Why god?

[thessalonian]

...this is possibly the biggest non-sequitur I've ever seen.

I was being fascetious good fellow. Haven't you ever heard someone ssay "if x is true I'll eat my hat". Haven't ever seen anyone eating a hat. Once again having a little fun. In no way would I claim that that was an obvious conclusion based on some logical examination of the evidence. But evidently you cannot carry on a conversation in a light hearted manner with one who believes in Jesus Christ. We must be at odds and have a certain amount of disdain for one another apparently. Too bad.

I do believe I said the more educated tend to be less religous and more aethistic didn't I. What do I mean by pride being a factor? I mean that it is like having blinders on with regard to God. He has pride in his ability to reason and sees less need for a God, though he is in fact just as in need as the ignorant. Just as at the whims of the nature who's creator he ignores. Humility is something that is not many times in his vocabulary or has any purpose. It is for weak minded Christians as one former Minnesota governor said.

Good day

 

[Novum]

We've been here before in other threads. It is simply incorrect for you to broadly claim that all atheists reject your god.

It is true; as you have explained to me previously in another discussion, that personal rejection of God can differ on many levels with an athiest. It is still rejection nonetheless, only different levels of it.

Or are you claiming that an athiest accepts God like a Christian does?

[/quote]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I "reject" your god just like you "reject" the Invisible Pink Unicorn that lives in your kitchen. You obviously don't think that the IPU even exists in the first place, so it is therefore completely meaningless to talk about whether you accept or reject it. Accepting or rejecting require, as a prerequisite, belief in the existence of the target object.

I don't mean to sound smug; it certainly wasn't the motivation I was using. You raised this discussion with what appeared to be an earnest request for why you should become a Christian and accept God. I respect your freedom to choose whether you believe in God or not; "if one day you get curious", was the only context in which I made the suggestion God will be there to help you.

Fair enough.

Why is there a mental health crisis in nearly every 1st World country? Why are suicide rates climbing? Why do women handle domestic violence on their own, instead of speaking out about their abuse?

Whether you can appreciate it or not, there are many people in this wonderful world of ours who indeed feel they are on their own. Life creates the psychological programming in which psychologists try to get an indivdual to understand and unravel...but who has the power to mend a broken spirit?

What is a broken spirit?

Then lets hope that "other means" never fails you or you will truly be on your own.

People have their own inner strength. Even in the (very) unlikely situation that every single family member and every single friend somehow fails me, that is not to say that I cannot get by on my own. Everyone faces challenges on their own - just some are more serious (and therefore require outside support) than others.

Let me make myself clear first of all. I wasn't being literal, as in, you MUST go without something. It was a rhetorical question, as in, perhaps if you went without something it would be easier to understand...???

For example, imagine the thing you love most in this world - the one thing you could not live without. If you suddenly lost it what would you do with your sorrow? Work it out perhaps? Yes, you'd give it your best shot...but what happens when your best efforts doesn't make the sorrow go away?

God's gifts help us bridge the gap between what we can change and what we can't - especially when we feel powerless.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, a god can serve as a kind of emotional and psychological "crutch", kind of like a therapist?

Christianity isn't offering you anything. You have been misled if this is what you thought Christianity did. What I was demonstrating was how small the difference was (if any) between what you believe is ethical and what God teaches is ethical.

But, as I write below, I do find a difference...

Sure, I can agree with some of the desires you attribute to your god. But others - like the mere existence of hell, to say nothing of when he sends people there - are ethics that I cannot agree with.

Is hell ethical? Is heaven ethical?

I would argue that neither one is. You live for just a few decades in this world, and during that time there is only so much you can do. You are constrained by your life span, the physical restrictions of being a homo sapiens, your financial standing, and many other such factors.

But heaven and hell are eternal. They are eternal reward - or punishment - for what, in every standard of measurement, is a set of finite actions you performed while you were alive. The reward and the punishment alike do not fit the deeds they are designed to reward and punish.

In nearly every legal system in place on this world, justice is concerned with making the punishment fit the crime. We would react negatively to a double-murderer who is most assuredly guilty being sentenced to one hour in jail. The same ought to be true with sentencing this person to an infinity of torture in hell. While there is little worse you can do than ending another's life, we must remember that our lives are finite in every sense of the word. Infinite punishment for a finite crime is not just.

Perhaps they just are, like you're male and I am female.

