at 10:14 PM • permalinkHow on earth did they collate these figures anyway?
Two thirds of Americans don’t understand fractions and the other half don’t give a fuck.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 02 07 at 11:04 PM • permalink#127, armageddon,
1# a pedo,murderer or thief who has sort forgiveness from God.
If (and only if) they ask for forgivness from their heart, and put their faith in Jesus Christ, may they come to God.2# An atheist who has done none of those things.
Well…. yeah, pretty much. As to the composition of hellfire/brimstone/worms I don’t know. Basically they would not get to heaven.Now, some would think this unfair, but they are not the Creater, so their protests and $2.90 gets them a cup of coffee.
Kind Regards,
StevePosted by fankytomato on 2007 02 07 at 11:39 PM • permalink#124 Hi Bonjour Triteness,
You’re probably right. It’s my experience that atheists, who can dismantle far stronger arguments than atheism, nevertheless cling tenaciously to atheism. Strange.
My guess is it fills a strong emotional need for them not to admit the existence of a God. Whatever that need is I don’t know, stupid to speculate, but it’s the only explanation I can come up with for why intelligent, rational people profess such an unintelligent, irrational faith.
I can’t see that anyone has asked this (and apologise if I’ve missed it), but if it is accepted that there is a Supreme Being we call God who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and who created everything, what do we say to the innocent child (or agnostic adult) who sincerely asks, without trying to be a smart arse, “OK, so who made God?”
A bit like trying to get one’s head around infinity, or where the universe ends.
Perhaps there is a God and in His/Her wisdom we were made in such a way that there are some things we will never be allowed to know, no matter how smart we become as we evolve.
And when we die all will be revealed, or not, and if not then we won’t know anyway.
And in the meantime while we’re still enjoying being here, living by the Golden Rule would seem an excellent idea.Pascal’s Wager is frequently taken far more seriously than Pascal himself would have believed. He had many friends who were inveterate gamblers, so to try to put the gospel in their terms, no doubt over a few glasses of wine one night, he said look, imagine it like the Unlosable Bet: If Jesus is who he says he is, you don’t lose anything by believing in him and accepting his salvation—indeed, you win your soul. But if he’s not the saviour, you haven’t lost anything by believing in him, since if Jesus isn’t the saviour you were going to die anyway.
The underlying premise here is that Jesus is still the only one who’s ever said I am God incarnate come down to do for you what you cannot do for yourself—offer you the only means to be forgiven of your sin and enjoy communion with a perfect God.
What Pascal was getting at was if that’s true, well, then, you’d be a fool to bet on anything else. And if it’s not true, then whatever else you do or believe isn’t of any import anyway.
#113:
Sure the laws of the universe could suddenly change and my chair could turn into a pumpkin causing me to fall off it.
I think that’s only a risk if the plane is running the Infinite Improbability Drive:
Unfortunately, human beings are accustomed to traveling at normality (probability 1:1), and can be fairly distressed by events around them whilst the Infinite Improbability Drive is working: losing limbs, turning into sofas, planets spontaneously becoming fruitcakes, nuclear missiles metamorphosing into sperm whales and bowls of petunias.
Gosh this was a dull thread. I wondered when it would get better and it never did. So I will add my dull thoughts on pascal’s wager.
- The Universe is 14 billion years old or so.
- Your life span will probably be on the order of three score and ten.
- Then you will be dead for an infinite amount of time, never to come back.If you spend your life worshipping a false god, and this is not how you would choose live otherwise, absent the fear of hell, you have wasted your one and only, incredibly precious, time on the planet.
To say there is no downside assumes that living as a Christian has no cost if Christianity is wrong and you wouldn’t have lived thus otherwise.
I don’t really believe that Pascal would take such a flawed argument all that seriously since the premise itself presupposes a belief in a Christian god.
I can’t believe I didn’t get one comment on my youtube link in #31. To me it sums up the Church of Global Warming.
#149 If you live only threescore and ten years and then are dust to dust forever, what’s so precious about your time on the planet? It doesn’t mean anything at that point. Earthly life becomes precious and meaningful only in the context of something greater—eternity.
