(click to enlarge)
The snow is melting!
22 hours ago
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
24 January, 2012
29 July, 2011
Ploughboy sinks to a new low
The amazingly ignorant and obtuse commenter called Martin (aka Ploughboy) on the Premier Christian forums consistently infuriates a lot of people with his antagonistic commenting style. See here for a long and frustrating exchange I had with him about transitional fossils.
Now he has pretty much sunk as low as possible. He made this particular comment on the topic of the innocent people (mostly children) who were murdered in the recent Norwegian massacre:
So stop worrying about those who have died, they have received what they deserved, worry about yourself, that you might not receive what you deserve.
What an incredible asshole.
I'm glad to say that all commenters, both Christian and non-Christian, have responded to tell him so. To make it worse, some of the commenters he continues to insult and bicker with are currently in Norway experiencing the tragedy firsthand.
12 July, 2011
Thunderf00t vs Westboro Baptist Church
Following his debate with Ray Comfort, and hot on the heels of Louis Theroux's recent revisting of the most hated family in America, Thunderf00t has posted an interview he conducted with some of the wackos from the Westboro Baptist Church.
Should be interesting!
From Thunderf00t's blog entry on the subject:
I had hoped to try and keep it all on a civilized, clear and logical level, but it became almost instantly obvious that this was a lost cause. The hostility of 'Meg the Eldar' was really something I was unprepared for. The volume, the amount, and the hostility in the pitch of her voice was that of a bitter, bitter woman. Like a dog that's been tormented daily till all it knows how to do is attack anything that comes within biting distance. The daughter, I had the feeling was only there for eye-candy, or was just there as a spectator so Meg the Eldar could show her how to properly hate something not of the cult. The daughter spoke softly and had it just been me and her we might have made some progress. She had a venomfangx look to her. Every argument had a 'memorized by rote' unthought through answer, but given time it might have been possible to untangle some of the mess. But alas, Meg the Eldar, from the very start was throwing in pointless insults at every opportunity, 'your nothing special' 'your country is worthless' 'your mother...' etc etc. Water off a ducks back for me of course, I've had more shit thrown at me than that before. Battle-hardened to the childish feces flinging :-) . Eventually, I decided that Meg the Eldar could not be allowed to streamroller the events by doing 90 % of the talking, only 5% of which was relevant, but when I accosted her about it she threatened repeatedly to leave.
Realizing that she essentially had the trump card of just walking out, I went for the 'Jesus endorses homosexuality' gambit.
It hit the spot, and they 'RAGE-QUIT'...
23 April, 2011
28 March, 2011
Thoughts on some recent Premier debates
Last week I listened to three debates, all of which were hosted by Premier. Actually only two of them were debates (Alistar McGrath vs Stephen Law and Sye TenB vs Paul Baird), while the third was actually just William Lane Craig discussing a previous debate he 'kind of' had with Richard Dawkins.
Anyway here are my thoughts on all three. I list them in chronological order...
1) William Lane Craig discussion (audio here)
The gist of this program was that Craig was reporting on a debate he had with Dawkins in Mexico entitled 'Does the universe have a purpose?'. In fact, it was more of a panel vs panel debate, but this program mostly focused on the exchanges between Craig and Dawkins. Craig's main point throughout the program was that there is objective purpose in the universe, but the atheist worldview can only ever create illusory subjective purpose - e.g. I will be a great parent, I will learn how to play the guitar, etc. Craig agrees that everyone can create these types of purpose, but that they are ultimately transient and imaginary, unlike the real objective purpose that theists are privy to. Strangely, throughout the hour-long program, Craig never actually tells us what this real objective purpose is. He just keeps stating that it's there.
The irony, of course, is that he is labelling the only real purpose that we know exists (i.e. individual goals and objectives that we all have, including Craig) as being imaginary, while at the same time he contends that some unexplained and unproven transcendental purpose (which is almost certainly imaginary) is the only real purpose in the universe.
How strange.