These statements, while true, are not ethical statements. ;)

We do not thave to be ethical people but we choose to be. Likewise, God doesn't have to be ethical but he wrote the ethical encyclopedia which humanity doesn't even know about yet - is it possible for him to be unethical?

Yes. I find his current system of reward and punishment to be grossly unethical.

I don't like the thought that hell exists either or even that some may even have to go there; but I don't judge God by the fact hell exists.

Why not? He created hell and he sends people there - why should he be absolved of responsibility?

I judge God by the Spirit that I know effects my life in positive ways. I have also seen him turn people that society had rejected, into wonderful tools of love. If you really want to know what lies behind the concept of hell, then perhaps you should get to know the one who created not only hell but heaven as well.

Regardless of whether or not I was a Christian, I cannot see how that would change the fact that hell is an infinite punishment for a finite crime.

If this is true Novum, then why start this discussion?

So I can see what Christianity offers. I am on these forums to better understand Christianity, this thread is my latest attempt to achieve that goal.

You cannot see it simply because you've never lived it and you have no desire to understand what you don't see or understand.

Absolutely not. I learn new things daily, I strive to work hard in my classes, and I work hard at my job. I have an incredible desire to learn what I "don't see or understand". In fact, I question if we could find a single person alive today who didn't have this desire.

If you have a problem trusting what you can't see or understand, I am not surprised by the the emptiness you associate with Christian life.

Why should anyone trust that which they do not understand? Our concept of trust requires that we understand the object of our trust, otherwise it is merely blind faith.

It isnt' a Christian's reponsibility to convert you or open your eyes to the way we live. That would be forcing you against your will and not even God tries to force us against our wills. If you have a desire to seek God then you will find him. If the desire is not there - if God is not real to you; then how can a Christian change your mind.

If what you say here is true, then how is it possible for anyone to convert to Christianity?

Then I must ask if you even find the concept of this life appealing? Bear in mind it's a serious question, I'm not trying to be smug, LOL. :wink:

Of course I do, and I tried to write about that in the OP. Again, this life has infinite value for me because it is the only one I'll ever get. For that reason alone, this life is quite simply the most appealing thing I can think of. ;)

 

[Novum]

I was being fascetious good fellow. Haven't you ever heard someone ssay "if x is true I'll eat my hat". Haven't ever seen anyone eating a hat. Once again having a little fun.

As I'm sure you're aware, sarcasm doesn't travel well through plain text. I hope you'll understand me; I simply didn't know how else to interpret it.

But evidently you cannot carry on a conversation in a light hearted manner with one who believes in Jesus Christ. We must be at odds and have a certain amount of disdain for one another apparently. Too bad.

You can repeat it as much as you like, but that still doesn't make it true. I have no disdain for you or any other Christian. I respond to what you say, not what you are.

I do believe I said the more educated tend to be less religous and more aethistic didn't I. What do I mean by pride being a factor? I mean that it is like having blinders on with regard to God. He has pride in his ability to reason and sees less need for a God, though he is in fact just as in need as the ignorant.

Why is he just as in need? If everyone is in need, then how is it that many hundreds of millions of people worldwide do not find the need to believe in a god?

Just as at the whims of the nature who's creator he ignores. Humility is something that is not many times in his vocabulary or has any purpose.

Are you seriously claiming that atheists, agnostics, and other nonbelievers do not have or comprehend humility?

 

[DivineNames]

Humility is something that is not many times in his vocabulary or has any purpose. It is for weak minded Christians as one former Minnesota governor said.

I have noticed that Christians often come off as extremely arrogant.

 

[thessalonian]

Humility is something that is not many times in his vocabulary or has any purpose. It is for weak minded Christians as one former Minnesota governor said.

I have noticed that Christians often come off as extremely arrogant.

I certainly did not mean to say that aethists have corned the market by any means. Apologies if that is how it was taken.

 

[thessalonian]

If everyone is in need, then how is it that many hundreds of millions of people worldwide do not find the need to believe in a god?

That they have found it does not mean it does not exist.

Are you seriously claiming that atheists, agnostics, and other nonbelievers do not have or comprehend humility?

I am saying the ones I have run in to by and large have difficulites in that area. Education can be a stumbling block to such a virtue.

 

[Novum]

[quote:9e9a2]
Are you seriously claiming that atheists, agnostics, and other nonbelievers do not have or comprehend humility?