Pascal’s Wager was what I explained it to be—on the order of a parable, an illustration of a great truth, but not to be either carved in stone or analyzed word for word.
What he was getting at with the Wager was just the idea that since only Jesus Christ promises—promises—eternal life with God, if you bet on that there’s the chance you’ll get it, if you don’t, if Jesus was a liar or crackpot, well, nobody else is promising that anyway, so it doesn’t really matter.
And me, I ignore dull threads instead of contributing posts to them.
Clubbeaux,
You are pre-supposeing that life without a god is meaningless. I make no such judgement. Pascal’s wager depends on a prior belief in God or it makes no sense, as I have pointed out. Since you believe in God, apparently, it is probably difficult for you to see this aspect of it. Pascal’s wager is an argument intended for the godless, it would seem, and as such, it is not very strong.I liked your link Moptop. Just had to sit through the ABC show on El Nino which, while being quite good for the most part was ruined at the end by more gloom and doom on global warning (which in one breath they said they didn’t know what effect GW will have on El Nino but then proceeded to pain the blackest of outlooks based on one climate modellers prediction. Talk about belief in fairies
As for all the other stuff on the thread. I call myself an atheist because i don’t like to sound wishy-washy. In actuality I don’t have a clue whether there is some force, being, whatever that has some influence on our universe existing. I suppose i should call myself agnostic then. But as there is no evidence for the existence of Allah, Yahweh, Mithra, Mothra, etc beyond books that tell me they are the words or stories of these gods, then I’m safe in assuming that no-one else has any clue on the existence or nature of any god-like being. I therefore call myself atheist with respect to all these man-created gods.
Hey Moptop,
Actually Pascal’s Wager is putting the existence of the Christian God, knowable in Jesus Christ, on the line as part of the wager itself. Presupposing His existence is precisely what Pascal’s friends were not prepared to do, his wager was a way of getting them to see what putting faith in His existence at all might mean.
The wager itself isn’t an argument for anything, really, you’re probably making too much of it. It was certainly never intended as Pascal’s definitive word on the matter, he was working on that in Les Pensees when he died, it was just a clever little parable that’s been about as misunderstood and misused as, oh, the phrase “Catch-22.”
Of course life without God is meaningless. If the earth is just a closed system, we live, eat, drink and die, then big deal.
Without God, well, Hitler was no better or worse than Mother Teresa, because every person can make up their own rules. In the absence of a still point outside of the world good is better than evil just because it’s nicer, and life is as meaningless as a TV show nobody watches or a rugby game where there’s no winner or loser and nobody who’s playing agrees on the rules. It might seem bracing for a while but there’s no point to any of it. That we have ideas of universal rights and wrongs is a powerful argument for their existence—how do you have the idea that my stealing from you is “wrong” and not just “inconvenient for you?”
#150 if your life is spent trying to improve things for your family, your friends & your community, your life will be meaningful, even if you don’t make it as far as threescore & ten. it doesn’t matter if you’re sweeping the streets or running a global corporation, nor whether you believe in god or not. simplistic? so sue me
Hi KK,
There’s a difference between “simple” and “simplistic,” your views are certainly not “simplistic.”
It’s great if you want to spend your life improving things for those around you, but you know what? They’re all going to die and turn into dust too. You might make their pilgrimage from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud, to quote Robert Penn Warren, a little more comfortable, but, in the end, so what?
Francis H—Did they explain how global warming made a big pool of warm water disappear?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 02 08 at 10:56 AM • permalink#156 so what? so that’s good enough for me. given the failure of assorted god-botherers to improve much of anything lately, & in many cases their manifest pleasure in maiming & killing, it would probably be good for all of us if a larger slab of the populace thought making things a tad more comfortable was good enough for them too
#152 shame on you - mothra has been documented on
filmnow sing with me:
Mothra oh Mothra
Hear our call for you to save us
over time, over sealike a wave you come our guardian angel
Mothra oh Mothra
the people have forgotten kindness
their spirits fall to ruin
we shall pray for the people as we sing
this song of love
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
You’ve got to be kidding. I don’t believe in any of those, therefore I must not be American. How’s that for logic? (Actually, I’m Australian and very glad to say so).