Do Gods Exist? Can You Prove Gods Exist? Do They Even Have To Exist?

[Data]

Definitions

God: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being; (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity; an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate; an adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god; the gallery in a theater.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods.

Veneration: great respect; reverence:

Existence: the fact or state of living or having objective reality; continued survival; a way of living; any of a person's supposed current, future, or past lives on this earth; all that exists; a being or entity.

In essence a god is anything or anyone who is venerated. A mortal man, an object, a fictional or mythological character, real or imagined, a concept like luck. Good or bad. To exist as a god could involve any of a number of specific applications. To exist literally, metaphorically, figuratively, as a fictional, metaphysical or mythological being, object or concept. In what specific sense any alleged god may exist may depend upon such context.

Questions for debate: Do gods exist? Can you prove they exist and do they even have to exist?

[TRANSPONDER]

I just have to remind (if it was needed) that no dictionary is a science book. It is a book of English usage. Definition, right, wrong, scientific or popular.

A dictionary will (and should) have multiple meanings and usages for some words. An obvious one in 'Theory' where a scientific theory is one thing and the popular usage (meaning hypothesis or just an idea) is a different thing, and Theist apologists confusing one with the other - even if mistaken and not a deliberate ploy - is wrong.

The same is happening where the discussion about gods (let alone a particular one) is confused with other definitions that are irrelevant. So long as we don't get diverted down this byway, we are probably all good.

[Purple Knight]

Would you dispute that sort of fatherly moral authority as our creator, and would you dispute the moral authority of parents? Would you dispute the moral authority of parents or guardians if they were morally reprehensible to your own sense of morality?

Yes I dispute that. I think if a parent or other creator is oppressive, standing up to them is a right. Moral authority can be delegated but if it turns out the delegate is horrible, I think people can take back their right to choose at any time.

Since we don't entirely decide our morality on an individual basis do you dispute the moral authority imposed upon you, knowingly or unknowingly, by your culture, times, traditions? God puts a sense of morality in our hearts, do you dispute that, or object to it?

Yes I dispute that. It's how culture can change. Everyone now realises slavery is awful, but it was culture almost everywhere from time immemorial. If there is a God, Reason is a much greater gift. We're meant to use it.

God allows man to decide his own morality in some sense since Adam's sin, demonstrating the destructive effects of that. Adam's sin was to decide for morality for himself, resulting in death, do you dispute or object to that? And finally, God gives everyone who makes the choice in acknowledgement and acceptance of Jehovah God's rightful sovereignty and moral authority to live forever in paradise on earth without disease, poverty, and moral depravity or for those who reject it to suffer everlasting destruction. Do you dispute or object to that? There's a lot packed into that, isn't there?

I don't think God had a right to make a creature with immortality, then punitively take that away. I think sentient beings have rights. Once I have a leg, and it's attached to me, it's my leg, and no one may morally cut it off, including the one who gave it to me. I don't think a morality constructed where people needlessly suffer for somebody else's sins, is right or fair. Morality is decided upon. I think it is also necessary that it's fair and equal. I don't kill you, you don't kill me, we shake hands, we agree.

Turning the other cheek, for example, is inequal, and unfair, asking one person to bear the burden of abuse so another can gain happiness by hitting him. That can't be right.

Let's say the Devil gets to create his own universe. Is it necessarily right for any beings created within to follow whatever the Devil says is moral? I agree with you that morality is decided upon, and I say it's right to decide that no, these rules are immoral, we won't follow them.

Would you dispute that?

I think we have at least the right, and possibly the obligation, to disobey an unfair master.

[Data]

Yes I dispute that. I think if a parent or other creator is oppressive, standing up to them is a right. Moral authority can be delegated but if it turns out the delegate is horrible, I think people can take back their right to choose at any time.

Yes. But I don't think that is implied in the healthy parental or divine model. The real problem there, is, firstly it can be abused by parents or religions. On the other hand, it can be subjective. Very similar to the political model in the US. The country is a republic but everyone has been duped into thinking it's a democracy. Democracy is an abomination, comparatively speaking. It sacrifices the rights of the minority in favor of the majority. A republic values the rights of everyone. Democracy is so appealing to a corrupt political system because it can be so easily abused, for example, in pretense in favor of the citizen while in actuality in favor of the elite. I'm antisocial and apolitical so that's a neutral observation not politically motivated.

