Monday, December 01, 2008

Amusing article on atheism

Atheism the Newest Internet Trend On Something Awful


Except


So while technology is breaking apart ancient religious theories with new discoveries, it is also destroying atheism by giving the followers an equal voice. The atheists are executing the most passive-aggressive jihad ever against all religions. A true Crusade of Apathy. I love seeing people of different faiths discuss religion with atheists. It's like a group of college grads, some in fine arts, others in business, and the dude who dropped out of middle school to work at the Circle K down the block. How serious is atheism? Why don't you see for yourself at their headquarter...errr... I mean wikipedia article. "Yeah, it's long, and starred, yes a star means it's a featured article, no big deal really. Our main purpose is to inject anti-religious paragraphs into random articles." The Christianity article is almost surpassed by criticism of Christianity. All over the world, theists are getting FUKN OWNED by the hour, and they don't even know it! But if subtle corrections to encyclopedia articles aren't powerful enough to open eyes, atheists resort to plan two: calling Jews, Muslims, and Christians fags.



More

15 comments:

Samuel Skinner said...

Except when do they try to do something public it ends up shut down by religious nuts. Remember the atheist billboard? The company defaulted on the agreement after complaints.

J.L. Hinman said...

at least they didn't look them up and ridicule them and tell them they are idiots for holding the beliefs they hold.Nor did they go mess up their bill board. How many atheists prowl the net looking for christians message boards to take over with ridicule and mockery and hate? happens every day. there are no good boards anymore except mine (that I know of) that's because I don't allow that trollish behavior.

I do agree that they should have free speech and people should not go back on their deals.

Anonymous said...

Your article is a joke.

The bit about the middle schooler drop out was particularly amusing as most atheists on the net know far more about Christianity than their Christian counterparts. Christians are just atheists who have embraced one more religion. Both groups are quite rational and intelligent, but Christians insist on using terrible logic when it comes to Christianity.

To be sure, atheism and secularism are growing and will eventually be the norm.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Skinner.

I'm afraid the two differ, and agree ith Meta except I will add this.

The Atheism Billboards where not simply a message about Atheism, it was created by those hostile to Relgiion. In othr words, it was hate speech.

Its oen thing to say "I don't beleive in God", its quiet another to ridicule those who do, and the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" tends to target beelif in God as something to be mocked, ridiculed, and subjected to abuse.

Indeed, they themselves have issued endless lawsuits on any public expresison of Christian beleif. THey sue cities and counties and states routinely, and have even sued the Federal Government.

They sued the Boyscouts for wantign to retain God in thir books. THey sued Cities for allowign peopel to put up roadside crosses that Honoured those who died int he lien of Service. They sued cities who had Crosses or pther Christian Symbols in their seals. They sued cities for merely allowing a Cross on a hil in a veterans Cemetary.

They sie if you mention God in public and are a Public official.

They sue if you want to teach a Bible class in High shcool even if its optional.

They are ifhgitgn now to end Student Lead praye rin schools.

They have sued and writen letters to Television statiosn to end Reliiosu briadcastings, unsuccessfully.


So, it snto he evil Religosu nits who do this all alone to silence the poor ahtiest with no freedom of speech. The Billboard was owned by those who woul have sued the Billboard company themselves had the message been oen that promoted Religion.

And the Irony is, Atheism isnt the oposite of Relgion, or the lack of Relgiion, they are just as Religious as any of their oponants. And, so are you.

THey just want to be the ole voice allowed to speak.

-Zarove.

J.L. Hinman said...

Your article is a joke.

The bit about the middle schooler drop out was particularly amusing as most atheists on the net know far more about Christianity than their Christian counterparts.


>>>that is total stupidity. those ignorant little vermin actually admit they know nothing about theology. When Dawkins say "I don't have to know anything about theology because it's stupid" he's saying 'I don't know anything about theology."

you don't get it?

why is it when I talk to atheists about process theology and views where God is impersonal they accuse me of making it up? Obviously most atheists don't shit about theology.



Christians are just atheists who have embraced one more religion. Both groups are quite rational and intelligent, but Christians insist on using terrible logic when it comes to Christianity.

that stupidity shows the extreme poverty of your understanding.Remember what I said in my blog piece? Belief in God is not just adding a fact to the universe? you don't even understand that do you? I can say taht to christians and they go "O yes, I see, yes that's what I've been trying to say." I say to atheists and they go "HU? are yew say'n belief is better than sicence?"

