|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Ushering In An Age of Reason....Or Not.....? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Modulous writes: I contend we would be in a much better position to deal with these problematic facts if we study society and morals as evolved and imperfect traits rather than postulating some magic prime moral mover. But that contention is circular. It is dependent on there not being a prime moral mover. If such an entity exists then it seems evident to me that the other approach would be preferable.
Modulous writes: Right, so if religion is sidelined, genital mutilation for control cannot be justified anymore. Those that would do that will find some other excuse or not bothering justifying it at all.
Modulous writes: Then let me know how we might go about knowing the 'general desires of the prime moral mover'. What I've seen is just people claiming to know what the moral mover wants. I'd suggest reading the Gospels.  The thing is though we seem to have a general built in moral sense. The question is why is that. Is there a prime moral mover or not? If there isn't then I absolutely agree with you about the approach we should take. If I am right then you are absolutely wrong. The good news though is that regardless we do seem in general to have a built in moral sense. The future is hopeful.
Modulous writes: That's what secular means, isn't it? The great moral advances our world has seen seem to have occurred alongside increasing secularisation. We have secularization of governments, (a good thing), but I believe that the moral advances have come because of either a moral prime mover or greater socialization and I subjectively believe the former.
Modulous writes: A prime moral mover is largely an irrelevant distraction that can lead to bad ideas being defended against all reason. Unless the moral prime mover actually exists. Your viewpoint is again circular.
Modulous writes: People still might believe some religious things, but they are limited to the moral sidelines, not centre stage.There might be a prime moral mover. But we don't need to consult it in order to moral decisions, and indeed we generally don't. For the most part, with religion sidelined, we'll still have the same moral instincts, its just that the bad moral ideas that religion defends (sometimes with lethal zeal) will no longer be justifiable and will likewise get sidelined. I think that over time religion is drawing us closer to the world that we both yearn for. Religions have had a very chequered history, but I truly believe that bit by bit they are moving in the right direction. Frankly, as I said earlier people are incredibly tribal. We will always find something to divide us. To see the rejection of religion as some kind of panacea is in my view wrongheaded. However again, both of our positions are dependent on our being correct on the existence or non-existence of a moral prime mover.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
AZPaul3 writes: No, GDR, just sidelining such irrational beliefs that in the normal discourse of policy formation such beliefs do not have any effect. Not criminalizing but ignoring. Like the opinions of a child toward their vegetables. Your view that my beliefs are irrational is strictly your subjective POV. It is my subjective view that intelligence evolving from a non-intelligent source is irrational. Our subjective views, rational or irrational, aren't necessarily true just because we believe them.
AZPaul3 writes: The facts of history show that after millennia of experience with family, tribe, city, state and nation the relative moralism in these disparate societies converged on common themes. This experience shows that societies small and large benefit from conforming to these common themes. This in no way speaks to the existence of an "absolute morality" outside the human experience imposed from above. Just the convergence of moral themes based on our long history of trying to live together without the constant fear of being eaten by our neighbor. That is an absolutely valid POV, that I just don't agree with.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Modulous writes: No, there might be a prime moral mover, but we have no way of objectively knowing its morality. The best we can do is pretend convincingly that we know something about its morality. We'd do better to study the things we know exist: human morality, society and so on, and try to shape them into what we think is best based on known facts not facts that we cannot know. I don't have a problem with that at all. However, when it comes to morality there really is nothing we can know objectively, and how do we decide what facts are going to be used to shape society. Some things work for some people and some things work for others within the same society.
Modulous writes: I have. They are anonymous accounts of some people who claim knowledge of the prime mover, not a method of finding out the general desires of the prime moral mover. Unless you claim to know that the Gospels contain the desires of the prime moral mover, in which I ask you to explain how you have come to know this fact. I don't know it objectively. I can only know it subjectively in the same way that you choose to discount them subjectively. Actually I put a after saying that as I had no doubt of what you thought of them anyway.
Modulous writes: Because we are social animals, so we cooperate for our mutual beneft. We are also evolved to dislike outgroups, which explains our lack of cooperation for groups that are not part of our in group. That is certainly one valid POV.
Modulous writes: All I suggest is we use our built in moral sense and add reason into the mix. We have no way of knowing what the fabled prime moral mover might want of us. We can guess that our moral instincts are in line with what it wants - but we can't know that. We can know facts, deduce consequences of our actions and try to shape our acts towards good ends and encourage others to do likewise. God is a tool used to encourage others to act in a certain way, but it is a tool with negative consequences and I submit it is is one we can do away with now. Once again I agree that we can't know in the way we know that 2+2=4, but I don't think that we should stop us trying to understand it subjectively. God may be a tool but that doesn't mean He doesn't exist.
