What not believing in God is like

DiscussãoPhilosophy and Theory

Entre no LibraryThing para poder publicar.

What not believing in God is like

Este tópico está presentemente marcado como "inativo" —a última mensagem tem mais de 90 dias. Reative o tópico publicando uma resposta.

1BoFowler
Dez 10, 2011, 6:12pm

Not believing in God is like not shaving.
'Oh you're growing a beard' people say.
'No, I'm just not shaving.'

2pmackey
Mar 9, 2012, 10:05pm

Either way you have hair on your face. But whether or not that has significance, I can't say.

3bernsad
Mar 9, 2012, 10:52pm

>1 BoFowler: And there you are wrong. Not being bothered to shave is decidely different to making a conscious decision not to believe in a deity. Do you assume that all atheists are just lazy?

4timspalding
Mar 9, 2012, 11:42pm

One often sees arguments on both sides that seek to move the "default state." It's a silly activity. If you want someone to believe something, you should try to persuade them, not to argue that your position is the natural one from which all persuasion must begin.

5paradoxosalpha
Mar 10, 2012, 9:14am

Not believing in God is like not wearing pants.
'Oh, you're indecently undressed,' people say.
'No, I'm just dressed for my own comfort.'

6reading_fox
Mar 10, 2012, 11:06am

is like having 'not collecting stamps' for a hobby.

But also agree with Tim.

7timspalding
Mar 10, 2012, 12:52pm

>6 reading_fox:

Growing up, I believed that stamp-collecting was the natural state of man. You can, perhaps, understand how I founded LibraryThing. :)

8Savagemalloy
Mar 10, 2012, 1:28pm

Wailing or Tebowing, put your face to the ground and turn your buns to the sky, pick one and do it! Or, for today's fast paced world do all 3, 3 sets, 10 reps, 4 days a week.

9Jesse_wiedinmyer
Mar 10, 2012, 1:37pm

Are you suggesting that I grab my ankles and bend?

10boney.mmmm
Mar 10, 2012, 3:41pm

BROTHERS AND SISTERS!! Believing in god is not the same as KNOWING HIM. and NOT BELIEVING doesn't stop HIM from knowing you.

bow-a-neeee.

11Jesse_wiedinmyer
Mar 10, 2012, 3:59pm

Not believing in god tastes like chicken.

12ApeironPrime
Maio 7, 2012, 5:41am

God?

13wirkman
Jun 23, 2012, 11:08pm

I am not usually very interested in convincing people to believe as I believe on matters of religion - not if they hold generally peaceful and non-damaging ethical positions. But, if asked what "not believing in the existence of any deity" is like, I have to remember that this rubs up a long institutional and philosophic grain in humanity, so it is not "just like not doing this or that." It inevitably means more than this.

So, what is it like? It is like not believing that the Earh is the center of the universe PLUS not believing that my mother was perfect, that my father is virtuous, and that the people around me always have benevolent thoughts.

Not believing in any god is a little unsettling, I suppose, but its eminent reasonableness compensates.

It does not seem dangerous, to me, any more, to contemplate a universe without any center and without a certain beginning or end (new cosmologies bubbling up from the Academy like fashion in far away places such as New York and Paris); human beings as evolved apes; perfection as a gossamer ideal; and civilization as itself fragile to some extent, and certainly not a simple system capable of easy diagraming - depending, as it does, on coöperation as well as non-coöoperation, empathy as well as antipathy and indifference, perpetual conflict as well as ineradicable competition.

Deities seem, to me, to most at home in world-views less complex than what compels my belief. So not holding a theistic belief is a lot like my incredulity towards socialism and my distaste for the ideology of romantic love.

14wirkman
Jun 23, 2012, 11:08pm

"Earth" not "Earh"....

15WholeHouseLibrary
Jun 24, 2012, 1:27am

I was raised in a very strict religious household, as were both of my parents. I came to first question the validity of it all when I was 8. When I was 11, a particular incident finally convinced me that belief in a deity was ludicrous. It took another five years before summoned up the courage to feel not guilty about it, stand up against the substantial familial pressures and let it all go.

For me, and I fully admit that this is not a good simile, atheism is like being healthy and not having a full-face respirator mask strapped to my head. It's such a relief to be rid of that burden. That is not to suggest that I think theists are ill. I breathe as I deem necessary; not when the machine makes me.

I raised my kids in an atheistic environment, amidst the overly-religiously-frenzied (and I use that term to tone down the sense of it) denizens the central Texas area. They're well-adjusted adults.

16Booksloth
Jun 24, 2012, 4:14am

#13 Not believing in any god is a little unsettling, I suppose

To whom? Some of us find believing unsettling.

17timspalding
Editado: Jun 26, 2012, 12:21am

So, what is it like? It is like not believing that the Earh is the center of the universe PLUS not believing that my mother was perfect, that my father is virtuous, and that the people around me always have benevolent thoughts.

I'm sure you mean some sort of contrast, but I don't think believing in God requires any of these, and the religion I belong to--Christianity--would actively, dogmatically deny at least three of the four assertions! I find it odd you would call out for disagreement points we agree on, and characterize our shared view as "unsettling." As for "reasonableness," one ought to have a sense of the facts before trying to grind reason upon them.

Deities seem, to me, to most at home in world-views less complex than what compels my belief.

This would be a good deal easier to accept if you weren't so obviously misinformed on the topic of what theists believe! Complex? Your notion of religion strikes me as something told you as a child—that everyone's good, or some such.

Anyway,I don't see where "complexity" comes in. Atheistic materialism is an extremely simple system of belief. (It's virtue is indeed its simplicity, or so we are continually told.) There's stuff and certain ways the stuff reacts to other stuff. There are no other orders of being, other realms of existence and so forth.

18lawecon
Editado: Jun 26, 2012, 9:21am

~1 - 17

I, of course, don't want to restart an old thread that was a disaster. HOWEVER. when any of you says "I do believe in G-d" or "I don't believe in G-d" what do you envision that you do or don't believe in?

I ask because the last time there was a hot debate between theists and atheists in these forums the theists mostly ended up maintaining that "G-d is beyond our imagination" (i.e., I can't tell you with any specificity what I believe in) and the atheists ended up maintaining that "I don't have to specify what I don't believe in, since the theist position is incoherent." (i.e., I don't have a clue what I don't believe in).*

Then, to make things still worse, it became apparent that the term "believe in" meant different things to different people. Some thought that it meant to have a strong conviction in the face of contrary facts. Some thought it meant to fill in the gaps in acknowledged facts. Some had never thought about it at all, and just had a warm glow when they mentioned the term "believe," as in "I DO BELIEVE."