I am saying the ones I have run in to by and large have difficulites in that area. Education can be a stumbling block to such a virtue.[/quote:9e9a2]

And, as you've admitted, Christians certainly have this issue as well. So what's the big deal?

 

[Klee shay]

I'm saying that I "reject" your god just like you "reject" the Invisible Pink Unicorn that lives in your kitchen. You obviously don't think that the IPU even exists in the first place, so it is therefore completely meaningless to talk about whether you accept or reject it. Accepting or rejecting require, as a prerequisite, belief in the existence of the target object.

That invisible pink unicorn is coming between us again, LOL. :wink:

I'm a creative minded person so I really don't have any hang-ups about pink unicorns, if they so choose to inhabit my kitchen. You make an interesting point about first believing in their existence however. Until you pointed it out to me, I had no reason to believe they were there. And this is the essential difference between the comparision of pink unicorns and God you have used a few times now.

It was through my ignorance which I didn't believe in their existence. You believe it is through your knowledge that God doesn't exist however.

What is a broken spirit?

A broken spirit is when you lose the desire to care about anything in your life. Depression is the best symptom of a broken spirit I can think of.

People have their own inner strength.

Yes, but it's a limited strength...it does have it's limits. I use to be the most determined person I could think of - perhaps I still am to a lesser degree...but strength can also serve as a blinder to the truth of our vulnerability. A strong person can never envisage they are weak until they are tested beyond their limits to cope. Then what? What do you do when all you've ever relied upon is your own strength and even that lets you down?

What do you do when your strength leaves you and the strength of other's you've relied upon leaves you? What then? What do you rely on?

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, a god can serve as a kind of emotional and psychological "crutch", kind of like a therapist?

For a broken person a crutch is essential in getting back on their feet again. With God however, the process doesn't end there. To say he's just a crutch is only half the picture.

But heaven and hell are eternal. They are eternal reward - or punishment - for what, in every standard of measurement, is a set of finite actions you performed while you were alive. The reward and the punishment alike do not fit the deeds they are designed to reward and punish.

This has always struck me as a contradiction. Why would an athiest believe in the consequences of heaven and hell if God does not exist? How is heaven and hell eternal if there is no God to make it so?

Infinite punishment for a finite crime is not just.

Yes, but God doesn't exist according to you so there is no infinite punishment to claim just or unjust. Why be so morally against what you don't believe is real in the first place?

Perhaps they just are, like you're male and I am female.

These statements, while true, are not ethical statements. ;)

Can you explain why it's not an ethical statment? You've got me curious about this one.

Yes. I find his current system of reward and punishment to be grossly unethical.

You mean the God which only exists to wear the condemnation of man? Isn't it amazing how mankind can sit in the judgement seat and condemn God, and yet if God were to do the same HE is being grossly unethical.

I don't like the thought that hell exists either or even that some may even have to go there; but I don't judge God by the fact hell exists.

Why not? He created hell and he sends people there - why should he be absolved of responsibility?

Why not? Because I don't have infinite knowledge to judge fairly. If I judge God based on the fact that hell exists, then I become responsible for that judgement without knowing why hell exists myself.

I am absolving myself of the responsibility to judge God rather than absolving God of the responsibility for creating hell.

Regardless of whether or not I was a Christian, I cannot see how that would change the fact that hell is an infinite punishment for a finite crime.

Being Christian isn't supposed to change anything other than the individual's desire to follow God. I accept everything God has created, both what appears to be good and what appears to be bad. There is nothing I know or don't know which will change the existence of hell.

If this is true Novum, then why start this discussion?

So I can see what Christianity offers. I am on these forums to better understand Christianity, this thread is my latest attempt to achieve that goal.

Fair enough. :D

I have an incredible desire to learn what I "don't see or understand". In fact, I question if we could find a single person alive today who didn't have this desire.

Yes, we all have this desire to learn what we don't understand. What we don't see however, is another matter entirely. Being blind to what we don't see cannot be understood by mere logical deductions. We are blind - end of story.

As great as our capacity to learn is...there is so much more we don't see. This is the way of life.

Why should anyone trust that which they do not understand? Our concept of trust requires that we understand the object of our trust, otherwise it is merely blind faith.

And you said you don't understand Christianity, LOL. :wink:

Let me ask you something. Do you only trust your parents as much as you're prepared to understand them - or do you just trust them?