2) Alistar McGrath vs Stephen Law (audio here)
This debate meandered over a number of topics with the usual wordy 'I'm-going-to-completely-change-the-subject' non-answers from McGrath. The first part that particularly interested me was when McGrath said that problems with any worldview arise when a claim is made that 'we are right' and 'you are wrong', and this can include both atheism and theism. Law pointed out that claiming you are right is fine, as long as you respect the right of your opponent to be wrong. It is when a person or movement becomes authoritarian that problems arise - i.e. when they say not only 'we are right', but also 'and you have to agree with us or else'.
The closing section of the debate saw Law in the driving seat as he pinned down both McGrath, and the host Justin, with his argument that we could all be worshipping the wrong God. Why can't it be an evil God? There is good and evil in the world, and yet most theists presume that God is good, and that any evil in the world is due to the 'fall of man'. The flip side, explained Law, is that perhaps God is actually evil, and so any good in the world is due to the fall of man from evil. He points out that even though nobody really believes this, it is equally as plausible and, crucially, is not defeated by any of the classical arguments for the existence of God as they are all neutral to the question of whether God is good or evil. Its quite a clever argument, and McGrath's response boiled down to 'God reveals himself and gives people comfort'. Law responded to say that evil spirits often reveal themselves to people, who are subsequently put on medication. For more on this intriguing argument see here.
3) Sye TenB vs Paul Baird (audio here)
Here we had Round 2 of the debate on presuppositional apologetics (PA) between Sye TenB and Paul Baird. In the first debate it was quite clear that Sye was not actually going to talk about the subject of the debate, but instead give a demonstration of it. It was refreshing, therefore, to see that this second debate was actually on the subject of PA and, tellingly, Sye was on shaky ground from the start. Paul brought up several criticims of PA, none of which were effectively dealt with by Sye.
One example was when Paul 'switched hats' and agreed to accept Sye's argument up to a point. Even if we accept that a God is the precondition to truth, logic, knowledge, etc, how do we get from there to exclusively the Christian God? Sye tried his best to evade this question with another 'how do you account for x, y and z' merry-go-round, but it was obvious that even Justin wasn't impressed with his non-answer after non-answer. Paul is uploading a transcript of the whole debate, and this part is especially telling:
Justin: I mean, essentially, this is again, picking up something Rolf Wolfram said to you in response to that show, Sye, he said "It's a circular argument because it presupposes the truth of the Bible" so, I think this all comes down to same point. What's the basis on which you presuppose the truth of the Bible over anything other belief system for this apologetic?
Sye: Well, for a start, if an unbeliever asks me a question like this, this is my response to Paul, "Pizza sleeps fast under the twice"
[pause]
Justin: Hmm. Ok
Sye: That's my response to Paul.
Justin: I understand that for Paul, you're saying that without laws of logic, denying those sorts of things, denying a God upon which those sorts of things rest, he can't get anywhere. But I suppose it's how do you move him from that to Christianity...
Note that Sye evaded answering Justin's question and last time I checked, Justin is not an 'unbeliever'. The criticism still stands, regardless of whether anyone can or cannot account for logic. That everyone except Sye can see this glaring flaw in his argument shows how deeply entrenched, and perhaps deluded, Sye really is. As I've said before, I think many people give Sye too much credit - he's nothing more than another Ray Comfort with an insatiable appetite for attention and publicity.
03 December, 2010
Evolutionary morality - what's the problem?
Seriously, what is the issue that theists have with a non-devine account for morality? Let's settle this once and for all (he said naively).
Here is what I see as a perfectly rational account for evolutionary morality. The overall explanation is one of empathy and the so-called 'Golden rule' - treat others as you would like others to treat you. It is important to stress that this 'rule' is not the type of law that a theist would claim is prescribed from a deity. That is, we don't have to follow the golden rule, but most of us choose to because we can see the consequences of what would happen if we did not. For example, I wouldn't like it if someone stole from me, so I don't steal from other people. On the basis of this, I consider stealing to be wrong. When the majority of a population consider stealing to be wrong, the consensus usually becomes what is known as 'morality'. This still allows for a minority of a population to think differently - a thief might think it is OK to steal, or might think it is wrong but will do it anyway.
This leads us to moral relativism. More on this later, but first I want to get back to the evolution of morality...