Yes I dispute that. It's how culture can change. Everyone now realizes slavery is awful, but it was culture almost everywhere from time immemorial.

A couple points. I don't think you are reflecting upon the "unknowingly" in my response. Often the issue of morality is exaggerated and objections are short sighted or an obvious product of idealism. Idealism tends to hamper our practical judgment. For example, you say everyone now realizes slavery is awful, but there is more slavery now than historically there ever has been. Also, the cultural significance is overlooked. The type of slavery now most common is more subtle than it was previously. They would think our form much more insidious. They would think our alternatives were morally repulsive. And there may be good reasons for that. Another important thing to consider in an evaluation of the differences might be that, especially in more recent history, morality is not an accurate representation of the public. For example, when I was very young the hippies and today's woke culture were and are small pockets that don't very accurately represent the majority of people or everyday life. It's socially and politically motivated sensationalism. It sells. But it also becomes an attachment of the quixotic and a useful tool for the powers that be. Especially in divide and conquer. Show me someone for reform and I'll show you someone with a head full of evil intentions.

If there is a God, Reason is a much greater gift. We're meant to use it.

Yes, but sometimes it's socially or politically, idealistically or ideologically incentivized not to.

I don't think God had a right to make a creature with immortality, then punitively take that away. I think sentient beings have rights. Once I have a leg, and it's attached to me, it's my leg, and no one may morally cut it off, including the one who gave it to me. I don't think a morality constructed where people needlessly suffer for somebody else's sins, is right or fair. Morality is decided upon. I think it is also necessary that it's fair and equal. I don't kill you, you don't kill me, we shake hands, we agree.

On of my all-time favorite writers, Frank Herbert, in Chapterhouse Dune, wrote: “Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty.” Morality uncorrupted is imposed for the protection of the people, by the people or in the Biblical sense, even better, the creator. Immortality was punitively taken away to preserve, not oppress mankind. Prior to that what were the rules? Fill and subdue the earth, don't touch the tree. We don't needlessly suffer for someone else's sin; we inherit the unfortunate environment as a result of that sin. I use the analogy of an unfortunate child who, though not being punished for his father's crime, suffers poverty, fatherlessness, and all that comes with that because his old man has been locked up in prison for committing a crime.

Turning the other cheek, for example, is inequal, and unfair, asking one person to bear the burden of abuse so another can gain happiness by hitting him. That can't be right.

One of the biggest mistakes people make when reading the Bible, I think, is contextual. They think the Bible was written specifically for them and applies to them contextually, which is sort of silly, because the Bible was written for people thousands of years ago, in specific places and times. What was written for Adam's, Moses' or David's or the disciple's consideration isn't the same because the circumstances weren't the same. That's why in Jude 1:7 he wrote that the circumstances of the time of Lot were a warning example for him in his own place and time. What religion does is to take something good and use it as a tool to oppress. People say religion was designed to control people, but that isn't accurate. Religion is always redesigned to be controlled by the people. For example, the religious leaders of Jesus' day criticized him and his followers for not washing their hands before they ate. The hand, at the time, was thought to consist of the fingertips up to and including the wrist. The religious leaders, being self-righteous, exceeded that up to the elbows. So, they did wash their hands, they just didn't do it beyond what the law stated for their own self-righteousness.

What was happening for a long time in the Bible times was that by law the rule was eye for eye and tooth for tooth. Soul (life) for soul. People took that law into their own hands, excessively, and began exacting revenge on people outside of the law but in the name of the law, so Jesus said, turn the other cheek instead of doing that. A slap such as being referenced wasn't intended to cause physical injury; it was an insult. Jesus was saying don't be provoked into confrontation. That still applies today, but it was directed at a people at a specific time to address a specific problem. Israel was formed as a nation of laws with mercy and forgiveness in mind, not vengeance and retribution. Jesus' intent wasn't to make his followers passive victims.

I think we have at least the right, and possibly the obligation, to disobey an unfair master.