You have a certain degree of blind faith in the relationship you have with your own parents; and so too is a relationship with God. You only have to understand that he loves you and the rest is blind faith.

It isnt' a Christian's reponsibility to convert you or open your eyes to the way we live. That would be forcing you against your will and not even God tries to force us against our wills. If you have a desire to seek God then you will find him. If the desire is not there - if God is not real to you; then how can a Christian change your mind.

If what you say here is true, then how is it possible for anyone to convert to Christianity?

Good question. It's only through the love of God that anyone converts - a real convertion that is - not a forced one through the persistence of mankind. As much as I can tell you as a Christian about my experience with God, it's not going to mean diddly-squat until you first taste of his love for yourself. How do you get a taste of his love - well, God is the best person to ask about that one.

I know that sounds like a cop-out answer but I truly cannot take you where God is responsible for leading you.

Again, this life has infinite value for me because it is the only one I'll ever get. For that reason alone, this life is quite simply the most appealing thing I can think of. ;)

Can I play ameteur psychologist for a minute and suggest that sounds like a plausible answer for someone who has settled for their fate and nothing more, LOL.

You don't have to take that last part seriously... :wink:

 

[thessalonian]

[quote:57d8e]
Are you seriously claiming that atheists, agnostics, and other nonbelievers do not have or comprehend humility?

I am saying the ones I have run in to by and large have difficulites in that area. Education can be a stumbling block to such a virtue.

And, as you've admitted, Christians certainly have this issue as well. So what's the big deal?[/quote:57d8e]

The deal is growth in virtue is very difficult without grace. Without Christianity. You won't be open to that but it's quite true.

 

[Novum]

The deal is growth in virtue is very difficult without grace. Without Christianity. You won't be open to that but it's quite true.

1. "Very difficult" is your opinion.

2. "Very difficult" does not mean "impossible".

3. You have not defined "grace".

 

[thessalonian]

3. You have not defined "grace".

It is DOA with you. So I won't.

 

[Novum]

3. You have not defined "grace".

It is DOA with you. So I won't.

Then if you're unwilling or unable to explain terms that you use, stop using them.

 

[Drew]

I'm saying that I "reject" your god just like you "reject" the Invisible Pink Unicorn that lives in your kitchen. You obviously don't think that the IPU even exists in the first place, so it is therefore completely meaningless to talk about whether you accept or reject it. Accepting or rejecting require, as a prerequisite, belief in the existence of the target object.

That invisible pink unicorn is coming between us again, LOL. :wink:

I'm a creative minded person so I really don't have any hang-ups about pink unicorns, if they so choose to inhabit my kitchen. You make an interesting point about first believing in their existence however. Until you pointed it out to me, I had no reason to believe they were there. And this is the essential difference between the comparision of pink unicorns and God you have used a few times now.

It was through my ignorance which I didn't believe in their existence. You believe it is through your knowledge that God doesn't exist however.

Hello Klee shay (and others):

I am not sure I follow you here. I see no conceptual distinction between your "rejection" of the pink unicorn and Novum's "rejection" of God. You seem to be arguing that the situations are disanalogous specifically because the possible existence of such a unicorn never occurred to you and, of course, the possible existence of God has occured to Novum.

But this is an irrelevant detail. Consider the Easter Bunny. You presumably "reject" the Easter Bunny in exactly the same way that Novum rejects God. You are aware of the concept of the Easter Bunny and have come to conclude that s/he does not exist (I am going to assume you do not, in fact, believe in the Easter Bunny : ). Same deal with Novum.

Now, of course, you (and I for that matter) may consider it to be odd that Novum claims no awareness of the "real" existence of God. Fair enough.

But, in a strict "technical" sense, we cannot find fault with Novum's logic. Structurally, his rejection of God is similiar to your (and mine) rejection of the Easter Bunny.

Now, we may believe that God has factually revealed himself to Novum, and that he (Novum) is factually rejecting "something that he knows to be true". But we are then making judgements about the content of Novum's inner experiential world. That is fine, but only Novum has access to that information. We should not be presuming this state of affairs (where Novum is factually aware of the reality of the living God) as if it were somehow inarguable.

Klee Shay, if I have misunderstood your point, I apologize. However, I suspect several others somehow take it for granted that Novum has rejected something he knows to be true. This is, indeed, a possible state of affairs. But his "rejection of the living God that has made Himself known to Novum" is an item of speculation on our parts, informed by our belief that God has made himself known to Novum - not a matter of logical deduction or self-evident truth.