All social animals have to co-operate to survive. This means that the survival of the herd is crucial for the survival of the individual. Any member of a population of social animals that ventures out on its own has a poor chance of survival - be it an isolated deer in a field or a lone mountaineer in the Alps. This is not to say that they cannot survive - some might - but in general there is safety in numbers.
 |
| Where'd they go? |
Genes promoting co-operation and empathy, therefore, would be selected for in a social population, and through trial and error the 'golden rule' would unintentionally take hold. A population in which the 'golden rule' wasn't followed wouldn't sustain itself for very long, as its members would either kill each other or be killed by predators due to a lack of co-operation.
An interesting theory on the roots of morality and the Golden rule comes from game theory. This can be simplified (*extremely simplified*) into a game called the Prisoner's Dilemma. Here is a synopsis of the game from Wiki:
Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated the prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies for the prosecution against the other (defects) and the other remains silent (co-operates), the defector goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?
So the choice is to defect or co-operate. In a one-off situation, the obvious answer seems to be to defect. But it gets more interesting when, rather than being a one-off situation, the game is played continuously with previous actions remembered by the participants (as would occur in real life situations). The longer the game is played, a pay-off matrix emerges and the more likely it is that the participants will develop a strategy in which they actually co-operate most of the time, as when they defect, their opponent will simply retaliate in the next round.
Richard Dawkins has a chapter on the relationship between game theory and morality in the Selfish Gene. In it he explains how the above game can be applied to social animals in a 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' type of way. Animals with the capacity to remember past events will reward those who co-operate and punish those who defect. This leads to a situation where the majority of a population will be co-operative, as they want to avoid the harsh penalties imposed on those who defect. From this interplay, co-operative behaviour (which loosely means 'being nice') becomes the norm and is considered to be 'moral'. Of course, if the vast majority of people are co-operative, then isolated incidences of defective behaviour can be rewarding, but it is ultimately unsustainable as the co-operative masses will retaliate. Importantly, all of this behaviour is still directly related to the Golden rule and is a consequence of the individual's desire to survive.
Evidence that co-operative behaviour with occasional retaliation is the optimal social standpoint is given by the computer program Tit-for-Tat that was entered into the iterated prisoners dilemma (IPD) tournament, a competition devised to develop the best strategy to win at repeated playing of the prisoners dilemma. Many complex computer programs were entered in the tournament, but Tit-for-Tat won using a very simple strategy:
It was the simplest of any program entered, containing only four lines of BASIC, and won the contest. The strategy is simply to co-operate on the first iteration of the game; after that, the player does what his or her opponent did on the previous move. Depending on the situation, a slightly better strategy can be "tit for tat with forgiveness." When the opponent defects, on the next move, the player sometimes co-operates anyway, with a small probability (around 1–5%). This allows for occasional recovery from getting trapped in a cycle of defections. The exact probability depends on the line-up of opponents
The story of Tit-for-Tat is well worth a read.
Based on the Tit-for-Tat program, the overall qualities needed to be socially successful are being nice, forgiving and non-envious but retaliating to defective behaviour when necessary. When you think about it, these qualites are exactly what any successful social animal possess:
- Unless provoked, the agent will always co-operate
- If provoked, the agent will retaliate
- The agent is quick to forgive
- The agent must have a good chance of competing against the opponent more than once.
 |
| Tit-for-tat, eventually... |
Game theory, therefore, provides an intriguing and plausible reason for why humans are predominantly moral beings, and have the capacity to co-operate and forgive. Of course, none of this means that they have to be co-operative, although we have devised laws to punish those who are not. This is because there are no absolute moral laws; instead, there are evolutionary behaviours that allow populations to reach a sustainable equilibrium.
Which brings us back to moral relativism.
A typical theistic response to the idea of moral relativism (the position that moral propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths) is to propose an emotionally-charged situation and claim that the moral relativist cannot claim that it is absolutely wrong. A common example is torturing or raping children. I have heard many theists claim that I can't say that torturing children is absolutely wrong. That may be true. But I can say it is wrong according to my moral standards because I would not like to be tortured, and so I imagine other people also don't like to be tortured (the fact that they are children is irrelevant - torture is torture).