Your take?

=======================

* Incidentally, my position is that atheists in fact are generally rejecting belief in the G-d they were taught about as children, and generally don't have a clue that there are radically different conceptions of G-d. So their intellectualization for rejecting "belief" is a "cop out."

19bertilak
Jun 26, 2012, 9:42am

>18 lawecon:

Would you please give some examples of any 'radically different conceptions of G-d' which you believe to be tenable?

20wirkman
Jun 26, 2012, 3:01pm

I wrote that not believing in a deity - and I meant a loving deity, concerned about humanity, answering prayers, even - was LIKE not believing in geocentrism.

I realize that most Christians, today, are not geocentrists. But ancient Hebrews were, and the Holy Office of Rome not unreasonably interpreted its Scriptures as supporting geocentrism when it placed Galileo under house arrest, and made him recant. Geocentrism is "obvious," and believing it requires normal folks to think hard about nothing. Indeed, occam's razor suggests that it is right - up until ALL the evidence of astronomical events must be explained. Then geocentrism falls.

Geocentrism is also, obviously, implied in the miracles of the standstill sun in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is easy to believe in these miracles if you are a geocentrist: God simply moved a body a long ways from us. But once you comprehend the idea of Earth's rotation and the inertia of all the mass of and on the planet, including every particle of gas, the two miracles seem the most amazing in the record. Everyone knows that the faith required to believe in these miracles from a heliocentric/vast universe perspective is enormous. Hence the persecution of Galileo. Today's Christians gulp and say the three "Omnis" and suppress the thought.

At least I did, as a Christian.

I also suppressed the evidence of evolution. I also suppressed the evidence of moral enormities promoted by the Texts I was taught to revere. The subject I could not repress was psychology. The simple, miraculous idea I was taught about human motivation - that man is in rebellion against God and that the Holy Ghost works to convict men of sin - looked nothing like the full explanation required by what actually went on in how people changed their minds and lives. It seemed to me another just-so story, easy to believe if I didn't think about the evidence of what really happens.

So I had to drop all these fabulous beliefs, and adopt a full and (as best I could manage) scientific as well as philosphical belief system.

Of course, you are right, Mr. Spalding, atheism itself is simple. A denial of a deity. Any deity. But the full atheistic humanism is anything but simple, certainly at the level of the natural standpoint.

But there is complexity required by evidence, and complexity required by trying to prove an untruth. It is worth remembering that the Ptolemaic system was complicated, too.

The point isn't, I agree, to prefer complexity or simplicity in every case, across the board. It is to meet the actual world with corresponding maps and models and theories and such, and not spin fancies for the sake of fancy.

Then again, hey, I like myths. I just don't have to believe them. Nicely, literature picks up one strain of human experience and allows us to pursue fancy for fantasy's sake alone. (But even here, literary fantasy usually grounds it's extravagances in a worldly moral, like "power corrupts" or "you can't get something for nothing"...)

21wirkman
Jun 26, 2012, 3:14pm

Lawecon, I cannot speak for all atheists, but when I rejected a deity, I was, indeed, primarily rejecting a belief in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God.

When I was a Christian, my monotheism was neither superstitious nor philosophical. That is, I did not believe that "other people's gods" were really devils - a traditional belief of East Mediterranean monotheists. I also did not believe that all those other gods were "shadows" or "images" or "glimpses" of the One True God - a less superstitious belief, and common amongst very smart and very nice people. My position about other gods was what I now dub x-theism: my god, x, existed, but gods y, z, et al., did not.

X - 1 = atheism.

I hold a fairly pragmatic-pragmaticist conception of belief.

22lawecon
Editado: Jun 26, 2012, 3:30pm

~19

Sure.

As I understand it the Christian G-d is a variant of the Aristotle/Greek First Mover G-d. He is all powerful, all present, all knowing, invisible (or not in the same universe as mere mortals) etc. The Muslim G-d is even more remote and abstract and unknowable. Strangely enough, both Christians and Muslims then contend that their G-d is a personal G-d who cares about and answers the prayers of individuals. p&~p in my book.

The traditional Jewish G-d is quite powerful - but maybe not all powerful. Lives in a temple or occupies a burning bush or a whirlwind or a column of fire, but doesn't seem to be everywhere all the time. He can even have memory lapses or can change his mind, and, if you do so politely, you may be able to argue with Him. Certain people talked to him "face to face," he was said to have a back and an arm and a hand. He was said to be wise and a law giver. He wasn't, however, usually a personal G-d for everyone. He was more interested in the society or tribe than in the individual.

23paradoxosalpha
Jun 26, 2012, 3:39pm

> 20 But there is complexity required by evidence, and complexity required by trying to prove an untruth.

Amen. I even appreciate the latter, except when its purveyors insist that it is the former.

It is worth remembering that the Ptolemaic system was complicated, too.

Well said.

24lawecon
Editado: Jun 26, 2012, 5:04pm

~21

I am curious, how much work did you put into determining that each conception of the Western G-d (let's call him) should be rejected? Or did you just believe what you were told growing up - that all of these G-ds were pretty much carbon copies of each other, or, alternatively, successive photographs of the same thing - a step or two more or less "advanced"? Have you, for instance , ever looked through a volume like this God Is Not One?

25timspalding
Editado: Jun 26, 2012, 5:24pm

Incidentally, my position is that atheists in fact are generally rejecting belief in the G-d they were taught about as children, and generally don't have a clue that there are radically different conceptions of G-d.

I don't know how general this is, but we certainly see it over and over on LibraryThing.

At least I did, as a Christian. … I also suppressed the evidence of evolution.

According to your description of what you believed, you weren't merely a Christian but a certain sort of almost-certainly American fundie. While your journey may be meaningful to you, I deny that the intellectual shortcomings of a relatively small and exceedingly modern offshoot of historic Christianity have much to say to the intellectual integrity of Christianity itself. In your social consequence, they may have seemed and seem identical, but they're just not. To me, it's like someone arguing for atheism because they were unsatisfied by what they were told in an Albanian grammar school.

As a side note, we might discuss whether Christians may have a fundamental religious duty to pull others away from these views. Certainly conservative Christianity has been pretty good at holding onto believers. But time moves on and so does education. Fundamentalist Christianity is spiritually satisfying but intellectually fragile. That's a long-term threat to American belief.