I agree, and I think we do have it. For example, when I became a believer, I was forced to make a choice. As a practicing homosexual I had to choose to live by Jehovah God's standards or my own. At the time I didn't think it possible for me to abandon my lifestyle so I chose it over God. I call this period of time my Dark Days. Promiscuous sex, drugs and alcohol. I'm amazed that I came out of that unscathed. And having that choice allowed me to see that that lifestyle wasn't "just the way it is" but there was a better, for me, alternative. I don't morally judge people who choose that lifestyle, or any other. My motto is live and let live, but I believe as sovereign Lord, Jehovah God has the right to protect and guide his creation, and though I think it fair that he allows those to choose destruction over that, it isn't our right to inherit his purpose for mankind to live forever in peace without following his wise council thereby spoiling it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Damn, a sob story always works Of course I get (and I'm sure we all get) the problems you say you had or have. But while your sexual lifestyle is (or was) your choice, that did not imply all the rest of the stuff. Being a secularist means that sexually I made choices, but I was able on rational grounds to be sensible about it and keep it (and booze,too) under control. Just to be sensible rather than please Jehovah. Obviously you are crediting Jesusgod for saving you from your own errors, which others can do without God, and even if some need Religious help to get over Problems, that doesn't tell you there is a real god let alone which one. Do you see how the 'Jesus saved me from the gutter...' is never a valid apologetic? It may save some, but then I'd suggests once you've kicked the habit, using religion, kick the habit of religion.

What were the other points? Really the 'We need it, true or not' apologetic. In fact all you say is valid, but we knew it. That doesn't make a case for religion much less a god. That the old religions were products of their time, means they are less relevant now, not that they are somehow true in a way God failed to convey to the old writers. Think it through - if God wanted to convey morality appropriate to the present age, how would he do it? Yep - humanism.

[POI]

You are a Christian.

No.

So you are an agnostic, other?

Okay. What is the evidence?

Evidence of what exactly?

2) Please explain what a 'nothing' is? I'll start. Absence of anything at all. God once ruled and dwelled within and over the absence of anything at all Okay, your turn.

If you walk into a space and you see nothing there you say there is nothing. Are you breathing air? Is there light? Energy? If you're standing 5 miles away from a herd of elephants and you hear nothing, but then play back a recording in a manner which you can now here a low frequency sound the elephants are making to another elephant miles away, you would say there was nothing as far as elephant sounds because you couldn't hear them with your ears.

You are still giving the definition of 'something.' Everything you mentioned, in bold, still needed to be (brought into existence) by a "supernatural creator". Before these things existed, they did not. At one point, God was 100% alone?

Or, we could just not make assumptions from some presupposition. We can discuss the possibility. But we can't say anything for sure. And, also, skeptics tend to take the Bible in a hyper strict literal sense, often out of context. Snakes talk. Donkeys talk. That sort of thing.

I see no logical possibility here. At one point, God ruled over and dwelled in complete absence of any existence, before God necessarily had to create it

If you agree with 'spirit' being directly interchangeable with air/breath, then you must also agree that these ancients had no idea how air worked. Meaning, the 'air/breath/other' was the 'spirit', when written.

The Hebrew word for spirit can also be translated, depending on the context, as breath, wind, breeze. It comes from a root meaning to blow. The Greek word for spirit, is pneuma, from which comes the English pneumatic, pneumonia. The word means invisible active force producing visible results. Anyway, what difference would it make if they knew how air worked or not? How does it work? What matters is do we know what they mean by the words they use?

Thank you for conceding my point. The ancients thought "wind/breath/air/other" was your spirit. But they were wrong.

The heavens didn't always exist. We've covered that. They were complete by the time the narrative begins at Genesis 1:1.

Yes. God had to create everything, including the realm God rules and dwells/occupies. This makes no logical sense. We covered this too.

If you say so. But I don't care. What I do is the Bible. You want to take a philosophical, theological, or scientific approach that's fine, as long as it fits with the Bible. If it doesn't it's something else. My experience with the scientific approach commonly used by skeptics is that it is about as lame, if not more so, than philosophy or theology, just more arrogant. I could give you examples, but you wouldn't be interested I don't think.

To the part in bold. It's funny how you accuse others of having a presupposition. How about just follow evidence wherever it leads?

Further, not sure what 'arrogance' has to do with anything. Maybe you are just 'emoting.'

I'm not going to research your argument unless it has to do with the Bible, and you can tell me how. I'm not having a discussion with Google. If you have a point, make it. I don't care what you call it and I don't care where you get it. All I do is measure it by the Bible.

I find it quite hard to imagine you have never addressed the 'god of the gaps' argument in full. You, stating you have been studying the God topic for 30 years and all. In essence, you fall right into this fallacy. The unknown = Jehovah. But guess what, thus far, when unknowns become knowns, over the past few thousand years now, we have yet to find any such 'God' there.

