tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post1502443708458360274..comments2024-03-28T00:48:19.961-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: What makes an act good or evil? Right or wrong?Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-8825544060163755392020-01-16T22:18:43.198-08:002020-01-16T22:18:43.198-08:00Joe:It's pretty obvious the Bible has somethin...<b>Joe:</b>It's pretty obvious the Bible has something to do with God just read it.<br /><br /><b>CB:</b>I have and I'm not convinced. I see nothing in it to elevate it above any other supposed holy book<br /><br /><b>you said "something to do with: being about God is something to do with God.</b><br /><br /><b>Joe:</b> You are the one who is making assumptions. You are not listening to what I said here' a word burn it into your brain: "Warrant!" not proof but warrant, belief is warranted. That means there's good reason to accept it. It's not proven, it's warranted.<br /><br />Even if it is not proven it can still be warranted.<br /><br />This is point that my arguments warrant Christian belief, The evidence for that is the data from the book. I've presented several reasons as to why mystic experience warrants belief, you are not looking at those reasons read the article part 2<br /><br /><b>CB:</b>I see nothing that nudges the argument either way. I accept that it doesn't have to be proven to be warranted. I just don't see that belief in God is warranted.<br />To warrant Christian belief in particular would be a bigger step.<br /><br /><b>there are lots of Good arguments for that you haven;t hit the right discussion yet, I think to some extent it;s intuitive, you have to read it and see what those passages that really speak to you say</b><br /><br /><b>read the two volumes of evidence that demands a verdict, some of that is good, read the teachings of Jesus and consult some good commentates, you see the greatness of his teachings can't be fabricated by hoaxes.</b><br /><br /><b>the main thing is to let it speak to you for that you need to focus on Jesus.</b><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-64891629715172919142020-01-16T18:02:57.556-08:002020-01-16T18:02:57.556-08:00It's pretty obvious the Bible has something to...<b><br />It's pretty obvious the Bible has something to do with God just read it.</b><br />I have and I'm not convinced. I see nothing in it to elevate it above any other supposed holy book<br /><b><br />You are the one who is making assumptions. You are not listening to what I said here' a word burn it into your brain: "Warrant!" not proof but warrant, belief is warranted. That means there's good reason to accept it. It's not proven, it's warranted.<br /><br />Even if it is not proven it can still be warranted.<br /><br />This is point that my arguments warrant Christian belief, The evidence for that is the data from the book. I've presented several reasons as to why mystic experience warrants belief, you are not looking at those reasons read the article part 2</b><br /><br />I see nothing that nudges the argument either way. I accept that it doesn't have to be proven to be warranted. I just don't see that belief in God is warranted.<br />To warrant Christian belief in particular would be a bigger step.<br /><br /><br />Cuttleboneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022203266007803962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-3775214349178944612020-01-14T13:26:18.493-08:002020-01-14T13:26:18.493-08:00U don't know, I wondered that too.U don't know, I wondered that too.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-48673296810551665522020-01-14T12:21:17.660-08:002020-01-14T12:21:17.660-08:00"ironically she was a woman"
Who wrote ...<b>"ironically she was a woman"</b><br /><br />Who wrote that and in reference to what?7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-4729633741361449162020-01-14T03:57:51.054-08:002020-01-14T03:57:51.054-08:00Joe:One very obvious way is by looking at Jesus an...<b>Joe:</b>One very obvious way is by looking at Jesus and listening to his tracings. Then there's Biblical revelation and extra Biblical through prophets.<br />Not so obvious to non-Christians<br /><br /><b>CB:</b>You have to show that that has something to do with God. Otherwise you're grounding your morality in the Bible not God.<br /><br /><b>It's pretty obvious the Bible has something to do with God just read it.</b><br /><br /><br /><b>CB:</b>If I believe in God but not the Bible how do I go about it?<br /><br /><br /><b>The Bible is essentially testimony. So yo can find testimony you do trust. Read books by people who have had experiences.Or talk to such people</b><br /><br />[subject change]<br /><br /><b>Joe:</b>Yes they do in pretty obvious ways. That's one of my major points those who have mystical experience score higher on self actualization scales than those who don't, there are real tamale multiple positive effects.<br /><br /><b>CB:</b>Again you are making huge assumptions. Mystical experience could turn you into a genius and give you super powers too. That still wouldn't show that God is the source of these experiences.<br /><br /><br /><b>You are the one who is making assumptions. You are not listening to what I said here' a word burn it into your brain: "Warrant!" not proof but warrant, belief is warranted. That means there's good reason to accept it. It's not proven, it's warranted.<br /><br />Even if it is not proven it can still be warranted.