But once you comprehend the idea of Earth's rotation and the inertia of all the mass of and on the planet, including every particle of gas, the two miracles seem the most amazing in the record

I've never really understood this objection. It doesn't bother me because I have no confidence whatsoever in the factual basis of the story--I simply don't read it that way. But a miracle's a miracle. If God can move the sun, he can move the earth, move the sun briefly and then move it back, bend light so it looks like the sun sticks around, etc. It's not like the ancient readers interpreted the miracle as a small one to begin with.

26wirkman
Jun 26, 2012, 9:41pm

Mr. Spalding, I understand your point, made here:

According to your description of what you believed, you weren't merely a Christian but a certain sort of almost-certainly American fundie. While your journey may be meaningful to you, I deny that the intellectual shortcomings of a relatively small and exceedingly modern offshoot of historic Christianity have much to say to the intellectual integrity of Christianity itself. In your social consequence, they may have seemed and seem identical, but they're just not. To me, it's like someone arguing for atheism because they were unsatisfied by what they were told in an Albanian grammar school.


Except for the last line, which is a trivialization of the whole problem of the chain of evidence.

I was indeed a fundie. And yes, the Darbyist line is new. But most of the beliefs of the sect I grew up in trace back beyond Calvin to St. Augustine, and these Christians could point to actual passages in their Scriptures for their beliefs. Extensively. Something I rarely see mainstream Christians do, and not with such rigor. (But then, I also understand that many interpretations of conflicting ideas in the ancient texts can lead to honest disagreement....)

It's worth pointing out that my Christian teachers rested their theological beliefs on "revelation" - revelation made a LONG TIME AGO - and upon the secondary belief that the Bible is infallible. This led to complications for them, of course, but these precepts - or should I say "presuppositions" à la Schaeffer? - were not aberrations in the history of Christianity, nor irrelevant epistemically for a belief in a deity. Since I have no personal reason to believe in a deity - none whatsoever - then the chain of evidence becomes very important. And after one abandons the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, one's reason for believing any of the old stuff seems gossamer at best.

But if you can do it, and not advocate moral horrors as a consequence, then that's something I normally don't like pushing. As for me, the chain of evidence lies shattered, and I cannot believe any of the old stories. Sans that rationale, I have no reason for believing the more general idea.

And I can assure you, I don't find reasons for believing Ba'al or Ashtaroth or Isis and Osiris or Zeus pater more convincing. They just seem to me myths.

The philosopher's God, on the other hand, is an attractive notion, I suppose. But it, too, gained much of its impetus from traditional religious impulses and histories. Once I judged all the gods as cockamamie fictions, the reason to believe in a Super-God, refined up from the rube versions, also evaporates. Aristotle's reasons for a deity I find rather lame. Epicurus - whose theology is much more plausible to me - also provides only very silly reasons for believing in the gods.

Cicero's arguments FOR religion are silly and parochial, no matter how sophisticated the man himself was.

This being said, I have enjoyed fictions based on ancient myths. F. Marion Crawford's KHALED begins with a depiction of Azrael, and carries forth a story of a djinn. C.S. Lewis's TILL WE HAVE FACES is a powerful book, and deserves careful reading by anyone concerned about the nature of man - for he attempts to use ancient Greek myth to provide an answer to Job. Evangeline Walton's retellings of the Mabinogion are grand fictions. I look forward to reading the works of Roberto Calasso and Mary Renault.

I now try to maintain a littérateur's interest in these subjects, not a philosopher's. Sorry.

It is worth noting that though I abandoned my faith for one set of reasons - based on psychology - other reasons quickly came up, and even dominated post-conversion thinking about religion. Now I would say that evolutionary ideas, including evolutionary sociology, are the biggest reasons I have for rejecting theistic belief. But my initial reason to abandon these notions were confined, mainly, to psychology, and secondarily to realizing that the chain of evidence supplied by the twin suppositions of Revelation/Biblical inerrancy was far weaker than I had been taught.

Which in a sense proves your point. I definitely do not understand how a person can believe in God without believing also in inerrant account of a bona fide revelation. Since I have experienced no revelations (though I have experienced aural hallucinations) and the contemporary accounts I've heard strike me as ranging from silly to sad, revelation closer than long-standing "inerrant" accounts is not an option for me, either. And as for reason . . . I've never heard a reason for believing in a deity based on normal standards of evidence, or on ontological deductions, in the slightest sense plausible.

twv

27lawecon
Editado: Jun 27, 2012, 9:33am

~26

You know, I don't necessarily want to upset a view with which you've become comfortable, but, based on what you say, I agree with Tim (a very very rare occurrence). It sounds like you were brought up to believe that religion has something to do with an "infallible text," with prophesies, with primitive views of the structure of the universe. For instance, you seem to still be so wedded to such views that you say: "I was indeed a fundie. And yes, the Darbyist line is new. But most of the beliefs of the sect I grew up in trace back beyond Calvin to St. Augustine, and these Christians could point to actual passages in their Scriptures for their beliefs. Extensively. Something I rarely see mainstream Christians do, and not with such rigor." So even though you say that you have given up your fundie roots, the test for you of religious legitimacy still seems to be that someone can support their theology by snippets from a Holy Text? Really?

Now some religions certainly are based on such childish nonsense. They have a Holy Text the "literal meaning" of which (or the HS guided meaning of which) in translation and after transmission for 1500 years is "infallible." Blah, blah, blah. A particular variant of American Protestant Christianity is like that - meet fuzzi and Ambrihil in our Groups. However, this is, frankly, the only religion of that sort with which I am familiar. Not a very good sample for someone who aspires to be "scientific."

OTOH, I am not at all certain that you understand the current view which you say you have adopted. You like the achievements of science, but do you really grasp what is going on in science? Perhaps you have just replaced one unconditional and hermetically sealed faith with another (we have another forum participant who has done exactly that, and who, not surprisingly, comes from the same religious background as you).

Tell me, how is it that you think science works and what are the scope and limits of science?

28wirkman
Jun 27, 2012, 6:09pm

Lawecon, you did not address my point about chain of evidence. The reason I am an atheist is that no one has ever given me a good reason to believe in a deity. Sans a good reason, no belief. Sure, the traditional reliance upon inerrant Scripture is bunk, but I have seen nothing respectable to replace it.