It's a difficult subject to talk about, but one can imagine a hypothetical scenario in which torturing a child is acceptable, if, say, the alternative is that 100 children will be tortured. Horrible, I know, but I am simply making the point that emotionally-charged scenarios are not necessarily a fool-proof approach to tackling moral relativism. They do not actually have much substance other than to cloud the mind of an undecided observer in a debate.
However, if theists insist on using these types of emotionally-charged scenarios (and they do), then they can easily be used against the notion of divinely-inspired morality - a nice example of Tit-for-Tat in action! This is because if morality is simply the reflection of the nature of a deity, then it is dependent on something, and so it cannot be absolute. It is, in fact, completely arbitrary as the deity could have any number of whims or characteristics, which would automatically become entrenched in morality (see Euthyphro's dilemma). For example, if God (being omnipotent) decided tomorrow that child torture was morally good, would all Christians embrace it and actively engage in it? I very much doubt that they would. Why? Because morality exists apart from God.
Human morality came about through the evolution of social behaviour. That theists want to ascribe something as wonderful as morality to an unproven deity is just another example of how religion tries to fix what ain't broke.
28 October, 2010
Religious intolerance rife in the USA
This cannot go on. Shame on all you non-Christian Americans. I imagine the Buddhists are particularly oppressive.
10 October, 2010
13 September, 2010
If Facebook had always existed
In the beginning...
5,600 years later...
249 years later...
[More here]
08 September, 2010
Arguments for the existence of God
Here I will list arguments for the existence of God and my responses. If you have an argument that I missing please post it as a comment and I will add it to the list. The description of each argument is taken from Wiki or here. I don't claim that any of my responses are novel and I haven't read any deep philosophical thoughts on these issues. They are just my thoughts. If you disagree with anything, feel free to let me know.
1) The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion.
Response:
-This argument depends on the idea that everything and anything that happens must have a cause. The trouble is that if this is asserted, then it must necessarily also apply to God - what caused God? If the argument is that God does not need a cause then it is inconsistent to apply that criterion to everything else - a fallacy called 'special pleading'. If God does not need a cause, then perhaps energy/matter does not need a cause and might have existed in some form prior to the big bang. Indeed, I have posted before about the possibility that energy/matter has always existed.
2) The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design.
Response:
-This is the classic argument from design and has been brought to the fore in recent times due to the Intelligent Design movement. There are many flaws to this argument (which I discussed in detail with Casey Luskin here) but the simplest is that it is simply an argument from ignorance. The proponent can't think of how a complex system could have come about and so concludes that it must have been designed by God - 'Goddidit'. Of course, we do know how complexity comes about in many cases, such as in a snowflake or a crystal lattice - through purely natural processes. Computer simulations like Avida have shown that, given enough time, a simple program can generate incredible complexity.
-Also, there are many examples of bad design in biology, which is at odds with the concept of a perfect creation by an omnipotent designer.
-A further issue with this argument is that it results in an infinite regress. If God is capable of designing the universe, it stands to reason that he is of sufficient complexity to require design. So who designed God? Perhaps another God - but then who designed him? Etc.
3) The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which cannot be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of God. Avicenna St. Anselm of Canterbury and Alvin Plantinga formulated this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.
Response:
-This is a very weak argument - essentially that if God is perfect, then he must exist as to not exist would be considered 'less' than perfect. Firstly it is begging the question since the existence of God is already assumed in the first place.
-Also, this 'proof' can be used to 'prove' the existence of anything, as famously shown for Gaunilno's Perfect Island. If you can conceive of anything that you consider to be perfect, then it must exist. This clearly shows the failings of this particular argument.
-It is similar to using Curry's paradox to prove the existence of something, i.e. "If this sentence is true, then God exists". They are nothing more than word games.
4) Arguments that a non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as beauty (Argument from beauty), love (Argument from love), or religious experience (Argument from religious experience), are arguments for theism as against materialism.