<br /><br />This is point that my arguments warrant Christian belief, The evidence for that is the data from the book. I've presented several resows as to why mystic experience warrants belief, you are not looking at those reasons read the article part 2</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-86461289867027325732020-01-14T00:59:13.569-08:002020-01-14T00:59:13.569-08:00One very obvious way is by looking at Jesus and li...<b>One very obvious way is by looking at Jesus and listening to his tracings. Then there's Biblical revelation and extra Biblical through prophets.</b><br />Not so obvious to non-Christians<br /><br />You have to show that that has something to do with God. Otherwise you're grounding your morality in the Bible not God.<br /><br />If I believe in God but not the Bible how do I go about it?<br /><br /><b><br />Yes they do in pretty obvious ways. That's one of my major points those who have mystical experience score higher on self actualization scales than those who don't, there are real tamale multiple positive effects.</b><br /><br />Again you are making huge assumptions. Mystical experience could turn you into a genius and give you super powers too. That still wouldn't show that God is the source of these experiences.<br />Cuttleboneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022203266007803962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-62912223051199666482020-01-13T23:37:34.786-08:002020-01-13T23:37:34.786-08:00Cuttlebones said...
He's the original basis fo...Cuttlebones said...<br />He's the original basis for morality, so anything opposed to his nature is immoral or is the basis for immoral<br /><br />How do we ascertain what God's nature is? And how do we get from there to what morally aligns with that nature?<br />Is it as simple as saying God is Loving so morally we should be loving?<br />6:20 PM <br /><br /><b>One very obvious way is by looking at Jesus and listening to his tracings. Then there's Biblical revelation and extra Biblical through prophets. </b><br /><br /><br />Cuttlebones said...<br />Assuming ME is insight not just misfire,then obliviously it does prove it. It shows the undifferentiated unity is all predicated upon God's love. That is the essence of the senes of the numinous. The sense that it takes so the world which is the nature of the experience is all ponying to that idea.I'm not impressed by cynical stupidity that denies the obvious good in things.<br /><br />"Assuming".<br />I don't deny the good in things I'm just unwilling to make the leap to an unverifiable source.<br /><br /><br /><b>that;s easy. no risk Also no gain, if you are brave you can dare to trust God then you get somewhere.,</b><br /><br /><br />I can accept that MEs may be the basis of our concept of God but they don't make that concept a reality.<br /><br /> <b>Yes they do in pretty obvious ways. That's one of my major points those who have mystical experience score higher on self actualization scales than those who don't, there are real tamale multiple positive effects.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-66715190196578403842020-01-13T18:49:36.011-08:002020-01-13T18:49:36.011-08:00Assuming ME is insight not just misfire,then obliv...<b>Assuming ME is insight not just misfire,then obliviously it does prove it. It shows the undifferentiated unity is all predicated upon God's love. That is the essence of the senes of the numinous. The sense that it takes so the world which is the nature of the experience is all ponying to that idea.I'm not impressed by cynical stupidity that denies the obvious good in things.</b><br /><br />"Assuming".<br />I don't deny the good in things I'm just unwilling to make the leap to an unverifiable source.<br />I can accept that MEs may be the basis of our concept of God but they don't make that concept a reality.Cuttleboneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022203266007803962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-82881776167158909992020-01-13T18:20:03.943-08:002020-01-13T18:20:03.943-08:00He's the original basis for morality, so anyth...<b>He's the original basis for morality, so anything opposed to his nature is immoral or is the basis for immoral</b><br /><br />How do we ascertain what God's nature is? And how do we get from there to what morally aligns with that nature?<br />Is it as simple as saying God is Loving so morally we should be loving?<br />Cuttleboneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022203266007803962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-84747537563166299542020-01-13T03:40:05.413-08:002020-01-13T03:40:05.413-08:00we can also know God is good because he loves us, ...we can also know God is good because he loves us, The mystical experience proves that.<br />I'm sorry but it doesn't. The mystical experience proves nothing. We may have the experience but We can't get beyond that.<br /><br /><b>Assuming ME is insight not just misfire,then obliviously it does prove it. It shows the undifferentiated unity is all predicated upon God's love. That is the essence of the senes of the numinous. The sense that it takes so the world which is the nature of the experience is all ponying to that idea.I'm not impressed by cynical stupidity that denies the obvious good in things.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-38379736979137769622020-01-13T03:23:02.277-08:002020-01-13T03:23:02.277-08:00Cuttlebones said...