To be sure, atheism and secularism are growing and will eventually be the norm.


that is particularly idiotic. atheism is actualy shrinking.Iv'e watched it go down from an alledge 14% in 98 to 1.5% now (that's US pop). Now a vast body of scientific works shows God is hard wried in the bran, our bodies respond to healing much much better when we believe in God, our minds work better and we have much better attidues, abilities and take on life when we belief.

It is sheer suicide and stupidity to be an atheist.

Loren said...

Metacrock, you have to be VERY careful with polls. Be sure to check on what they ask about. That alleged steep decline in atheism is likely an artifact of such confusion -- and is contrary to what other polls and studies show.

And a physical billboard is NOT a software messageboard. The closest meatspace counterpart of one might be some sort of social club.

Furthermore, I've seen a lot of Christians vilify atheism as one of the greatest evils imaginable. And look at Psalm 14, the one that starts with "the fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'", and continues in that vein.

As to the atheist billboards, even the politest statement of an atheist position provokes violent hostility. As Richard Dawkins says, "Why, I can't help wondering, is God thought to need such ferocious
defence?"

Yes, ferocious.

As to good health, why is people's health so good and life expectancy so great in relatively secular countries like northern European ones and Japan? Why aren't they dying like flies at early ages?

Furthermore, Metacrock, most religious believers don't believe in the sort of god you believe in, so from your point of view, they are effectively atheists. Instead, they believe in the sort of god(s) that you consider atheist-invented caricatures: anthropomorphic, meddling gods.

And in the Middle Ages, if you had claimed that God is the "ground of being" or whatever, all I will say is that medieval theologians were not known for having a great sense of humor.

J.L. Hinman said...

Metacrock, you have to be VERY careful with polls. Be sure to check on what they ask about. That alleged steep decline in atheism is likely an artifact of such confusion -- and is contrary to what other polls and studies show.


You are not the social science major I am. I researched it.

And a physical billboard is NOT a software messageboard. The closest meatspace counterpart of one might be some sort of social club.


My only comment on the billboard was to favor free speech. although I feel for the good of society we should consider outlawing atheism.


Furthermore, I've seen a lot of Christians vilify atheism as one of the greatest evils imaginable. And look at Psalm 14, the one that starts with "the fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'", and continues in that vein.


atheism the complete destruction of humanity. it's destoryed everything that made life worth living.

As to the atheist billboards, even the politest statement of an atheist position provokes violent hostility. As Richard Dawkins says, "Why, I can't help wondering, is God thought to need such ferocious
defence?"

Yes, ferocious.

God isn't telling people to respond that way.

As to good health, why is people's health so good and life expectancy so great in relatively secular countries like northern European ones and Japan? Why aren't they dying like flies at early ages?


Japan is not an atheist country. none of those are. The hard core of northern Europe is only 20%. they are not atheist countries. Japanese have 30% Christians and most of them are religious but in new ways that aren't traditional.




Furthermore, Metacrock, most religious believers don't believe in the sort of god you believe in, so from your point of view, they are effectively atheists. Instead, they believe in the sort of god(s) that you consider atheist-invented caricatures: anthropomorphic, meddling gods.

that's just a matter of education level. It doesn't matter if your view of God is stupid or sophisticated. that is not a limit to the advantages of mystical experince. But for those who have those kind of experinces they don't stick with the comic book guy in the sky.

And in the Middle Ages, if you had claimed that God is the "ground of being" or whatever, all I will say is that medieval theologians were not known for having a great sense of humor.

Loren said...

(alleged factor of 10 drop in number of US atheists...)
You are not the social science major I am. I researched it.

Credential-mongering is not a very good argument; it is NO substitute for quality scholarship. In any case, sociologists like Steve Bruce have concluded that secularization is real. And Steve Bruce has done a LOT of research on that subject.

My only comment on the billboard was to favor free speech. although I feel for the good of society we should consider outlawing atheism.

Metacrock, that's a *very* dangerous position. The pagan Romans outlawed early Christianity because it involved denying the official gods; they could have made much the same argument. And in later centuries, some of them made exactly such an argument, that denying the traditional gods of Rome made the Empire fall. St. Augustine in his City of God goes through the trouble of rebutting that argument.