Science is a nifty public procedure for testing beliefs, and allowing beliefs to be put up to tests. I would be interested in seeing some theistic beliefs put up to scientific tests, but so far such beliefs have been immune to the procedures. Traditional religious myths, of course - understood literally - have all fallen by such tests.

The dialectical reasons for theism or polytheism strike me as risible.

I am aware of looser religious attitudes. I am an avid reader of Santayana. But I agree with Santayana, too: theism is an error; religions remain poetic glosses on life.

But unlike Santayana, I prefer to make do with literary and other artistic endeavors to deal with such necessary personal and social functions, avoiding the trappings of traditional rite and creed.

29Arctic-Stranger
Jun 27, 2012, 6:20pm

I was indeed a fundie. And yes, the Darbyist line is new. But most of the beliefs of the sect I grew up in trace back beyond Calvin to St. Augustine, and these Christians could point to actual passages in their Scriptures for their beliefs. Extensively. Something I rarely see mainstream Christians do, and not with such rigor. (But then, I also understand that many interpretations of conflicting ideas in the ancient texts can lead to honest disagreement....)

It was only after I lived in a foreign country, and visited many others that I began to see how particularly American Fundamentalism really is. The "ideas" may have come from Calvin, et. al. but they have a peculiar American spin on them.

30lawecon
Jun 27, 2012, 8:22pm

~28

I am sorry, I missed your point about chain of evidence. Went back and reread 20, 21 & 26 and still don't see it. What sort of "chain of evidence" would you want about an historical claim about a particular deity doing certain things 2,500 + years ago?

I agree that "Science is a nifty public procedure for testing beliefs, and allowing beliefs to be put up to tests." and I am happy to see that you emphasize testing rather than induction or some other such myth. But aren't you using the term "science" rather broadly for what is usually considered to be "science," just as you seem to be using the term "myth" rather conclusively?

Are there no myths that can be tested?

Are historical claims myth or science or neither?

31wirkman
Jun 27, 2012, 9:03pm

Many myths have been tested, and found wanting. That's why "myth" usually means, in common parlance, "untrue old story."

Look, if I am to believe in a deity who is just as well as extremely potent, so to speak, as well as concerned for our lives, then i would expect that deity to provide us some reasons - and reasonable evidence - for his existence. So I honor the bumpkins who believe in the Bible. They expect something from such a deity, and they pretend that the Bible answers that expectation.

It obviously doesn't, and nothing else we have does, either.

Now, it may be true that there are beings vaster and greater than us, perhaps remnants of a previous Big-Bang-Cycle Universe, but the evidence suggests to me that they are - because of lack of evidence - of a more Epicurean nature, that is, unconcerned about us.

If not outright malevolent.

So, the proper response to beings who do not care for us is not to care for them. Worship and praise would therefore be craven responses to their callous indifference.

But I think traditional human religious attitudes do not say anything about a deity, and a lot about us. And it is on these grounds that I draw reasonable inferences.

As always, the inferences we draw about the past and about complex phenomena like Homo sapiens and human societies, are of a much less exact kind than available to physicists and chemists.

But we wander, now, far afield of the original simile question.

Since I was a very young atheist, 30 years ago, my usual response to the question has been "not believing in God is like not believing in unicorns or dragons"... all three beings being better in stories than in reality. Still, the rhino and the dinosaur fossil (the likely real-world cause for the lore of the unicorn and the dragon, respectively) are fascinating organisms, with interesting natural histories; so, too, are the psychological, sociological, and political springs of human religion also interesting.

32lawecon
Editado: Jun 27, 2012, 11:40pm

~31

"Look, if I am to believe in a deity who is just as well as extremely potent, so to speak, as well as concerned for our lives, then i would expect that deity to provide us some reasons - and reasonable evidence - for his existence."

That is nice, but once again you are imposing the assumptions of your previous religion on the nature of G-d. Since apparently didn't read the response the first time, you might now read post #22 above.

"So I honor the bumpkins who believe in the Bible. They expect something from such a deity, and they pretend that the Bible answers that expectation."

What Bible is it that you are referring to?

33lawecon
Editado: Jul 6, 2012, 7:46pm

I was wondering if this thead was going to restart, but apparently not.

Indeed, this same discussion (or something close) always seems to end in the same place: the theists either speak in terms so broad that they cannot in principle be tested or they fall away fairly quickly in the discussion. The atheists, not knowing a thing about theism or its many varieties, compare it to unicorns or expect G-d to be all present, all knowing, all benevolent, all wise, etc. and then are disappointed when he is not. (Strangely enough, they then cite their disbelief to texts that say no such thing about the nature of G-d.)

Frankly, guys, this isn't a very good showing. I can't tell if you are just grossly ignorant of your own and the other guy's position or if you are just so prejudiced and dismissive that you can't read plain English and think about its obvious implications.

But, regardless, I'll probably try again in six months. It feels so good when you bang your head against that cement wall of unthinking prejudice.

34donbuch1
Jul 7, 2012, 10:41am

Your frustration to find a meaningful discussion on this controversial topic is shared. For many who shun orthodox views, the New Age approach involves viewing the cosmos as "compatible" with a higher intelligence that permeates throughout its fabric. This seems to be a form of pantheism which is an old concept. Others take a humanistic approach, by saying that each person has divine potential "separate" from any higher entity that governs some spiritual realm. People who believe in orthodox Christianity look for a simple answer through conformity and timidity. They ignore the fact that other religions, some of which are much older, contain wisdom just as relevant to get through life.

35Gail.C.Bull
Editado: Out 3, 2012, 5:49pm

The thing I find odd about modern atheism, is that most atheists reject modern Gods, but seem to revel in notion of ancient Gods, as if distance lends enchantment.

I've heard them say things like, "oh Hades!" or speaking reverently about the old pagan beliefs, and I'm absolutely baffled by the contradiction.

You either believe in that religion is good for humanity, or you believe that is destructive. You either believe in (the) God(s) or you don't. Which is it?

The concept of God is such a difficult one discuss without deep emotion (and occasionally, bruises), because the word "God" is used as shorthand for any meaning that an individual cares to bring to it. At a writer's forum that I belong to, we got into a discussion about the existence or non-existence of God and the tone of the debate stayed good-natured and friendly until we decided that we needed to provide a workable definition for the word God. Everyone had such a different notion of what that word meant.