How does God ground Moral Axio...Cuttlebones said...<br />How does God ground Moral Axioms? I'm still not understanding how one supports the other.<br /><br /><b>He's the original basis for morality, so anything opposed to his nature is immoral or is the basis for immoral</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-87949993461813480832020-01-13T03:20:46.636-08:002020-01-13T03:20:46.636-08:00Cuttlebones said...
"ironically she was a wom...Cuttlebones said...<br />"ironically she was a woman"<br />What? I miss the irony.<br /><br />7:12 PM <br /><br /><b>Probably any irony to be had</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-52514802711059219212020-01-12T20:28:30.930-08:002020-01-12T20:28:30.930-08:00How does God ground Moral Axioms? I'm still no...How does God ground Moral Axioms? I'm still not understanding how one supports the other.Cuttleboneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022203266007803962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-8547947193587680462020-01-12T20:27:01.558-08:002020-01-12T20:27:01.558-08:00we can also know God is good because he loves us, ...<b>we can also know God is good because he loves us, The mystical experience proves that.</b><br />I'm sorry but it doesn't. The mystical experience proves nothing. We may have the experience but We can't get beyond that.Cuttleboneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022203266007803962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-61725757483717919102020-01-12T19:12:02.041-08:002020-01-12T19:12:02.041-08:00"ironically she was a woman"
What? I mis... "ironically she was a woman"<br />What? I miss the irony.Cuttleboneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022203266007803962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-59083407982030079302020-01-11T23:49:40.037-08:002020-01-11T23:49:40.037-08:00 I know you are not into Ayn Rand. I have have a h... I know you are not into Ayn Rand. I have have a high opinion of your views. Who is the major thinker or thinkers in that school the one you are talking about?Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-48557854464016095152020-01-11T18:35:39.525-08:002020-01-11T18:35:39.525-08:00No, it's not Rand's objectivism. It's ...No, it's not Rand's objectivism. It's the meta-ethical theory. I'm not, nor have I ever been, a Randroid :)7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-35801655494398994152020-01-11T05:07:49.380-08:002020-01-11T05:07:49.380-08:00If you mean Rand's Collectivism I don't co...If you mean Rand's Collectivism I don't consider it a valid idea.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-27446947995222254142020-01-10T13:29:57.345-08:002020-01-10T13:29:57.345-08:00was I talking about a school of thought or an act ...<b>was I talking about a school of thought or an act or belief in an act</b><br /><br />No, not in that case, and that was what was odd. You were laying out the major meta-ethical positions: teleological, deontological, and you did mention absolute and objective several times, so it was strange you didn't mention absolutism or objectivism, which are major meta-ethical positions and very different from each other.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-71406244647930688392020-01-10T00:58:55.611-08:002020-01-10T00:58:55.611-08:00I find your terminology a little confusing. Instea...I find your terminology a little confusing. Instead of moral objectivity, I thought the term was moral objectivism. It doesn't claim absolute objectivity, which, as you point out, is impossible, but aims at objectivity as a norm or goal. It distinguishes itself from moral absolutism on the one hand, which is rigid and exceptionless, and moral relativism and moral subjectivity on the other hand, which claims that morality is just a matter of personal preference.<br /><br /><br /><b>was I talking about a school of thought or an act or belief in an act</b><br /><br />The closest parallel to it would be critical realism in the sciences which claims that there are probably mind-independent truths about the physical world and that the best working hypothesis of the sciences is to operate under this assumption, even though we will probably never reach a completely accurate picture of physical reality.<br /><br /><b>yes good point, interesting</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-13663235701060482162020-01-09T14:03:43.122-08:002020-01-09T14:03:43.122-08:00I find your terminology a little confusing. Instea...I find your terminology a little confusing. Instead of moral objectivity, I thought the term was moral objectiv<b>ism</b>. It doesn't claim absolute objectivity, which, as you point out, is impossible, but aims at objectivity as a norm or goal. It distinguishes itself from moral absolutism on the one hand, which is rigid and exceptionless, and moral relativism and moral subjectivity on the other hand, which claims that morality is just a matter of personal preference. <br /><br />The closest parallel to it would be critical realism in the sciences which claims that there are probably mind-independent truths about the physical world and that the best working hypothesis of the sciences is to operate under this assumption, even though we will probably never reach a completely accurate picture of physical reality.