 

[Gary]

But, in a strict "technical" sense, we cannot find fault with Novum's logic. Structurally, his rejection of God is similiar to your (and mine) rejection of the Easter Bunny.

Not true. We know who invented the Easter Bunny. We know who misled you about it's existence.

 

[Drew]

But, in a strict "technical" sense, we cannot find fault with Novum's logic. Structurally, his rejection of God is similiar to your (and mine) rejection of the Easter Bunny.

Not true. We know who invented the Easter Bunny. We know who misled you about it's existence.

Hi Gary:

If I understand what you are saying here, I would have to disagree. We all probably believe that human beings invented the Easter Bunny and mislead children about its existence. I suspect that Novum will argue that human beings did the same thing in respect to the matter of God's existence.

There is nothing illogical or demonstrably incorrect about what Novum is saying. We may believe that God has revealed Himself to Novum and we may also believe that Satan has led him astray. But, and this is the key point, these are not matters over which we can argue on the basis of logical principles and rational deduction. People seem to be telling Novum that his rejection of God somehow is a matter of necessary logic - as if his (Novum's) position is necessarily (ie. by principles of logic) incorrect.

I think people are getting tripped up by word "reject" - some posters seem to argue that it simply cannot be the case that one can "reject" something with that "something" being actual (real).

 

[Novum]

That invisible pink unicorn is coming between us again, LOL. :wink:

I'm a creative minded person so I really don't have any hang-ups about pink unicorns, if they so choose to inhabit my kitchen. You make an interesting point about first believing in their existence however. Until you pointed it out to me, I had no reason to believe they were there. And this is the essential difference between the comparision of pink unicorns and God you have used a few times now.

It was through my ignorance which I didn't believe in their existence. You believe it is through your knowledge that God doesn't exist however.

I was in the midst of typing out a reply, but I'll instead save some time and direct you to Drew's response (well written, Drew!) with which I am in full agreement.

A broken spirit is when you lose the desire to care about anything in your life. Depression is the best symptom of a broken spirit I can think of.

My younger brother has been diagnosed with clinical depression, but I believe it is absolutely untrue to say that he has "lost the desire to care about anything in his life".

Yes, but it's a limited strength...it does have it's limits. I use to be the most determined person I could think of - perhaps I still am to a lesser degree...but strength can also serve as a blinder to the truth of our vulnerability. A strong person can never envisage they are weak until they are tested beyond their limits to cope. Then what? What do you do when all you've ever relied upon is your own strength and even that lets you down?

What do you do when your strength leaves you and the strength of other's you've relied upon leaves you? What then? What do you rely on?

I have no idea. This has never happened to me, nor have I ever come remotely close. I think it's extraordinarily unlikely that every resource I have - my friends, my family, my coworkers, even myself - would spontaneously and simultaneously fail me.

For a broken person a crutch is essential in getting back on their feet again. With God however, the process doesn't end there. To say he's just a crutch is only half the picture.

What is a "broken person", and what is the other half of the picture?

This has always struck me as a contradiction. Why would an athiest believe in the consequences of heaven and hell if God does not exist? How is heaven and hell eternal if there is no God to make it so?

For the same reason that we can analyze the character of Huckleberry Finn in Mark Twain's famous novel by the same name. For the same reason that you get emotional when you watch a Hollywood tear-jerker. Every day, we can make judgments about, analyze, and learn from things that we believe to not exist in the real world. Sometimes, we can learn a great deal from doing this.

Yes, but God doesn't exist according to you so there is no infinite punishment to claim just or unjust. Why be so morally against what you don't believe is real in the first place?

It's true, I don't believe any of the above exists. However, a (large) number of other people do, and a lot of those people take these concepts very seriously. These concepts are worth discussion for that reason alone, just like it is worthy of our time to understand and discuss Buddha, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Abortion, and Euthanasia. We may not believe they exist or agree with them, but we still have much to gain from open discussion.

Can you explain why it's not an ethical statment? You've got me curious about this one.

Because they have no ethical/normative force. Not all statements do. For example:

"It is raining outside."
"I have five dollars in my pocket."
"Gasoline powers the majority of the world's vehicles."
"I am male."

These statements are all true, but there's nothing ethical or normative about them.

You mean the God which only exists to wear the condemnation of man?