BTW, some pagans considered early Christians to be atheists because they denied all gods but theirs.

atheism the complete destruction of humanity. it's destoryed everything that made life worth living.

How is that supposed to be the case?

Do you think that Richard Dawkins is living a miserable, unfulfilled life and now has one foot in the grave?

(ferocious defense of God...)

God isn't telling people to respond that way.

Metacrock, how did you find that out? Did God reveal that to in person? And what kind of a God is it who never bothers to appear to them in person and say "Cut it out! The end does NOT justify the means! And if you don't do so, I will reprogram you so you can't even desire to do that." Especially a god who issues lots and lots and lots of laws. I would not have much respect for such a god even if It existed.

Japan is not an atheist country. none of those are. The hard core of northern Europe is only 20%. they are not atheist countries. Japanese have 30% Christians and most of them are religious but in new ways that aren't traditional.

Japan's Christian population is much smaller than 30% -- more like 1.5% or 3%. And many Japanese don't exactly treat religion as a high priority. And the same for northern Europeans; many of them are either cultural Christians or indifferent to religion. Someone once discovered that "Somethingism" is a common belief system in Holland.

Metacrock, why don't you check out the research that Steve Bruce and others have done?

(most believers in gods believing in anthropomorphic, meddling gods...)

that's just a matter of education level. It doesn't matter if your view of God is stupid or sophisticated.

How is something a "view of God" when it is just plain wrong about the nature and activities of this alleged entity?

that is not a limit to the advantages of mystical experince.

You might want to talk to Sam Harris and Richard Carrier about mystical experiences some time.

Anonymous said...

Loren, I'm afraid you are repeating things that are popular but Mythic.

For insyance, when Dawkins complains about Defnece of "God beleif" being fericious, he presents himself as a Rational, well meanign man, wiht a mild temperment who merley asks wuestiins and gently states his beleifs. Many of his followers lso think of him in this vien, as a Charming, well mannered and good humoured man,

But the reality is, Dawkisn is a Self absorbed, cruel mined jerk. In "The God Dilusoon: you can see clear contemot in his writing for thse who disagree, an if you watch "Root Of All Evil?" you will see Dawkisn go out of his way to attakc others. is hatred of THeism is so comoplete that he inject sit into everythign he does, even in The Selfish Gene. He wrote a book called "Unweaving The Rainbow" which is filled wiht hatred. He's advocated mkign it criminal to raise CHildren in Religious traditions.

Ruichard Dawkins is an extremist bigot who wants to make Religion loose respec tbu encouraging others to openly mock and ridicule it until it becomes an embarrassment to admit to it.

And you think he's not goign to get harsh reactions?

Most Atheists don't report their ideas as recieivng this sort of harshness. Altough Don Copitt did note how many protested his appoitnments wihtin the Churhc of ENgland and at Cmabridge, h'es admited thta no ones really been that harsh to him. Michael Ruse has gone on Record to say that Theists aren't that notorious for hostility, and the whel claim of them beign hostile shoudl be abandoned. David Orr has been heaivly critical notign that he is usually well recieve dby Theists.

Dawkisn see's harshness because he treats those he disagres with with contempt and even mockery and scorn.

As o the rest, Metacrock has handled that already.

-Zarove.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and oen mroe htink. Loren, when you complain about the Christians in the Middle Ages burnign Metacrock becaue they didn;t have a sence of Humour and basiclaly state that they had a simplistic, anthropomorphic view of God, it reveals that you have no working historical knowledge of the middle ages.

If you read the theologians fo the period, like Anslom, or Bonaventure, or THomas Aquinas, you will find a much more buanced and much different view on God.

The Middle Ages did not see God as an Anthropomorphic intety.

-Zarove

J.L. Hinman said...

(alleged factor of 10 drop in number of US atheists...)
You are not the social science major I am. I researched it.

Credential-mongering is not a very good argument;


that was a bad attempt at levity. Not being the social science guy I am is probably a good thing. My BA was in sociology but notice I didn't wind up being a sociologist.


it is NO substitute for quality scholarship. In any case, sociologists like Steve Bruce have concluded that secularization is real. And Steve Bruce has done a LOT of research on that subject.



secularization is real, no doubt but that's not opposed to religion. Secularization is the friend of religion it was invented by religious people.

you are thinking of "secularism" which is going nowhere because it' just based upon hatred and mockery not on thinking.