Oh. Well, if I can no longer logically be "sola scriptura" then that makes all the difference in the world.

You missed my point. It sheds light on the point you stated above in bold. (i.e.) "as long as it fits with the Bible. If it doesn't it's something else". You'll just keep moving the goalposts to assure that the evidence remains in line with your a priori belief -- the Bible. Where-as others logically dismiss it.

[Data]

So you are an agnostic, other?

Believer.

Evidence of what exactly?

I was responding to this:

This is not logically possible, believer or not. Why? At some point, Jehovah ruled and also occupied "nothing at all"?

It may have been a misunderstanding on my part. It seemed that you were implying that since God didn't have a place to occupy or anything to rule over it was impossible for him to have existed under those circumstances. It may have been you were implying it wasn't logical for him to rule over or exist in nothing?

You are still giving the definition of 'something.' Everything you mentioned, in bold, still needed to be (brought into existence) by a "supernatural creator". Before these things existed, they did not. At one point, God was 100% alone?

Yes. I'm trying to point out to you that language can be tricky. "What are you up to?" "Nothing." Would be a correct answer. "I'm currently involved in a process that is characterized by several attributes, including homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction." Would not likely be the correct answer. When we are talking about the Bible, we are talking more about language than science, so what is meant by the Bible saying God existed before anything? Jesus and his disciples, for example, used the term before the founding of the world, which is often mistaken as before creation, but it doesn't mean that at all. My point had been that nothing sometimes means nothing literally, and sometimes it doesn't.

I see no logical possibility here. At one point, God ruled over and dwelled in complete absence of any existence, before God necessarily had to create it :shock:

It's hard for me to understand. It doesn't make sense. God didn't rule over nothing. There was nothing to rule over. God didn't exist in a literal place, either spirit (invisible) or physical (material). At least not as we would understand it, and I think it's accurate and the common understanding that it was just God. Not a place. Nothing to rule. Just God. Not to add to the confusion, but since there wasn't any other beings to worship him, he wasn't a god then. Because that word means venerated. If there isn't anyone to venerate, then there isn't a god. The spirit being we have come to know as Jehovah God, existed without creation, before anything else.

Thank you for conceding my point. The ancients thought "wind/breath/air/other" was your spirit. But they were wrong.

Maybe you're thinking in terms of religious concepts instead of words and their meanings. They weren't wrong. Science itself still thinks that, that's why the Greek word for spirit, pneuma, is still used today. Pneumonia, pneumatic.

Yes. God had to create everything, including the realm God rules and dwells/occupies. This makes no logical sense. We covered this too.

There. That's what I asked you for evidence of. God didn't have to create a space for himself to live in. God created a space for the spirit creatures to live in, and a different space for us to live in.

If you say so. But I don't care. What I do is the Bible. You want to take a philosophical, theological, or scientific approach that's fine, as long as it fits with the Bible. If it doesn't it's something else. My experience with the scientific approach commonly used by skeptics is that it is about as lame, if not more so, than philosophy or theology, just more arrogant. I could give you examples, but you wouldn't be interested I don't think.

To the part in bold. It's funny how you accuse others of having a presupposition. How about just follow evidence wherever it leads?

I'm trying, but you won't listen. If you're talking about God, the evidence is the Bible. Not science, philosophy or theology.

I find it quite hard to imagine you have never addressed the 'god of the gaps' argument in full.

I don't complicate, corrupt, confuse or obfuscate my Biblical studies with unnecessary components. Occam's Razor. If I'm presented with a possibility I may try to see where it fits. Sometimes it does, more often than not it doesn't. I wrote an article once in response to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible and it's take on the 'god of the gaps' and though there was a gap in Genesis the religious nonsense surrounding it vary. So, if someone says, oh, yeah, let's have a [shudder] doctrinal discussion about that I bow out. It's a waste of time. I address individual claims, not religious doctrine. You and most atheists probably know a great deal more about Christian doctrine than I do. So, if you want to discuss such things with me, simplify. You can't hold me accountable to those, often nonsensical concepts.

So, I would have someone wanting to have that discussion say exactly what it is about what they think the god of gaps is, and go from there.

You, stating you have been studying the God topic for 30 years and all. In essence, you fall right into this fallacy. The unknown = Jehovah.