Response:
-These types of arguments have no solid foundation as they are completely subjective. Beauty and love are fuzzy concepts that mean different things to different people, while religious experience, by definition, is a personal phenomenon. These arguments might, therefore, be considered compelling to an individual, but they are not persuasive as all-encompassing reasons to believe in the existence of God. If beauty is evidence for God, does this mean ugliness is evidence against God? Similarly, if the sudden recovery of a terminally ill patient is evidence for God, then a healthy person dropping dead is surely evidence against God? It doesn't work only one way.
-The claim that beauty and love are transcendental is also weak, as different degrees of 'love' are known to be simulated in people on recreational drugs, strongly suggesting that they are products of purely physical processes involving hormones.
-Furthermore, religious experience cannot be trusted for the simple fact that most testable declarations based on revelation turn out to be false - most notably end-of-the-world predictions.
5) The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God. The conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different the universe would be empty, or even non-existent.
Response:
-This is also known as the fine-tuning argument or the Goldilocks argument. Firstly, according to some scientists the properties that are spoken of as being fine-tuned do not necessarily have to be as they are. But even if we grant that they must be as they are for this particular universe, it is conceivable that different parameters would simply result in a different universe (whether we can comprehend this universe or not).
-To take the example of life, we have adapted to live in the conditions that exist - not the other way around. An analogy is to imagine pouring water into a glass. The water fills the glass according to whatever shape the glass is. However, an anthropic glass proponent might suggest that the glass was perfectly designed to hold the shape the water assumes in the glass - no other shaped glass could accommodate it in that specific shape. So everything in the universe, including life, has adapted to the conditions inherent to the universe.
-Perhaps there are (or have been) many universes and this is the only one we can exist in. If so, it is not surprising that we find ourselves in this universe asking these questions.
6) The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.
Response:
-Proponents of this argument contend that an absolute standard of morality, God, is needed in order to know what is right and wrong. This fails on several levels. Firstly, there is Euthyphro's dilemma: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good (meaning it is independent of God), or is it morally good because it is commanded by God (meaning it is arbitrary as God could make anything good)?"
-Secondly, it is only assumed that there is an absolute moral standard, not actually demonstrated. Different cultures have had different morals over the years, so moral relativism is an alternative. A typical counter to this is that this means that child rape is not absolutely morally wrong, putting the moral relativist in the awkward position of having to agree as they believe in no absolute moral standards. This is simply an attempt to insert an emotionally-charged subject into the debate. It can also work in reverse - if God decided tomorrow that child rape was morally good, would all Christians embrace it and actively engage in it? I doubt that they would - this shows that morality exists apart from God.
-So if morality doesn't come from God, where does it come from? The obvious answer is through the evolution of a social species in which the majority live by the Golden Rule (treat others as you would like to be treated). How else could we survive? A society in which lying, murder, rape, etc are considered morally good by the majority would never thrive. This doesn't mean that the reverse society (i.e. our society) cannot harbour individuals with bad morals, but just that the majority need to be morally good.
-Finally, there are many thought experiments on morality which show the inconsistency of claiming that there is an absolute moral standard.
7) The transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG) suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.
Response:
-This is probably the argument I have the most experience in dealing with, mainly through my discussions with Sye TenB. This approach, also known as presuppositional apologetics, is fundamentally flawed because it is dependent on the idea of absolutes and certainty - two things that the proponent demonstrably does not have. Indeed, despite making claims of certainty, the proponent cannot even prove that they exist for certain.
-This approach is simply a device in order to 'win' debates by pointing out inconsistencies in a non-Christian's 'worldview' using engineered circular arguments. The proponent will resist all attempts to critically examine the problems with their own 'worldview' because this would be putting God on trial. Convenient!
-For further reading on the failings of TAG see Presuppositionalist Nonsense Parts I, II and III.
8) The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).
Response:
-This argument is completely subjective and is in no way an argument for the existence of God. There are many 'believers' who find that their belief or religion doesn't work out and leave their faith. So if this argument has any merit, then these reconverts have to be accepted as evidence against God. This contradiction highlights the failings of this approach.
9) The argument from reason holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all of our thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then we have no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it—or anything else not the direct result of a physical cause—and we could not even suppose it, except by a fluke.