ME, I said this:My only comment on the billboard was to favor free speech. although I feel for the good of society we should consider outlawing atheism.



Metacrock, that's a *very* dangerous position. The pagan Romans outlawed early Christianity because it involved denying the official gods; they could have made much the same argument.

somehow I had a feeling you wouldn't like that idea.


And in later centuries, some of them made exactly such an argument, that denying the traditional gods of Rome made the Empire fall. St. Augustine in his City of God goes through the trouble of rebutting that argument.


No you are right about that one. As much as I feel I would greet that move with glee, in the long run it would be a mistake, (not to mention total hypocrisy). What we can is treat mockery and derision of religious people as hate speech.

BTW, some pagans considered early Christians to be atheists because they denied all gods but theirs.


true. ordinarily I don't like banning things, especially ideas. that's pretty much the sort of fascist nonsense I've always fought. But atheism dose constitutee a danger to civlization. Atheits are destorying thought. They are ripping out the intelletaul heritigage of the chruch and spitting on it everday, that same intellectaul heritage is the heritage of western thoguht.

everytime Dawkins says "theology is stupid" atheists hear "I don't have to read or understand the basis of western civilization then.



Me:atheism the complete destruction of humanity. it's destoryed everything that made life worth living.


How is that supposed to be the case?

Western civ was built Christianity. Christians saved the learning of the classical world in the monesteries. Chrsitians started modern science, it was from Christian thught that modern secular thought evovled. look at the doubles:

predestination vs free will: doubte is determinism vs free will.

social contract theory; double is Augustine's argument about the commonwealth in City of God.

concept of human rights and Geneva conventions: double is the Christian concept (Augustine) that each individual is an end in himself and humans can't be used as a means to an end.

Idea of social progress: the idea of Augustine to re value the valus of the empire.


Do you think that Richard Dawkins is living a miserable, unfulfilled life and now has one foot in the grave?

yes. most womanizing adulterers do lead that sort of life. tons of studies show religious people who live clean lives are much happier and in better shape.

(ferocious defense of God...)

Me:God isn't telling people to respond that way.

Metacrock, how did you find that out?

He wrote me a letter. I's called "1st John."


Did God reveal that to in person?

yea that too.


And what kind of a God is it who never bothers to appear to them in person and say "Cut it out!

the kind who is not a big man in the sky, why haven't you been reading my blog?




The end does NOT justify the means!

I just said that. I'm sitting here say "we don't wont to use those means" so why give me a lecture on not using those means?


And if you don't do so, I will reprogram you so you can't even desire to do that." Especially a god who issues lots and lots and lots of laws. I would not have much respect for such a god even if It existed.


your argument is silly. You are almost assuring God is real and yu just don't' like him. why do you want God to be a fascist? If you think God is not real then obviously he's not telling anyone anything and my argument is just based upon Jesus' teachings. so what's wrong with Jesus teachings? they clearly agree with part of your view if you opposes social tyranny, so why would you want God to be a social tyrant?

ME:Japan is not an atheist country. none of those are. The hard core of northern Europe is only 20%. they are not atheist countries. Japanese have 30% Christians and most of them are religious but in new ways that aren't traditional.

Japan's Christian population is much smaller than 30% -- more like 1.5% or 3%.

nope, I may have gotten the stats wrong, may be more 15% but they just discovered in a new study that they had been underrating it. It's on my site Doxa. Read it. look under the "social" button.


And many Japanese don't exactly treat religion as a high priority.

Yes they do. the problem is, you are judging that by western standards. their views of religion are not like ours.

And the same for northern Europeans; many of them are either cultural Christians or indifferent to religion. Someone once discovered that "Somethingism" is a common belief system in Holland.


about 41% are Christians, self identified, and about 20% are soft care atheists. Leaving about 21$ hard core atheists. the rest don't know.

Northern Europe is also very pagan. They have a huge influx of people who are into fairies, magic, eastern religion, reviving pagan roots and so forth, which is religion and not atheism.


Metacrock, why don't you check out the research that Steve Bruce and others have done?

Ok thanks I'll do that. do you have a link?is he a real sociologist?

(most believers in gods believing in anthropomorphic, meddling gods...)

Me:that's just a matter of education level. It doesn't matter if your view of God is stupid or sophisticated.

How is something a "view of God" when it is just plain wrong about the nature and activities of this alleged entity?