What does this mean?

Isn't it amazing how mankind can sit in the judgement seat and condemn God, and yet if God were to do the same HE is being grossly unethical.

Replace "God" with "the Government", and I think you might better understand where I'm coming from. Our (lack of) comprehension should not preclude us from honest criticism.

Why not? Because I don't have infinite knowledge to judge fairly. If I judge God based on the fact that hell exists, then I become responsible for that judgement without knowing why hell exists myself.

See above. ;)

Being Christian isn't supposed to change anything other than the individual's desire to follow God. I accept everything God has created, both what appears to be good and what appears to be bad. There is nothing I know or don't know which will change the existence of hell.

I'm not speaking of the existence of hell; for now, we'll assume that it does exist and is as described in the bible. What I'm saying is that, regardless of whether or not I am a Christian, I cannot see how that would affect my view of hell as an unethical system of punishment.

Yes, we all have this desire to learn what we don't understand. What we don't see however, is another matter entirely. Being blind to what we don't see cannot be understood by mere logical deductions. We are blind - end of story.

We couldn't "see" atoms until we had electron microscopes. We couldn't "see" Pluto until we had telescopes. We couldn't "see" protons until we had tunneling electron microscopes. In all of these cases, we could speculate about their existence and draw some fairly accurate conclusions, all without physically "seeing" them.

As great as our capacity to learn is...there is so much more we don't see. This is the way of life.

Yet that which we don't "see" continues to shrink smaller and smaller.

Why should anyone trust that which they do not understand? Our concept of trust requires that we understand the object of our trust, otherwise it is merely blind faith.

And you said you don't understand Christianity, LOL. :wink:

Perhaps I should clarify. ;) Blind faith, to me, is associated with negative connotations.

Let me ask you something. Do you only trust your parents as much as you're prepared to understand them - or do you just trust them?

You have a certain degree of blind faith in the relationship you have with your own parents; and so too is a relationship with God. You only have to understand that he loves you and the rest is blind faith.

Even if I accept that he loves me, that doesn't seem to help me. Does he also love stillborn babies, or those with severe physical birth defects, or those with severe mental birth defects? What about those which don't live past a week? A month? A year? Did he love those who were killed on 9/11, in the recent asian tsunami, in New Orleans?

We go straight back to the age-old problem of evil and suffering.

Good question. It's only through the love of God that anyone converts - a real convertion that is - not a forced one through the persistence of mankind. As much as I can tell you as a Christian about my experience with God, it's not going to mean diddly-squat until you first taste of his love for yourself. How do you get a taste of his love - well, God is the best person to ask about that one.

I tried that already. Remember? It didn't work out too well. ;)

Can I play ameteur psychologist for a minute and suggest that sounds like a plausible answer for someone who has settled for their fate and nothing more, LOL.

I don't believe in fate.

You don't have to take that last part seriously... :wink:

:D

 

[thessalonian]

3. You have not defined "grace".

It is DOA with you. So I won't.

Then if you're unwilling or unable to explain terms that you use, stop using them.

Man are you arrogant! Who made you king of the rules committee on the board. I can use whatever term I like. You can look up the meaning. Your rejection of it means little to me as your rejection of hell will do you little good when that fateful day comes.

 

[Novum]

3. You have not defined "grace".

It is DOA with you. So I won't.

Then if you're unwilling or unable to explain terms that you use, stop using them.

Man are you arrogant! Who made you king of the rules committee on the board. I can use whatever term I like. You can look up the meaning. Your rejection of it means little to me as your rejection of hell will do you little good when that fateful day comes.

Oh, right, just like you've been looking up evolution when others pointed out your lack of understanding on the subject. Hypocrite. :roll:

 

[thessalonian]

Oh, right, just like you've been looking up evolution when others pointed out your lack of understanding on the subject.

Well I thought you were ethical. Evidently bearing false witness, i.e. lies are not a part of your ethics.

Hypocrite.

Ah, good old ad hom.

 

[Novum]

Oh, right, just like you've been looking up evolution when others pointed out your lack of understanding on the subject.

Well I thought you were ethical. Evidently bearing false witness, i.e. lies are not a part of your ethics.

Do you deny that you did not make an effort to better understand evolution after being called out on it?

[quote:846f1]Hypocrite.

Ah, good old ad hom.[/quote:846f1]

Indeed. A friend of yours and mine alike, I'd say. ;)