Some thought that God should be only be defined as a "being" (preferably physical), while others insisted that God should also be described as the positive, constructive aspect of the human psyche: as in "God (and the devil: the negative aspect of the human psyche) is in all of us". We ultimately abandoned the attempt to define God in the interest of preserving the good-natured mood of the site.

36AsYouKnow_Bob
Out 3, 2012, 8:05pm

...is that most atheists reject modern Gods, but seem to revel in notion of ancient Gods...

This has not been my experience of atheists.

37Gail.C.Bull
Out 3, 2012, 8:16pm

It has been mine, but then experiences vary.

38southernbooklady
Out 3, 2012, 10:02pm

>35 Gail.C.Bull: You either believe in that religion is good for humanity, or you believe that is destructive. You either believe in (the) God(s) or you don't. Which is it?

I think having faith has been very helpful for many people on a personal level as they contend with the struggles of existence. I think organized religion's tally sheet tilts towards the done more harm than good. I think life is more complex than a series of either/or options. And my conception of the universe does not include a supernatural entity called "god."

Oh, and I've never said "oh Hades" in my life, although I appreciate classical mythology for its literary beauty and metaphorical insights. I do say "hell,"damn," "jeez," and "chrissake" but that's really a cultural thing, not a hypocritical call for Jesus.

39LesMiserables
Out 3, 2012, 10:07pm

> 38

Name a religion which is not organised? All conceptions of religion and faith are assimilated through social connectivity.

All religious faith is delusional, understandable, yet absolutely futile and divisive.

40southernbooklady
Out 3, 2012, 10:17pm

Well I think it possible to have faith in a higher power without being associated with or affiliated with an organized religion. "Faith" and "Religion" are not synonymous.

And being "delusional" is not a trait limited to religious people. We each have our personal mythologies and psychological constructs we need to help us get out of bed every morning. So I choose not to throw stones at people who have faith. As long as they aren't throwing stones at people like me.

41Gail.C.Bull
Out 3, 2012, 11:04pm

I think religion had the potential to be one of the most constructive forces in this world, but it had one fatal flaw: "us" and "them" mentality. In the interest of recruiting more followers, every single religion developed a philosophy of exclusion. There are many names for "us" (chosen people, blessed, children of God) and many names for "them" (heathen, infidel, heretic), but it all creates the same destructive result; it justifies hatred.

However, I do think that if you read religious philosophy with the same critical reading skills that you use when reading any work of philosophy, there are some worthwhile ethical insights. The real problems start when people read religious texts as if they were comic books: taking every single word at face value and without thought or personal reflection.

42LesMiserables
Out 3, 2012, 11:07pm

> 40

Quite so: delusion is not limited to religion, but it is integral to religion in itself.

Unfortunately the throwing stones analogy is all too real: many people live permanently under a very large stone; a heavy oppressive rock called state religion, be that Islam, Christianity, Hinduism etc.

That oppression is written into the fabric of the laws of their societies. That is what I call a very large stone. So attacking that oppression is justified and conducive to a much more pluralistic and tolerant society.

43lawecon
Out 4, 2012, 1:47am

"Unfortunately the throwing stones analogy is all too real: many people live permanently under a very large stone; a heavy oppressive rock called state religion, be that Islam, Christianity, Hinduism etc.

"That oppression is written into the fabric of the laws of their societies. That is what I call a very large stone. So attacking that oppression is justified and conducive to a much more pluralistic and tolerant society."

How about state atheism? Would elimination of that also lead to a much more pluralistic and tolerant society?

44LesMiserables
Editado: Out 4, 2012, 5:45am

> 43

I know of no state that adopts atheism as a creed. Also, do not confuse atheism as a type of religion.

45LesMiserables
Out 4, 2012, 5:49am

> 35 The thing I find odd about modern atheism, is that most atheists reject modern Gods, but seem to revel in notion of ancient Gods, as if distance lends enchantment.

Eh?

Are you talking about Buddhism, Christianity, Islam? They are all ancient with respect to formation.

Revel in notion of ancient gods? I'm baffled. When, who, show me?

46Booksloth
Out 4, 2012, 6:08am

Back to the OP. Not believing in a god is like being free. It gives you the freedom to make your own decisions and not behave in a certain way just because some old book tells you to. It gives you the freedom to appreciate the real wonder of this earth and the universe in which it exists (which is more amazing - that some guy waved a wand and made it all happen or that it has taken billions of years of evolution, trial and error and visible, provable progression to get to the flawed, imperfect but genuinely 'miraculous' stage we're at right now?) It gives you the freedom to examine your world and your motives and develop your own moral code based on genuinely love and empathy, not on someone else's rules. It gives you the freedom to adapt and reconsider those motives in the light of experience and not be tied to a rigid 2,000 year old law (or, frequently, much older) that may have been fine for the people who lived back then but has no relevance whatsoever to today's world. It even gives you the freedom to die in peace and without the fear that some silly little mistake you made years ago will condemn you to the fires of hell.

#35,36,37 etc - My religious friends (unlike any of my atheist ones) believe completely in homeopathy, crystal healing, auras etc, etc. I guess we both know some strange people but it doesn't prove anything.

47Gail.C.Bull
Out 4, 2012, 7:19am

>45 LesMiserables:: You think Christianity and Islam are ancient? Wow. Is your perception of length of human existence limited. Christianity is only 2000 years old. Islam is even younger. In breadth and depth of human existence, that's the blink of an eye. Buddhism I couldn't say. I'm not familiar with its age.

But I was talking about the long neglected pantheons. Odin and his immortal courtiers in Northern Europe. The ancient Gods of Mesopotamia. Ra and his extended immortal family in Egypt. Mythology is nothing more than the ancient scriptures of religions that no one believes in any more. But some atheist wax poetic about the old pagan religions as if its a tragedy that no one believes in them any more. Its bizarre.

48southernbooklady
Out 4, 2012, 7:47am

>47 Gail.C.Bull: But some atheist wax poetic about the old pagan religions as if its a tragedy that no one believes in them any more. Its bizarre.

Who are these atheists that long for the bygone days of Odin? I find the notion of their existence entirely bizarre.

>46 Booksloth:which is more amazing - that some guy waved a wand and made it all happen or that it has taken billions of years of evolution, trial and error and visible, provable progression to get to the flawed, imperfect but genuinely 'miraculous' stage we're at right now?

My religious friends look out at the universe and feel wonder at its mystery. I gaze upward into the heavens and feel wonder that it is knowable.