Modulous writes: Do you explain the Dark Ages by means of this moral prime mover too? Slavery? Racism? These are the themes that have dominated human history. And these are the themes that are often coupled with fervent belief in divine moral authority! Most people throughout history would hold repugnant (to us) moral opinions. Clearly they didn't have a way of knowing about the moral prime mover because they interpreted it as something very different that the enlightened theists of today. The argument about suffering is the most difficult argument there is when it comes to defending my Christian faith. I hate seeing people suffer and I believe God does to. I believe that in the end there will be perfect justice done. It's a faith thing.I have gone into a lot more detail on that in other threads but I would just be going off topic and I'm spending a lot of time on this already. I don't agree that things just started getting better with the enlightenment, although I would agree that it has accelerated since then.
Modulous writes: Actually my point was the even if the prime mover actually exists, it is an irrelevant distraction. It tells us nothing about how we should live our lives, only that something else thinks we should live our lives in a certain unknown way. Actually many of the views that I share in common with you I hold because my reading of the Bible changed previously held views. I didn't instinctively believe that loving one's enemies, turning the other cheek or even forgiveness were great attributes to have. Through understanding the Bible I now hold a significantly different worldview.
Modulous writes: And even if a moral prime mover exists, belief in this can still lead to bad ideas being defended (to lethal levels) against all reason. Too true. Just the same we will always find some reason to justify bad behaviour. 
Modulous writes: And I contend the less things there are to divide us the better, and religion creates BIG and UNRESOLVABLE divisions. In other threads I've pointed out points of agreement between the 3 Abrahamic religions. We might differ in doctrine but we can find points of contact about how we should live our lives.
Modulous writes: The real enemy is dogma. I would say any view dogmatically held is anathema to the Age of Reason which surely embraces the Principle of Fallibilism, and religion glorifies dogma. Actually I think I agree with that. As I believe that we have a God who has given us free will I agree that dogma, even if true, is something that should be promoted by reason and not by absolute authority.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
RAZD writes: Or the moral prime mover is causing the greater socialization as a gradual process. Absolutely. Actually I was trying to make that point but didn't do much of a job of it.
RSAD writes: So the religions are evolving - as well as the "greater socialization" - towards a more uniform and egalitarian moral code that respects all people. Sometimes this is led by religions (abolition?) and sometimes by secular trends (equal pay for work of equal value?) I agree
RAZD writes: Personally I don't see it as an either\or proposition. There are some values that may come from either source - we can't necessarily tell - and an open-minded skeptical approach would not rule out one vs the other a priori. Yes again. You're on a roll.
RAZD writes: Genital mutilation can be sidelined without marginalizing religions, but by marginalizing the specific questionable practices and beliefs that do not work towards a more uniform and egalitarian moral code that respects all people. Except that IMHO any religion that supports female, (that is what we were discussing), genital mutilation should be marginalized.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
AZPaul3 writes: The difference here is not one of personal point of view or world view nor even interpretation of subjective thoughts. It is one of a difference in the acceptance of empirical facts. Which empirical fact am I denying?
AZPaul3 writes: Though I still hold out hope that maybe we can turn you to the dark side someday. From your POV I assumed I was already there.
AZPaul3 writes: I know, I know, when I fall on my knees and beg the forgiveness of VishnuIsisAllahUnicorn then you will become a Dawkins level 6.7 Athiest. Gotta keep the universe in balance ya know. I'd pray for you too but I see it is already too late. I was in Phoenix once in June and it was 119 degrees F so I know that you have already found your eternal resting place and are beyond hope.  Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Hmmmm
AZPaul3 writes: The difference here is not one of personal point of view or world view nor even interpretation of subjective thoughts. It is one of a difference in the acceptance of empirical facts.GDR writes: Which empirical fact am I denying? A simple question to your assertion, and this is your response.
AZPaul3 writes: Ooo, such an open field. It depends on the subject. Human intelligence. Afterlife. Gods. Subjective evidence/conclusions. Religion as superstition. Earth "made" for us. The "basis" of natural laws. Absolute morality. The usual culprits of the superstitiously-inclined mind.