No.

But guess what, thus far, when unknowns become knowns, over the past few thousand years now, we have yet to find any such 'God' there.

Okay.

You missed my point. It sheds light on the point you stated above in bold. (i.e.) "as long as it fits with the Bible. If it doesn't it's something else". You'll just keep moving the goalposts to assure that the evidence remains in line with your a priori belief -- the Bible. Where-as others logically dismiss it.

No.

[Data]

Damn, a sob story always works :D Of course I get (and I'm sure we all get) the problems you say you had or have. But while your sexual lifestyle is (or was) your choice, that did not imply all the rest of the stuff. Being a secularist means that sexually I made choices, but I was able on rational grounds to be sensible about it and keep it (and booze,too) under control. Just to be sensible rather than please Jehovah. Obviously you are crediting Jesusgod for saving you from your own errors, which others can do without God, and even if some need Religious help to get over Problems, that doesn't tell you there is a real god let alone which one. Do you see how the 'Jesus saved me from the gutter...' is never a valid apologetic? It may save some, but then I'd suggests once you've kicked the habit, using religion, kick the habit of religion.

What were the other points? Really the 'We need it, true or not' apologetic. In fact all you say is valid, but we knew it. That doesn't make a case for religion much less a god. That the old religions were products of their time, means they are less relevant now, not that they are somehow true in a way God failed to convey to the old writers. Think it through - if God wanted to convey morality appropriate to the present age, how would he do it? Yep - humanism.

Your comments don't make any sense to me. I look at them and I think, well, nothing. I mean, they tell me something about what kind of person you are, at least in this setting, this context, but it doesn't mean anything to me. I don't see myself in a theological battle field, hoping, fearing or under the illusion that I can win or lose something in the skirmish. I don't credit Jesus or Jehovah for saving me from anything, except for sin, and for that I have to die first. I didn't want to end that lifestyle to please anyone, that lifestyle pleased me until it didn't any more. I don't care about secularism or humanism or religion. I think those things are silly distractions.

[POI]

Believer.

A believer and follower of "Jesus/Jehovah"?

It may have been a misunderstanding on my part. It seemed that you were implying that since God didn't have a place to occupy or anything to rule over it was impossible for him to have existed under those circumstances. It may have been you were implying it wasn't logical for him to rule over or exist in nothing?

Yes.

Yes. I'm trying to point out to you that language can be tricky. "What are you up to?" "Nothing." Would be a correct answer. "I'm currently involved in a process that is characterized by several attributes, including homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction." Would not likely be the correct answer. When we are talking about the Bible, we are talking more about language than science, so what is meant by the Bible saying God existed before anything? Jesus and his disciples, for example, used the term before the founding of the world, which is often mistaken as before creation, but it doesn't mean that at all. My point had been that nothing sometimes means nothing literally, and sometimes it doesn't.

The only thing being tricky, is you. You know exactly what I mean. Again, anything outside "Jehovah' first needed creation. This means, at one point, God ruled and existed/occupied "nothing at all"

It's hard for me to understand. It doesn't make sense.

So why believe it anyways? So far, you have the Bible, which is merely a claim. Just like we have many other claimed holy texts, which are also merely claims.

Thank you for conceding my point. The ancients thought "wind/breath/air/other" was your spirit. But they were wrong.

Maybe you're thinking in terms of religious concepts instead of words and their meanings. They weren't wrong. Science itself still thinks that, that's why the Greek word for spirit, pneuma, is still used today. Pneumonia, pneumatic.

No. "Science" doesn't still think that. We sometimes adhere to old tradition. We know what causes Pneumonia, how to diagnose it, and how to treat it. On the other hand, the writers of the Bible were under the impression that "spirit" is "breath/air/etc". Doh! That pesky 'science', and it's lame discoveries!

God didn't have to create a space for himself to live in.

Why didn't God need to first create "anything at all' for God to "dwell" within or later "rule"?

I'm trying, but you won't listen. If you're talking about God, the evidence is the Bible. Not science, philosophy or theology.

No. The Bible is the claim. Just like the Rig Veda is the claim. Just like the book of Scientology is the claim. Just like a biology book is the claim. What evidence supports the claim?

I find it quite hard to imagine you have never addressed the 'god of the gaps' argument in full.