49lawecon
Editado: Out 4, 2012, 8:47am

~44
"I know of no state that adopts atheism as a creed. Also, do not confuse atheism as a type of religion."

Well, let's see, there was the USSR, most of the "Eastern Block" along with Albania and Yugoslavia. Now still there is the PRC and North Korea. They all had (or have) atheism as a official creed and being openly religious under any of those regimes was a very bad idea. (Don't get out much, do you?)

As for atheism being a "creed," of course it is. The statement "there is no such thing as G-d" has to be a matter of unevidenced faith unless you claim to be all knowing, all present, etc. You, of course, may mean by such a statement the quite different statement that "The conception of G-d that many believers will tell you about is incoherent." The two statements are, however, not equivalent and the latter statement is not a-theism but a-incoherency.

50lawecon
Out 4, 2012, 8:45am

~45

"Revel in notion of ancient gods? I'm baffled. When, who, show me?"

Have you read this thread or have you just joined and would like it repeated for you?

51LolaWalser
Editado: Out 4, 2012, 10:50am

#49

Well, let's see, there was the USSR, most of the "Eastern Block" along with Albania and Yugoslavia.

Check your facts.

Of the countries you mention, only Albania came close to effectively "banning" religion. Of course, as religion is practically an ethnic category in the Balkans, even Albania didn't succeed.

The Communist Parties in other countries didn't admit (officially at least) the religious. The CPs were indeed programmatically atheist, but it's nonsense to call Poland or Yugoslavia atheist states.

52WholeHouseLibrary
Out 4, 2012, 1:21pm

Yeah, all those Russian Orthodox churches, and their priests walking freely on the streets were merely ruses.

53paradoxosalpha
Editado: Out 4, 2012, 1:55pm

> 35

I think you've misinterpreted the reason that atheists invoke the gods of ancient paganism. Here is the relevant exposition from Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity:
O ye shortsighted religious philosophers of Germany, who fling at our heads the facts of the religious consciousness, to stun our reason and make us the slaves of your childish superstition, --do you not see that the facts are just as relative, as various, as subjective as the ideas of the different religions? Were not the gods of Olympus also facts, self-attesting existences? Were not the ludicrous miracles of paganism regarded as facts? Were not angels and demons historical persons? Did they not really appear to men? Did not Balaam's ass really speak? Was not the story of Balaam's ass just as much believed even by enlightened scholars of the last (i.e. 18th) century, as the Incarnation or any other miracle? (from Ch. XXI)
The circumstance that the ancient gods no longer have a functioning normative cultus frees us to consider them as the subjective, emotive, and aesthetic facts they always were, and to allow them their value on that basis.

54LesMiserables
Editado: Out 4, 2012, 5:20pm

> 47

Well I have a MA in Ancient history and actively teach the subject. As a rough rule of thumb we demarcate Ancient history from around 3000 BCE to 476 CE.

So yes, Christianity is ancient.

55LesMiserables
Out 4, 2012, 5:15pm

> 49

Jack..."Look Jill at those fairies at the bottom of the garden!"

Jill..."What fairies?"

Jack..."The fairies by the garden shed."

Jill..."I can't see any fairies."

Jack.."Oh for goodness sake Jill, can't you sense them?"

Jill..."No."

Jack.."It is in the book. Look here, it's in the book of Bob."

Jill.."That is just a story. There are no fairies."

Jack.."(Gasp!) How dare you. I am offended. Have you no faith?"

Jill.."Look Jack, show me the evidence of your fairies and we will discuss it then."

Jack.."I just have. It's here, in the book of Bob."

Jill.."Sorry Jack, but that is nonsense,"

Jack.."How dare you Jill? You are just following some trendy creed of non-belief."

Jill.."Eh? Come on Jack, last time I checked, a creed was A formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith and quite clearly I am showing no faith but am asking for evidence whilst you on the other hand are relying completely on a book written by someone a long time ago about someone called Bob."

Jack.."Just be careful what your saying Jill. Not so long ago you would have been drowned as a witch or burned at the stake."

Jill.."Are you threatening me Jack?"

Jack.."No, I'm just saying that your remarks are highly offensive and you need to be careful."

Jill.."Offensive? What gives you the right to be offended? What is it about your feelings that are so much more important than my right to free speech?"

Jack.."Oh calm down Jill. All I'm saying is that you cannot go around attacking respectable religious beliefs about Bob and the Fairies without asking for trouble. I mean, you do come across as somewhat militant and aggressive. You're not a Commie are you?

Jill.."What?"

Jack.."Oh forget it, what's for tea?"

Jill.."Fuck off followed by nice knowing you!"

Jack..."I'm offended!"

56Gail.C.Bull
Out 4, 2012, 7:04pm

Here's a question for you to wrap your mind around:

Does it matter whether God exists or not?

If God doesn't exist, you won't suffer any consequences for not believing in him, as religion claims, but neither will you suffer any consequences for believing in him. Both atheists and believers will have to suffer the consequences of their own mistakes and the own bad decisions, but we all face those anyway.

If God does exist, he gave us free will to decide whether or not to believe in him, and God does nothing without purpose. That means there must be a divine purpose behind some people not believing in God. If that's the case, then he's hardly going to punish atheists for playing their part in his grand plan. And he's certainly not going to punish believers for believing.

So aren't we all just wasting our breath trying to debate each other out our point of view? This is a subject both atheists and believers feel passionate about, but does it matter whether God exists or not?

(LovelyPride hunkers down behind the nearest large immovable object and waits for both the atheists and the believers to start attacking her.)

57paradoxosalpha
Editado: Out 4, 2012, 7:23pm

> 56 If God doesn't exist ... neither will you suffer any consequences for believing in him.

This claim is as fatuous as it was when Pascal made it. To reject truth, to fear knowledge lest it pander not to prejudice, is mental self-mutilation.

58Gail.C.Bull
Editado: Out 4, 2012, 8:13pm

>57 paradoxosalpha:: But don't we all tell ourselves little lies to preserve our sanity? Psychiatrists understand this which is why they are only guides to their patient's recovery, and they don't try to force a patient to accept things about their lives. How do you know which lies ("personal mythologies"?) are truly damaging and which ones are necessary to a person's sanity? Best to let each patient figure out for himself which beliefs are doing the damage and in his own time, then force the cold, hard facts on him when he isn't capable of accepting them, and drive the person out of his mind.