Where is the empirical evidence in all of that which I am denying? The rest of the post is essentially an appeal to pride mixed in with the less than overt suggestion that I have been brainwashed. Frankly I originally became a Christian based on what I read and I can assure you that I haven't been brainwashed as I have moved around and had different ministers over the years most of which I haven't always seen eye to eye with theologically. It is quite possible to be Christian without being brainwashed over having a frontal lobotomy you know.If this kind of thinking is going to be central to "The Age of Reason", I'm inclined to think that just possibly the project might be in trouble. Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
AZPaul3 writes: All the facts we possess about supernatural entities, from the gods of the Greek pantheon, volcano gods, Santa, Tinkerbell, witches, ghosts, goblins, unicorns (pink), Persian gods, Egyptian gods, Assyrian gods, African, Native American, Australian, all we have in the way of evidence on these supernatural things shows that they are all false and made up. That's thousands of data points right there. We have additional evidence that humans are psychologically prone to create from nothing but imagination various and sundry supernatural things. And we have found one area in the brain that appears to be the seat of religious euphoria and we can flip it on and off like a light switch. There is no evidence, none, zero, showing anything other than that supernatural stuff is made up by us clever and creative humans with a touch of euphoria for spice.
The fact that humans have continuously applied false attributes to god(s) is only evidence that we apply false attributes to any possible god(s). It is not evidence pointing to the thought that there is no god(s) but we've been down this road several times in this thread.
AZPaul3 writes: When such a heavy weight of evidence points all in the one direction there can logically be only the one path to follow to a conclusion. It doesn't point in any direction but if it were to be argued I'd suggest it is an indication that god(s) exist. We seem to have a desire to understand our origins. Atheists and theists alike do that but of course come to very different conclusions. The thought that we get thirsty is a pretty good indication that water exists. We have a need to be loved and which is a good indication that love exists. We have a need to understand lasting purpose for life which is a pretty good reason to believe that there is a lasting purpose to our existence which can't be found in a finite universe. Is that argument conclusive.? No. It is based on empirical evidence? No. It is a subjective conclusion that along with other observations about our lives and our world has led me to the conclusion I have come to.
AZPaul3 writes: Second, I couldn't be more overt than I was. I came right out and stated so flatly, in living color. You are a religionist, therefor you were brainwashed. It doesn't matter that you evolved your present beliefs by some circuitous route. That fang of faith, the psychological need for a sky daddy with a really big stick to watch over you, was set very early and all you have done is read, explore and experiment different ways of satisfying the fangs needs. It's got you, GDR, and it doesn't want to ever let you go. In that case then we are all brainwashed. You are just an anti-religionist and have been brainwashed to think that way. If you are interested there is a 12 step program available. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Modulous writes: So it seems pointless to propose a source of objective source of morality since we can never access it! We use our brains to make decisions about the collection of salient facts. For instance, we might try and establish when sufficient brain function exists so as to make decisions about abortion. But who is to say whether we can access it or not? Maybe that still small voice that we hear inside of us when we come to moral decisions actually can connect to this absolute moral source. All we know is that we do have a conscience.
Modulous writes:
You have no way of knowing that. Is there more than objective truth?
I didn't say it did mean that. I'm saying God is tool whose use has expired, regardless of whether it exists. Modulous writes: But yes, it is a problem that you credit the moral prime mover for the good things but have issues when it comes to the bad things. My position accounts for both the good and the bad without any such problems - perhaps something to think about. My position does as well but frankly it would be going off topic and I'm already spending a huge chunk of time on this forum. I'd like to get back to that book "Guns Germs and Steel". It is interesting but he seems to take a lot of words to make one point.
Modulous writes: So now you are saying that our moral instincts differ from the moral guidelines imposed by the prime mover? It seems there is no way to know what the moral prime mover wants since we cannot even consult our moral instincts according to you. What a mess! Let's try it this way. Our moral instincts can sort out right and wrong. I'm getting out of my car and just then someone walks by and a 20 dollar bill drops out of his pocket. What do I do? I'd like the 20 dollars myself but at the same time I know I should run after the man and return it to him. My basic instinct is to keep the money but my moral instinct says that I should return it. It is that still small voice that is our conscience. What is the root cause of that still small voice and can that voice become louder and clearer by aligning, joining, connecting or whatever to a pre-existing prime moral mover?
Modulous writes: Well obviously there are points of agreement between the Abrahamic religions. They are Abrahamic! There are points of agreement with the various Ancient Egyptian religions too. How does this consillience help us determine how we should live our lives, exactly? But when the point of agreement is, for lack of a better or shorter term, the "Golden Rule" then we have a starting point to bring a peaceful and friendly co-existence.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Modulous writes: Well can we or not? If we can, how? Prayer, contemplation etc.