Response:
-The fact that humans can reason is self-evident. Any attempt to disprove that humans can reason must use reason in the disproof. It can be said to be axiomatic, as I have argued here for other concepts such as perception and truth. Since we must use reason to make any argument, this means it is pointless to try and argue that God is the necessary precondition for reason. If this was so, one should be able explain this without using reason. To put it simply, reason is not contingent on God, but the very concept of God is contingent on reason.
10) The modal cosmological argument, the argument from contingency, suggests that because the universe might not have existed (i.e. is contingent), we need some explanation of why it does. Wherever there are two possibilities, it suggests, something must determine which of those possibilities is realised. As the universe is contingent, then, there must be some reason for its existence; it must have a cause. In fact, the only kind of being whose existence requires no explanation is a necessary being, a being that could not have failed to exist. The ultimate cause of everything must therefore be a necessary being, such as God.
Response:
-This fails for many of the same reasons that the cosmological argument fails. Also, on what basis can it be asserted that the universe might not have existed? This is an unjustified premise for this argument. I have argued before that there is no reason to suspect that nothingness ever existed (so to speak).
11) Pascal’s Wager is an argument for belief in God based not on an appeal to evidence that God exists but rather based on an appeal to self-interest. It is in our interests to believe in God, the argument suggests, and it is therefore rational for us to do so.
Response:
-Pascal's wager is the eternal hedge bet. The idea that you are better off believing in God just in case he does exist is a bit of a 'last resort' approach. If God is omniscient, he will know that you don't really believe in him and you are just hedging your bets.
-Plus, I don't see it as being as simple as just believing in God. According to most Christians you have to dedicate your whole life to him. Screw that - that's no hedge bet, that's a life sentence.
12) The argument from improbability explains that it is mathematically virtually impossible for the chain of events to have happened, that must have happened, in order for us to be here. This impossibility points to an omnipotent creator.
Response:
-This argument, made famous by Fred Hoyle's flawed 747 and junkyard analogy, suffers from a lack of understanding of probability and large numbers in general. I agree completely that it is virtually impossible for this reality, including biological life, to have *poofed* into existence almost exactly as it is now. But this is not what most nonbelievers believe happened - this is actually what many theists believe! The error here is that the proponent of the argument is predicting in advance what the outcome will be. It is also virtually impossible to win the lottery, but people win it all the time. Is this a miracle, or is it just inevitable given the large numbers of people who buy tickets? So the thing that is actually virtually impossible is to predict who will win the lottery in advance, not whether or not someone will win it.
-Another good analogy is that of a sequence of 52 cards. Imagine the odds of a particular sequence of 52 cards coming up (8.06582E+67 to 1 apparently). That is virtually impossible! Now deal out a deck of cards. Is the sequence that appeared impossible? No, of course not - the cards had to be dealt in some order, just as the universe (and life, once it appeared) had to evolve in some way.
[This is my 100th blog post. Hurrah!]
24 July, 2010
16 April, 2010
God FAQ
After many centuries of inquiry, countless publications and debates, and untold suffering and conflict, a combined effort spanning multiple disciplines has come up with a pertinent Frequently Asked Questions list about God.
Marvel at the results...
http://www.officialgodfaq.com/
27 January, 2010
A question to God
A work colleague recently sent this email from her church around...
If you could ask God one question, and you knew he'd answer it, what would it be?
Email your question to eustonareatalks@yahoo.co.uk
The most asked questions will be addressed as part of ‘a passion for life’ events at euston area talks.
24 Feb-24 March 2010
Any suggestions?
I was thinking of asking the following:
"Why are you so insecure that you have a childish need for people to believe in you, with failure to do so resulting in eternal torture?"
01 May, 2009
Stupid Goddam Blasphemy Law
This is beyond ridiculous.
Dermot Ahern and the rest of the Fianna Fail bozos are actually considering bringing in a blasphemy law. If it's passed, a fine of up to €100,000 will be imposed on blasphemers.
This can't possibly be happening, can it? I mean, Jaysus, like, what's the problem...?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