Forgive my reference to piece of pop culture in philosophical debate, but one of the quotes I've always loved from the Indiana Jones films is when Professor Jones tells his students, "archeology is the search for fact. If your looking for truth, Professor ----'s philosophy class is down the hall." You say God's non-existance is a fact, yet in your defence of it in the above post, you refer to it as "truth" which implies that is a philosophical position or a belief. Was that just a slip of the tongue? Or are you changing your position and claiming that God's non-existence is a actually a belief?

59WholeHouseLibrary
Out 4, 2012, 8:45pm

#56: Does it matter whether God exists or not?

It doesn't and it does.
I'm sure that there is no almighty, all-knowing creator. But. for the sake of a hypothetical argument, there was one, I'd embrace that verified fact.

What does matter to me is that a significant swath of the population believes there is one without a single shred of proof, and that/those (truly) blind faith/s have a profound negative effects on virtually everyone who disagrees.

60Booksloth
Out 5, 2012, 7:00am

#55 You missed out the bit where Jack says, "Why are you atheists so strident these days!" and Jill replies "You're the one who brought me here to look at non-existent fairies."

#56 It doesn't matter whether Dangermouse could take Spiderman in a fight but that doesn't mean we can't have fun discussing it. ;-)

61lawecon
Out 5, 2012, 10:02am

~59

"It doesn't and it does.
I'm sure that there is no almighty, all-knowing creator. But. for the sake of a hypothetical argument, there was one, I'd embrace that verified fact."

Every considered the possibility that there may have been one, and that he may still be around, but that he just has other things to do, or his attention has drifted. or he just thinks that he can't be perpetual "daddy" to a race of purportedly intelligent beings who might want to think about growing up?

62lawecon
Editado: Out 5, 2012, 10:04am

Essa mensagem foi considerada abusiva por vários usuários e não mais será mostrada. (mostrar)
~60

Boring and stupid. Try for remarks that would at least do credit to a Jr. High School student.

63paradoxosalpha
Editado: Out 5, 2012, 10:14am

> 58 But don't we all tell ourselves little lies to preserve our sanity?

Almost certainly; it's the mental equivalent of biting one's nails or scratching an itch.

But if you've already convinced yourself of the existence or non-existence of a particular superhuman influence on human affairs (to say nothing of a "supreme being"!), to deny that conviction against evidence and experience would be the mental equivalent of cutting off a limb.

I wasn't taking a position on the existence of God in #57, just on an individual's relationship to truth as they encounter it. The "fact" language in #53 is adopted from Feuerbach's usage in the quoted passage.

Your definition of "belief" (as much as I can infer it from your posts here) is confused and unhelpful. You're welcome to make it explicit, if you think that would advance understanding.

64bertilak
Out 5, 2012, 10:41am

Not believing in God is like not being a bat.

65Tid
Editado: Out 5, 2012, 3:36pm

15

That's an argument that holds that the only two options going are
1) atheism (your 'healthy' argument)
2) theism (your 'respirator' argument)

However, there are also agnostics, who might bend more either way, or straight down the middle. Then there are philosophers, who might or might not have a theistic inclination. Or philosopher/scientists who accept science can answer most questions but sure as hell would love to speculate about the unanswerable ones without being forced to declare either for atheism or theism. Then there are 'dabblers' like the hated-by-both-sides 'New Age'rs, who believe there is a spiritual dimension to the universe but would hesitate to call it God and would sooner light a sandalwood joss-stick and put on a Mike Oldfield CD than go to any old church. Then there are the mystics (yes, there is a correct definition of that word that has absolutely NOTHING to do with fairies!) who have experienced something they might call transcendent or life-changing, but don't want to put a religious label on it.

In fact, the spectrum is wide and deep and not the polarised twin extremes so often presented and debated in these forums.

(I've just noticed your post goes back quite a while! Nevertheless my ruminations still stand...)

66Tid
Out 5, 2012, 3:32pm

31

That's why "myth" usually means, in common parlance, "untrue old story."

That's not even true in common parlance. Myths are by definition untrue, but that's not the point. Why are there myths? You should start by reading Joseph Campbell on the subject; they exist in the same way as fairy stories exist - not as fodder for Walt Disney, nor even stories to frighten small children and keep them 'in their place'. They function in the same way as parables - teaching stories, or stories that resolve humanity's need for archetypes. They aren't meant to be taken as 'true' or 'untrue' but on a deeper level. Perhaps you should find another word?

67LesMiserables
Out 5, 2012, 4:24pm

> 62

Ad hominem.

I wondered how long long this would take. Predictable.

68paradoxosalpha
Out 5, 2012, 4:33pm

> 64

A pretty good read, although marred by frightful OCR! I think Nagel is too restrained, in some ways. The only known alternative to the "problem" of consciousness is solipsism.

69Tid
Out 5, 2012, 5:10pm

67

Ad hominem

No, it's not. This link explains why.

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

70Gail.C.Bull
Editado: Out 5, 2012, 5:45pm

>63 paradoxosalpha: quote: "Your definition of "belief" (as much as I can infer it from your posts here) is confused and unhelpful. You're welcome to make it explicit, if you think that would advance understanding."

My definition of "belief"is any statement (whether religious or secular) which is only one plausible answer among many to a single question. Beliefs, by my definition, can be a philosophical position, an as-yet-unproven scientific theory, an ethical principle, or a religious teaching. Any plausible answer that cannot be, or has not yet been, proven definitively. I don't limit the concept of belief to religion.

Does that clear up my definition, or have I just confused you further?

>63 paradoxosalpha: quote: "But if you've already convinced yourself of the existence or non-existence of a particular superhuman influence on human affairs (to say nothing of a "supreme being"!), to deny that conviction against evidence and experience would be the mental equivalent of cutting off a limb. "

The term "superhuman" rather muddies the waters of the debate for me. Science has proven that there are all sorts of non-human influences acting in our lives at all times. Do you claim that all non-human, natural influences are sub-human? That would mean that you believe humans are superior to all known natural, scientifically-proven systems and all other species on the planet. (Personally, I have a hard time with that argument, as I do not believe in the concept of humanity's superiority. I believe that we are just one species among many on this planet. A species with a truly unique brain, but still just one among many.) Do you believe some influences are sub-human and other are super-human? What in your estimation makes an influence "superhuman"?

71lawecon
Out 5, 2012, 6:41pm

~67

Mischaracterization. No citation to contrary evidence. Sad.