I don't complicate, corrupt, confuse

Yes you do. I spent several responses explaining what I mean by 'nothing'. For which you acknowledge you already understand.

I wrote an article once in response to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible and it's take on the 'god of the gaps' and though there was a gap in Genesis the religious nonsense surrounding it vary.

More game here. If you already understand the "god of the gaps" argument, then you could have just responded.

No.

Yes.

But guess what, thus far, when unknowns become knowns, over the past few thousand years now, we have yet to find any such 'God' there.

Okay.

Then fingers crossed, that future discoveries will finally reveal 'Jehovah'. But so far, we have dispelled countless prior claims to 'god did it'.

No.

Yes.

[alexxcJRO]

Damn, a sob story always works Of course I get (and I'm sure we all get) the problems you say you had or have. But while your sexual lifestyle is (or was) your choice, that did not imply all the rest of the stuff. Being a secularist means that sexually I made choices, but I was able on rational grounds to be sensible about it and keep it (and booze,too) under control. Just to be sensible rather than please Jehovah. Obviously you are crediting Jesusgod for saving you from your own errors, which others can do without God, and even if some need Religious help to get over Problems, that doesn't tell you there is a real god let alone which one. Do you see how the 'Jesus saved me from the gutter...' is never a valid apologetic? It may save some, but then I'd suggests once you've kicked the habit, using religion, kick the habit of religion.

What were the other points? Really the 'We need it, true or not' apologetic. In fact all you say is valid, but we knew it. That doesn't make a case for religion much less a god. That the old religions were products of their time, means they are less relevant now, not that they are somehow true in a way God failed to convey to the old writers. Think it through - if God wanted to convey morality appropriate to the present age, how would he do it? Yep - humanism.

Your comments don't make any sense to me. I look at them and I think, well, nothing. I mean, they tell me something about what kind of person you are, at least in this setting, this context, but it doesn't mean anything to me. I don't see myself in a theological battle field, hoping, fearing or under the illusion that I can win or lose something in the skirmish. I don't credit Jesus or Jehovah for saving me from anything, except for sin, and for that I have to die first. I didn't want to end that lifestyle to please anyone, that lifestyle pleased me until it didn't any more. I don't care about secularism or humanism or religion. I think those things are silly distractions.

Dear sir your the one not making any sense.
You keep repeating the same nonsensical, moronic, illogical things.
You said Jehovah created evil. That include "sin" too.
Jehovah is gonna save you from what he created himself.

Q: How is that making any sense?

Let's hope we don't hear crickets this time around too?

[TRANSPONDER]

Damn, a sob story always works Of course I get (and I'm sure we all get) the problems you say you had or have. But while your sexual lifestyle is (or was) your choice, that did not imply all the rest of the stuff. Being a secularist means that sexually I made choices, but I was able on rational grounds to be sensible about it and keep it (and booze,too) under control. Just to be sensible rather than please Jehovah. Obviously you are crediting Jesusgod for saving you from your own errors, which others can do without God, and even if some need Religious help to get over Problems, that doesn't tell you there is a real god let alone which one. Do you see how the 'Jesus saved me from the gutter...' is never a valid apologetic? It may save some, but then I'd suggests once you've kicked the habit, using religion, kick the habit of religion.

What were the other points? Really the 'We need it, true or not' apologetic. In fact all you say is valid, but we knew it. That doesn't make a case for religion much less a god. That the old religions were products of their time, means they are less relevant now, not that they are somehow true in a way God failed to convey to the old writers. Think it through - if God wanted to convey morality appropriate to the present age, how would he do it? Yep - humanism.

Your comments don't make any sense to me. I look at them and I think, well, nothing. I mean, they tell me something about what kind of person you are, at least in this setting, this context, but it doesn't mean anything to me. I don't see myself in a theological battle field, hoping, fearing or under the illusion that I can win or lose something in the skirmish. I don't credit Jesus or Jehovah for saving me from anything, except for sin, and for that I have to die first. I didn't want to end that lifestyle to please anyone, that lifestyle pleased me until it didn't any more. I don't care about secularism or humanism or religion. I think those things are silly distractions.

Our dear Data, that doesn't matter, whether you understand it or not. I think others will understand it very well and if not they are welcome to ask me about it. What it means is that your story about your own experiences and how you dealt with them and what you credit for it, is no kind of evidence for theism, but that Theists do secular things and credit some theism thing for it.