Modulous writes: Maybe, but that's just speculation. It is not known. You said: when it comes to morality there really is nothing we can know objectively. So what's the point of supposing an objective moral source if we can not access it (that is to say, we cannot know it objectively). Because I believe we can know things, (I agree it's a different kind of knowing), that we don't know objectively. C S Lewis says thgis:
quote: I don't think that will make a lot of sense to you but it does for me. I can't explain why that is the case but we both just might as well accept it.
Modulous writes: If we can do the job without employing appeals to God (for instance by appealing to our 'little voice in our head' or some other method), if I can employ non-God methods for persuading others to act in the way I feel is right, then I know that God is a tool whose use has expired. If you can think of some role for which God is necessary in moral discourse, you have but to say what that role is. As a human being though, I do not to speculate as to God's motivations to make moral decisions. I can consult secular moral guidelines, and my own personal 'little voice' and try to navigate through to make my decision.
OK but as I said from my own experience that when I brought God into the equation I found I had a clarity and moral discernment and strength that I hadn't had earlier. I can't prove that and you no doubt can rationalize it but all I can do is relate my experience as I understand it.
Modulous writes: So now you are saying that our moral instincts differ from the moral guidelines imposed by the prime mover? It seems there is no way to know what the moral prime mover wants since we cannot even consult our moral instincts according to you. What a mess!GDR writes: If we can do the job without employing appeals to God (for instance by appealing to our 'little voice in our head' or some other method), if I can employ non-God methods for persuading others to act in the way I feel is right, then I know that God is a tool whose use has expired. If you can think of some role for which God is necessary in moral discourse, you have but to say what that role is. As a human being though, I do not to speculate as to God's motivations to make moral decisions. I can consult secular moral guidelines, and my own personal 'little voice' and try to navigate through to make my decision.
Modulous writes: OK, no God needed here. If religion was sidelined, you could still play this scenario in the exact same way. That wasn't the question I was answering. The question had to do with differentiating between moral instincts and moral guidelines.
Modulous writes: And yes, it could potentially become louder by aligning to a prime moral mover, but since there is no way to know if you allegiance is accurately placed you may end up with a loud voice telling you to practice socially harmful morality. For instance, I'm sure the little voices in the heads of the 9/11 hijackers was very loud telling them they should strike against the Great Satan or whatever and become martyrs. That voice will always be there too so it is important to understand the essential message of love the neighbour so that we can understand just which voice we are listening to.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Straggler writes: The logical conclusion of the position that you are taking is that ALL unfalsified conclusions are equally subjective. The existence of god(s). Aliens taking over the planet. Obama as the anti-Christ etc. etc. No I'm only talking about the process by which we arrive at conclusions.
Straggler writes: The fact is that some conclusions are more likely to be correct than others. And all conclusions are NOT equally subjective because not all conclusions are equally objectively evidenced. I agree - which does seem like a good place to close this off. May the force be with you. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Modulous writes: This of course has its own set of problems: If you end up making a harmful moral decision, you could carry it out with with a zeal that is disproportionate to how confident you should be. This can lead to good people doing bad things, with a sense of clarity that can be delusional. Anything can be twisted or for whatever reason and there always be those who are delusional with or without religion.
Modulous writes: In the age of reason, morality will still work. We'll still have our moral instincts, we'll still have little voices in our heads. But we won't interfere with the lives of others based on a confidence borne out of appeals to prime moral movers who we can never be sure we have correctly understood (since it largely amounts to listening to the voices in your head and picking out the ones that we already feel are the 'good' ones). I think I hear you saying that it is wrong for those who have a moral belief that they believe is theistically founded to try and convince others of their sense of morality, but it is fine for those who base their morality on something else to promote their beliefs. That sounds fair.
Modulous writes: And the answer I think is clear. Because we want to, because we are empathic and social creatures, because that is how we are raised and it is a fundamental part of our psychological make up (genetics and environment combining). You implied that with no moral prime mover we'd just as well devolve into a might makes right society, and I reply that even believing in a prime moral mover does not avoid the might makes right state of affairs when resources come under dispute between groups. As I've said in numerous other posts my view is that my being a Christian does not necessarily make me more moral or nicer than my neighbour but it should make me a nicer more moral person than I had been previously. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
GDR writes: I think I hear you saying that it is wrong for those who have a moral belief that they believe is theistically founded to try and convince others of their sense of moralityModulous writes: Wrong? Not necessarily. Potentially hazardous given the false sense of confidence that divine theory gives? Yes. So just how does this work? People can promote all the strange beliefs they want as long as it isn't theistically based. However all theistic aideas will have to pass by a board of anti-theistis before they will be allowed to promote it. I think I'm starting to get the hang of this "Age of Reason idea.