72WholeHouseLibrary
Editado: Out 5, 2012, 10:38pm

>#65, re: my #15

Really? You found my reply for the topic of the subject line, and how it relates to me personally, and you want to argue about what I days said?

Really?
Go soak your head. Really.

Edited to fix a typo.

73lawecon
Out 5, 2012, 9:22pm

~72

Yes, let us not argue. Let us just have faith in the rightness of what we do and our positions. Sort of like these guys: http://www.librarything.com/topic/130138 They also know absolutely that they're right. They know absolutely that you're wrong, and they know that you should shut up and not contradict anything they say.

74WholeHouseLibrary
Out 5, 2012, 10:51pm

Clearly, you don't grok the atheism thing. I don't have faith. I allow that apparently the majority of people need the delusion of magic for the not-fully-answered, and they find comfort in that. I am sick and tired of them telling me that I am unworthy as a human being because I am not superstitious.
I have never offered an opinion of anyone's beliefs, or lack thereof. That's something we all resolve for ourselves, individually. I wish they understood that.

75lawecon
Editado: Out 5, 2012, 11:27pm

Yes, it is just that others are "superstitious," with beliefs that are ludicrous, unhealthy and frenzied. And they should go soak their heads. No judgement there. What was I thinking ??

76WholeHouseLibrary
Out 5, 2012, 11:39pm

You obviously over-think. Stop projecting. Stop taking what I say and twisting it out of its original context and intent. Just stop.

77lawecon
Out 5, 2012, 11:53pm

No

78WholeHouseLibrary
Out 6, 2012, 12:16am

Your refusal to stop is in conflict with the TOS of LibraryThing. Please stop.

79Tid
Out 6, 2012, 5:53am

74

You've discovered the perfect word to use in place of your (incorrect) use of "mysticism". It seems you meant "superstition" all along. Well, at least we can agree on the negativity of that!

80lawecon
Out 6, 2012, 9:03am

~78

I suggest that you reread TOS. There is nothing at all about pointing out the implications of what another poster has said. Further, I have not even been impolite to you (although being impolite is also, unfortunately, not prohibited by TOS).

If you want to get on an open forum and trumpet your religious views, or lack thereof, you can expect that many other people will disagree with you. Since you imply in your original post that you are a critical thinker who examined his childhood beliefs, found the wanting, and changed them in a rational way, you should welcome such criticism. Since apparently you don't, perhaps your self-evaluation is mistaken?

81WholeHouseLibrary
Out 6, 2012, 11:32am

You assume too much.

Argue this:

82lawecon
Out 6, 2012, 7:09pm

Essa mensagem foi considerada abusiva por vários usuários e não mais será mostrada. (mostrar)
~81

Boring and self-indulgent.

83LesMiserables
Out 7, 2012, 12:51am

> 69

I know what ad hominem is. Attacking the person rather than the argument.

Using the adjectives boring and stupid (and may I say grammatically incorrect and without a subject or verb - hence we do not know which pronoun the poster intended) is a clear indication that you are attacking the poster. If you were not, then you obviously cannot complain due to the vagueness of your non-sentence.

Thanks.

84WholeHouseLibrary
Out 7, 2012, 12:53am

Buh-bye!

85LesMiserables
Out 7, 2012, 2:57am

> 84

That's a pity. Best just to ignore these people. #82, like #62 is an attempt to cause a flame war.

86Tid
Out 7, 2012, 6:43am

83

I'm not defending anyone here. I merely pointed out that your use of ad hominem was incorrect, and if you'd actually read the link I posted, you would realise that.

Argumentum ad hominem is NOT about "attacking a person instead of their argument". It's about undermining someone's argument by using something about the person to disprove what they say (it doesn't even have to be an insult). Mere insults and attacks on someone instead of addressing their argument is NOT what it means. There are abundant examples of what is and what isn't, on the page I linked to.

87WholeHouseLibrary
Out 7, 2012, 10:44am

#85, I'm not going anywhere. I'm taking the advice of a well-meaning and respected member of LT.

88lawecon
Editado: Out 7, 2012, 11:06am

~83

What I was saying was that this poster's continual self-indulgent and self-justifying rants and HIS ATTACKS ON ANYONE WHO CRITICIZES HIM are boring and self-indulgent.

If you find what I said to be within TOS, then I trust you will go back and flag posts 72 and 81.

Perhaps you should also learn not to jump to conclusion about what you yourself think is vague. (It is rather odd that something can both be a "clear indication" and "vague" in the same sentence. But whatever.)

Perhaps we need a new TOS for excessive flagging? Of course, that would require those who flag to identify themselves, which, in most cases, would never do.

89lawecon
Editado: Out 7, 2012, 11:05am

~85

"These people." was that a vague personal attack (or perhaps not so vague).

90Gail.C.Bull
Out 7, 2012, 7:31pm

>72 WholeHouseLibrary: quote (WholehouseLibrary): "Really? Go soak your head. Really."
>82 lawecon: quote (Wholehouselibrary): "You assume too much. Argue this:"

This is your idea of an clean debate that doesn't resort to insults, Wholehouselibrary? If you want people to take your complaints seriously, then you need to practice what you preach.

91lawecon
Out 7, 2012, 8:00pm

Now, now, Lovely. Different strokes for different folks. You are an atheist you can routinely resort to insults and to gross characterizations of your opponents. You are a Jew, well, we know what Jews deserve, don't we?

92WholeHouseLibrary
Out 7, 2012, 11:03pm

Buh-bye to you too, LP.

93lawecon
Out 8, 2012, 12:06am

~92

You going some place AGAIN? I'm not.

94LesMiserables
Out 8, 2012, 5:17am

I believe this thread took a turn for the worse at #18. Some unhelpful stereotyping in there I'm afraid to say.

95WholeHouseLibrary
Out 8, 2012, 1:05pm

It's interesting, and sad, that some who see themselves as philosophy-minded can also be so thoughtless.

96lawecon
Out 8, 2012, 1:58pm

~95

Oh good, I thought you had left.

97quicksiva
Jan 8, 2013, 8:16am

Not believing in G-D/N-T-R is like a fish not believing in water.

98carusmm
Maio 18, 2016, 9:20pm

This user has been removed as spam.

99LesMiserables
Maio 19, 2016, 12:20am

>98 carusmm:

Bit of a contradiction there: if something has a quality then it exists.

100carusmm
Maio 19, 2016, 1:55am

This user has been removed as spam.