I'm afraid I don't understand that question. It sounds as though you got get that people have different concepts of God? I've mentioned many times I'm always saying this; we load our experiences of God, which are beyond words, into cultural constructs. meaning we all have different views of God.

MEthat is not a limit to the advantages of mystical experince.

You might want to talk to Sam Harris and Richard Carrier about mystical experiences some time.


No you might want to rad my book. I've blown away the simple minded lie about chemical determinism and all the bullshit alternate causality stuff which really has no bearing on it anyway.

Loren said...

Here is a taxonomy of atheism that you people might find interesting: Types of Atheists You can find "royal-lie atheists" among them, after Plato's proposal that his Republic have a religion he considered false in order to make its citizens virtuous. Yes, one can be an atheist and believe that about religion, that it's useful to make people fear some cosmic bogeyman in order to make them virtuous.

Danny Yee has a nice review of Steve Bruce's magnum opus, God is Dead: Secularization in the West - its cover picture shows a church that was converted into a carpet shop. He even has a home page

As to medieval theologians and Metacrock, they would likely have concluded that Metacrock is too close to pantheism with his "ground of being" god, and that he thinks that heresies are just as true as orthodoxy. Since Metacrock is a Protestant, he is officially a heretic by the standards of the medieval Church, though he may think otherwise.

And as to "Western civilization", I think that it is rooted in the classical Greco-Roman world, and that Xianity was an add-on. So should we all convert to Hellenic paganism?

J.L. Hinman said...

I am not sure if mideval theologians knew about pantheism.

Aquinas said that God was the primary act of existence. the difference in that and ground of being is worth the price of a cup of coffee.

Anonymous said...

Loren, the "FOrce of Hisotry" arguments have been used to shore up a lot of things that just didn't happen. Like OCmmunism. Did you knwo that as late as the mid 1980's University proffessors in America thugh that Communism was inevitabley goignto take over the world as it was the next, logical step in Human progression? The same can be said of the princoles of Eugenics. It was once thought that in the future we'd be breeding newer, btter, superior Human bekings. And, int he early 20th Century, Eugenics was seen as a seriosu Science and the obvious solution to Human frailty.

Speakign of which, the NAZI's where seen in their day as a fore of Hisotry, and anyoen resistign the new order was doomed ot failure because their way was obviously the next step in advancign humanity. The NAZI's of coruse helpd to this idea themselves but so did some other soutside of them, even soem who opposed them on ideological grounds.

All of these forces of hisotry that woudl continue on and reshape the wolrd, beign inevitable and incontrovertable, ave been left tot he Dustbin of History.

As a militant Atheist you may feel better thinkign that, in the end your side will win, and peopel will grow less and less relgiious and emrbace the obvious, raitonal conclusiosn you nwo hodl to, and you can see clealry the future trnd toward raitonality over superstition. But, coem off it, not only do people like you tend to overlook the real nature of your oponants in Christianity, what they beelive and why, yo also fail to look at your own logical cotnradicions, and just assume your way is the only logical and raitonal one, clealryu superior, and that anyoen will see htis is given thought.

You also out a lot of Faith into an unproven, and in fsct disproven notion of Progressivism. You honeslty think that a Secularised world free of religion is goign to occure simply because in you rmind everyhtign evovles in a leniar fashion ever upward, and of coruse your ideal is higher than any other.

To you, it makes sence ot see CHurches shrink, and eventulaly die, and the orld emrbadce Seuclarism as you see it ( Which is, non-relgiion, which is itzelf a non-sequeter but I digress). THis is a ocmforting thoguth to you, and one that makes perfect sence given how you view atheism and secularism and how you view Christianty and most other reliions.

You see them as primative, and eventually replace dby a superior understanding. And you htink societies always advance towards these things.

There are two fatal flaws, though. One is that there is no gurentee of advancement in Evoltion. Even if your Atheism and secularism where superior or more learned, which they arne't, you'd have no reaosn to ebelive society oul naturlaly gravitate toward it.

Worse is the presumption that current trends are goign to remain. EVen if we accept that the current trend is Seuclarisation and loss of relgion ( WHich even in Europe is no logner the trend) you'd have to find a reasonable arument to justufy htinkign this will alays continue, of which ou have none.

If you study hisotry, you will see that, dispite ht epopular mytholigy, CHristiantiy didn't hold western civilisaiton with an Iron Grip until the ENlightenemnt then gradulaly die away, makign no new gains.