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-40764476347112780242020-01-09T08:18:33.020-08:002020-01-09T08:18:33.020-08:00Joe: we can also know God is good because he loves...Joe: we can also know God is good because he loves us, The mystical experience proves that. Don't be afraid to risk being loved<br /><br />Again, pure nonsense.<br /><br /><b>the sense of the ingenious is the second major aspect of mystical experience , that is over whelming all pervasive presence all pervasive presence of love.It is empirically demonstrated to be universal to all cultures and all faiths through the 200+ studies peer reviewed academe journal armistices containing studies on mystical experience. </b><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />1. If God loved us, he would do more to stop suffering.<br /><br /><b>that assumes God is a big man in the sky. There's a lot more to it than that.</b><br /><br /><br />2. I love my kids, am I therefore "good" like God? Or does this reasoning only apply to God?<br /><br /><b>We are created by Trans personal God thus we have the fundamental ability to love it was put in us by the original source of love.</b><br /><br />3. Are you really claiming that mystical experiences allow you to know God's nature with no chance of being confused, deluded or tricked? <br /><br /><b>Obviously I can be wrong about many things, I can no More be wrong about God's love than I could be wrong about my parent's love.I am sure most of my doctrines and pinons are just crude approximations of what's true with many misconceptions. God's love is too fundamental.</b><br /><br />Suppose God was a liar, but wanted you to believe he was perfectly good, do you really think you would be able to expose that deceit during a mystical experience? How can you be sure?<br /><br /><b>We can rule out the notion of being evil logically. We don't need mystical experince for that but is icing on the cake,</b><br /><br />3:55 AM DeleteJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-35610542985549731622020-01-09T08:18:17.756-08:002020-01-09T08:18:17.756-08:00A few centuries ago, most Christians considered sl...A few centuries ago, most Christians considered slavery was moral - and could point to the Bible to justify that view. Why should I think your opinion on slavery is any more "grounded" than theirs?<br /><br /><b>No you have no evidence that it was most. The abolition movement was big and lots of Christians opposed slavery, The major leaders of abolition were Christian, Wilberforce in England. They used the Bible to justify abolition. The civil rights movement was led by Christians too. </b><br /><br />Joe: I said I'm trying tom make a contribution to the world of thought by helping with moral philosophy, you are being anti intellectual by resisting attempts to make moral philosophy work.Check out the dialogue it said Christianity is a part of the mix not that it's going take over<br /><br />Doing it for noble reasons does not magically make it right. Grow up.<br /><br /><b>You are just interpreted like the moral precepts are with you even though you have no moral philosophy to underpin it.In the next generation its going to flip because you have nothing to hold it down,</b><br /><br />Joe: God is synonymous with the Good, That's the only option left logically, all the non God options were disproved in the dialogue. You have no choice but to accent that there is something that is good because you already evoked it as your value. Since God is the only choice standing then no chose but to think 'god is good.<br /><br />That is just plain nonsense. Of course I accept there is something that is good. It in no way implies God is perfectly good.<br /><br /><b>try to think logically now since you can't ground your axioms you can't justify your values. I can ground my axioms, that means I have a rationally justifiable reason to believe in God, but you are unable to rationally justify your moral choices other than personal feeling. Yet you would condemn personal feeling for belief in God.</b><br /><br /><br />Here is an option: God lies, and pretends to be perfectly good when he is anything but. Prove it is not possible, not a logical option (see if you can do it without invoking God as the grounding of morality, as obviously that would be circular).<br /><br /><b>why should I accept something just you assert it? Ot<br />s your burden of proof. Besides God is synonymous with the Good, That's the only option left logically, all the non God options were disproved in the dialogue. You have no choice but to accept that there is something that is good because you already evoked it as your value. Since God is the only choice standing then no chose but to think 'god is good.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-52817172382312964632020-01-09T07:41:21.139-08:002020-01-09T07:41:21.139-08:00Joe: that trite little question begging bull shit ...Joe: that trite little question begging bull shit wont work here.Up have failed to provide grounding. So appeal to God is all we have.<br /><br />So you have nothing of substance? Oh well. Better luck next time.<br /><br /><b>I can ground my axioms and you can't.</b><br /><br />Joe: that's just poisoning the well. First of all I never said anything about God approving slavery, I don't accept the passages in OT that seem to approve slavery.