Modulous writes: I think you are doing yourself a disservice if you think that you require a Christian moral framework to be a more moral person. There are plenty of people that have committed monstrous acts, because of their Christian beliefs. I'm not suggesting you are one of them. However, the reason you are not one of those people is not because of your Christian beliefs it is because you are actually a moral person. You therefore cherry pick the good, or at least acceptable moral guidelines from the Bible and you call that 'Christianity'. I can only talk from my own personal experience which is what I was doing. Also, of course it is my belief that all morality is as the result of a moral prime mover. It isn't cherry picking, if the Bible is understood in the way I believe is intended.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Modulous writes: Well no, in the Age of Reason religious notions of morality have been sidelined, by definition. There is no need to police it. To date the only way that happened was by persuasion by force.
Modulous writes: Right, everyone has their methodology of interpreting the bible. That methodology amounts to cherry picking. You use a methodology of interpretation that you feel makes the bible a sufficient guide to moral behaviour. But you are judging the goodness of this moral system using your own moral sense. You reject other methods of interpretations based on your own judgement of the problems they raise. No you read in context with reason and tradition. Here is a quote from Matthew 22:
quote: "On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets" Also look again at the verse from Micah 6:
quote: These are verses that are used to sum up the message of God. Why would anyone want to remove this line of thought from a so-called Age of Reason?
Modulous writes: Of course, deciding that God is real may provide suitable motivation to start following the dictums of your moral sense where you had previously been more selfish. In the Age of Reason we'd try to foster an environment so that people will be motivated follow their in built capacity for moral behaviour without needing to use the sidelined carrot and stick of religion - even if you want to argue its a particularly good carrot and stick. I'm saying it is possible to do it in other ways that don't require using that particular tool, and in the Age of Reason we would of course have to use those other methods. But the carrot and stick thing misrepresents Christian teaching. It is impossible to perform an unselfish charitable act if it is being done for reward.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Straggler writes: No. People are free to advocate whatever strange beliefs they want. Theistic or otherwise. But in this 'Age of Reason' they will have to accept that any claim to the divine (literal or metaphorical) truth of their beliefs will hold no sway at all. Instead they will have to argue their case based on why it is their particular moral stance should be adopted. In the western world that is exactly what's happening now. I'm completely opposed to the idea of living in a Christian theocracy.
Straggler writes: So you are only including the bits that correspond to your beliefs and discarding the bits that don't. That is precisely cherry picking isn't it? See my answer to Mod above. To add a note though I'd say that the beliefs about the character of God are to a large degree formed by the Bible in context and then in understanding the Bible I do interpret it with that understanding. I think the Bible in context tells us that we have a loving God and that He wants us to be a loving people. When I understand that I can look at the notion in the Bible that God wants us to turn our difficult children in to be stoned to death I'm left with no doubt that this came from the hearts and minds of mankind. It isn't that difficult.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Modulous writes: But that doesn't mean that it's the only way it can happen. Maybe persuasion by appeal to self-interest, maybe an appeal to group interests, maybe people will just be persuaded rationally. Good luck with that.
Modulous writes: Yes, yes, everyone says something along those lines to justify why their interpretation is the better one. I have no doubt that some of what I believe is wrong but I keep trying to gain further understanding. It really seems to bother you that you can't have absolute knowledge and so you reject the whole thing.
Modulous writes:
Fair enough and that deals with the idea of making a public show of charity for human approval. In addition though there are those commandments to humbly love God, neighbour, kindness, mercy justice etc. This precludes the idea of charity for some future reward. (The carrot). It is not an act of unselfish love if the reason that you are charitable is due to self interest. Instead of it being an unselfish act of charity it becomes a selfish act. You do charity in secret and thus receive a reward from your Father. That's the carrot. I think the stick is well known, enough.
You keep wanting it to be about what it is you do. It isn't about what you or I do, it's about the person that we are when, theoretically, not even God is looking. Do we love kindness for its own sake, do we treat others justly because we believe in fairness, are we naturally humble, do we find our own joy in the joy of others or deep down is it all about me? It seems to me that this would be consistent with how you want people to act in The Age of Reason. Rather than trying to sideline religion wouldn't it be more fruitful trying to promote theism based on thses principles?Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
(1)