The truth is, Christianity has stagnated many times in its 2000 yars. In the late 900's we see Monks and Prusts comlainign that no one goes to Mass any longer and no oen takes them serisouly, only to see a Revivl as the year 1000 approached.

About 300 yars later, CHurhc life was all but dead in Europe until Wycliffe started agitatign things. Although Ahtism wanst common, no oen took the CHurch too seriosuly and attendance was sporatic.

After Wyclciffe, thigns droped thouh not to prewycliffe levels, only toi rise agin wihtthe Hussites and later the Reformation. Martin Luther, Ultrich Zwingli, and John Calvin , in acocmpanyment with Cranmner, Knox, Lane, and others, began to reshape Christianity, and as a result of the Reformaiton, and coutnerreformaiton, Christianity was actulaly growing in the contention.

THen, in the 1700's the Enlightenemtn came along, and critisised Christainity, and openly attacke dit. THe French Revo,ution acutlaly saw CHurchmen killed for the sole purtpose of being Clergy and CHurhcginers killed for darign no to renoucne their faith. THe persecution was so heavy that the French Revolutonaries even built a new Calender, with a ten day workweek to eliminate the Sabbath an new months to eliminate ealrier Christain connotations. Hence why cosome events are hard ot date.

We dont use their calender any logner, suffer to say,. I'm sur eno oen thinks THermedore is their favourite month at any rate.

After htis, VOltaire is famous for haivng said "In 100 years The Bible will be a forgotten book." Well, a century passed and his home was now owned by the Geneva Bible society, which printed Bibles in it.

Actally, even in America, hich wa snot part of the Enlguhtenment ( dispite ahtist soruces sayign otherwise) Religiosity fell to record lows int he ealry 18th enttury base dont hese same ideas.

Everyone, even the CHurhces, whre saying that hristianity was finihed in America. Biritain wa sno better with HCurhces emptying and society loosign interest in Christendom.

Guess what happeend then? A mannamed John Edwards preached a Sermon, and tbus began a Revival. It was known as "The GReat Awakening" and spread to two contenents and saw such luminaries as John Wesley, John Whitfeild, and Francis Asbury ricing up to take a claim on Hisotry, and on two contenents CHrisgianity burned brightly once again, beomign a domenat force.

Then, it lost this at the beginning of the 19th century, and more an dmroe peopel lost interest in the Churhces and God and Chrisgtianity. Once agais thr predictiosn came of how the CHurhces where loosign ground. And, the Seocnd GReat Awakenignhappened. Thouh the Seocnd Great Awakenign was not as big as th irst, neither was the decline that preceeded it.

Afte this, a the end of the 19th century again Christian Faith waned in society, fallign to lows unseen in liing memory. Then, up fromt he grave it arose, with a mighty triumph or its foes.

We saw SPurgeon coem into England, and the Oxford Movement lead by Newman. We saw a floury of activity in America as well.

After WW2 interest again droped in America, and the UK. In fact, in the 1950's the churhces where loosign membrs and the CUltural Revolution of the 1960;s saw peopel leavign the Chruch an even beign hostile to it gaining traction. The Hippie generaiton embaced Drugs, Sex, and rock'n Roll with sloagans like "Make love not war:.

They where harldy infoming these decisions base don a christian COncience.

The 1970's saw a small but vital Jeuss Peopel movement come along that oformed a coutnercultural movement of its own, but it was never signifigant until the 1980's when the creation of the Moral Majority helped Reagan win the white house an dpalce CHristianity bakc into promenance at the ame time. This was also when Christians began to identify withthe Repubican Party, as previosuly the Christians where by and large associated with the Democats.

The Mianline churhces continued to delcine sicne he 1950's, this new mvoement saw the rise of Evangleical Chruches.

So, rathr than see current trends supportign seuclariation, abse don an ideal of lienar prigrssivism that automaticlaly leads to your Ideals, perhaos listen to Santayanas most fmaous wuote, and learn Hisotyr. THings tend ot cycle back and fourth.

-Zarove

Anonymous said...

Also, Loren, I suspect you haven't read anythign by Midaevel theologians, and just asusme they all had an Anthropomorphic deity in mind, base don your curren tposts. But, if you read up, soem of them had very similar ideas to Metas way bakc then.

I'd suggest you read Aquinas.

-Zarove.