<br /><br />So there goes your grounding in God. You just pick and choose the morality you want, just the same as atheists. There is nothing special about your opinion any more than there is mine.<br /><br /><b>again you are assuming fundamentalist notions of Inerency and I don't. If I don't accept the OT asimerrent why should I accept those passages?</b><br /><br />Joe: Sec only it;s totally irrelevant to that issue because unless you can provide grounding your axiom of anti slavery is just a matter of chaste.<br /><br />Why is slavery wrong? Show how your view is grounded.<br /><br />This is fundamental to your claims, it seems to me. You assert your morality is grounded. Show that with a real example.<br /><br /><b>I knew didn't understand the notion of grounding. what i fundamental to my claim? The OT? why I don;t need the OT to ground moral axioms in God. I know why slavery is wrong because it's contrary to God's love. show me how it is wrong from your perspective? Since you have no grounding how do you imagine that anything is wrong?</b><br /><br />Joe: too bad about those commie atheists murdering 100 million people<br /><br />No one claims atheists all get their morality from a single source. Unlike Christians, who do claim to get their morality from God. If Christians are right, we would expect them to all agree on points of morality. That is clearly not true.<br /><br /><b>I didn't say I get morality from a source other than God,I didn't even say I don't find the OT to be source of a valid revelation. You are saying that Christians have to see everything alike but atheists can be diverse and that is illogical. <br /><br />you also doing guilt by association.</b><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-68494519107702056072020-01-09T03:55:33.006-08:002020-01-09T03:55:33.006-08:00Joe: that trite little question begging bull shit ...Joe: <i>that trite little question begging bull shit wont work here.Up have failed to provide rounding. So appeal to God is all we have.</i><br /><br />So you have nothing of substance? Oh well. Better luck next time.<br /><br />Joe: <i>that's just poisoning the well. First of all I never anything about God approving slavery, I don't accept the passages in OT that seem to approve slavery.</i><br /><br />So there goes your grounding in God. You just pick and choose the morality you want, just the same as atheists. There is nothing special about your opinion any more than there is mine.<br /><br />Joe: <i>Sec only it;s totally irrelevant to that issue because unless you can provide grounding your axiom of anti slavery is just a matter of chaste.</i><br /><br />Why is slavery wrong? Show how your view is grounded.<br /><br />This is fundamental to your claims, it seems to me. You assert your morality is grounded. Show that with a real example.<br /><br />Joe: <i>too bad about those commie atheists murdering 100 million people</i><br /><br />No one claims atheists all get their morality from a single source. Unlike Christians, who do claim to get their morality from God. If Christians are right, we would expect them to all agree on points of morality. That is clearly not true.<br /><br />A few centuries ago, most Christians considered slavery was moral - and could point to the Bible to justify that view. Why should I think your opinion on slavery is any more "grounded" than theirs?<br /><br />Joe: <i>I said I'm trying tom make a contribution to the world of thought by helping with moral philosophy, you are being anti intellectual by resisting attempts to make moral philosophy work.Check out the dialogue it said Christianity is a part of the mix not that it's going take over</i><br /><br />Doing it for noble reasons does not magically make it right. Grow up.<br /><br />Joe: <i>God is synonymous with the Good, That's the only option left logically, all the non God options were disprove the dialogue. You have no choice but to accent that there is something that is good because you already evoked it as your value. Since God is the only choice standing then no chose but to think 'god is good.</i><br /><br />That is just plain nonsense. Of course I accept there is something that is good. It in no way implies God is perfectly good.<br /><br />Here is an option: God lies, and pretends to be perfectly good when he is anything but. Prove it is not possible, not a logical option (see if you can do it without invoking God as the grounding of morality, as obviously that would be circular).<br /><br />Joe: <i>we can also know God is good because he loves us, The mystical experience proves that. Don't be afraid to risk being loved</i><br /><br />Again, pure nonsense.<br /><br />1. If God loved us, he would do more to stop suffering.<br /><br />2. I love my kids, am I therefore "good" like God? Or does this reasoning only apply to God?<br /><br />3. Are you really claiming that mystical experiences allow you to know God's nature with no chance of being confused, deluded or tricked? Suppose God was a liar, but wanted you to believe he was perfectly good, do you really think you would be able to expose that deceit during a mystical experience? How can you be sure?The Pixiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16476236397678245197noreply@blogger.com