What would you do if you were Omnipotent?
What kind of universe would you create?
This requires some level of intellectual honesty and you have to have a broad understanding of infinity or near infinite perception.
What I mean by intellectual honesty is... "I would make it impossible to lie". Well.. idealogically that's a great concept... but do you really think that's the best? I mean, if you've ever lied before, or ever told a white lie, you'd know that sometimes it's not for malicious intent. The honesty of the scenario is to create the universe of your design to be the "perfect" universe for you, If your perfect universe consists of impossible to lie... then that's fine, but are you sure you want that?
What would you create? Would you allow war? Suffering? Destruction? Would you intentionally create wars? Intentionally create evil?
I wouldn't.
I would create a world that follows it's own laws and cause my existance to stop. I would ensure that these creatures live by their own creed live as I've created them... To exceed and excel to better themselves without my guidence. I don't want to be worshiped, I them to even have an inkling of me. I wouldn't create an evil that would permeate the existance of my creation. If they have created evil... they shall live with it.
How come this seems more like the reality of the world than what religion wants you to think?
How does your universe compare to what religion wants you to see it as.
What if.. I create a world, then create something that is directly destructive and with powers far greater than the weaker creatures. Then... I promise them great power and wealth if they worshiped me. But to those who don't, I'll hurt them forever. Or at the very least... toss them away from me.
... how vain is that?
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Out of Mormonism
I'm reading a book of a real life tale of a woman's struggle with Mormonism. She was initially sucked in by the kind gestures and well mannered nature of the faithful.
Then, she was suddenly thrown into the hellish interpretive aspect that is Mormonism, and suddenly felt that something was missing in her life.
She explains the passage through the endowment procedure and the events that take place behind the veil and celestial room. The little mock play that made her want to get out of her seat but couldn't because she was somehow glued.
Her life didn't turn out all honky dory, but she continued with a false face and a fake determination to live the word of the church.
Suddenly one day through studying the bible, she came upon a passage that said pretty much that genealogy was a waste of time... she took that, then ran with it to the point where she realized Mormonism isn't teaching Jesus, they were teaching things of man!
Later she confided with her husband about the entire ordeal, and said she was filled with the love of Christ.
As she went through her deconversion from Mormonism, she searched through the book of Mormon with a fine tooth comb, she searched everything that contradicted with the bible. And formed a support group for those who were having trouble with deconversion of Mormonism.
During the deconversion story one particular line jumped out... She wanted to shake every Mormon she saw and unbind their eyes.
.....
.....
.....
I wanted to shake her and unbind her eyes even more.
Ok... First off Mormonism appeals to her because she wants that happy go lucky family idea that Mormons are supposed to show... even if their family really sucks. Secondly, the more you dive into Mormonism, the more and more you have to account for the inconsistency. To account for this.. more and more is weaved in. Unfortunately it doesn't always mesh in well with the base belief of the bible. This is why the bible is only held as a supplemental book, because it can not be fully trusted to be "correct".
For her to say that the the teachings of Christ was wrong in the church means she believed that the bible was true, and the book of Mormon a supplement, and not vice versa as Mormonism is actually held.
Secondly, she was miserable performing the duties assigned to her by her church. There's 2 reasons why they assign work to new people, and to people in general.
1. To give them a sense of propriety, there's less chance that people will leave, not attend, ignore, or dismiss if they have a stake in their stake.... They will not want to skip out on their duty, so they stay.
2. To give them something to do. To give them purpose. To give them an occupation that will keep them busy in a desirable direction. If someone was questioning their belief, what better way to avoid thinking about it than to keep yourself busy. In that process of keeping yourself busy, why don't you do the work that has been assigned to you anyways. And with that, you avoid counter thought and enforce a belief at the same time.
So she sounded pretty bitter about being assigned presidency of the primary within weeks of joining.... well.. yeah.. that's the trap...
Later of course she talks about how they didn't put her on the spotlight in a Christian church... Lol... big surprise... you like to reap the rewards but not work for it... I understand, but the Mormon church is about community and togetherness... it's always been about banding together in spite of all oppositions. AND sadly enough.. if you're no longer in that group, you are cast out.
Now... what really really irritates me, is she doesn't take that same inquisitive nature and apply it to the religion she is endorsing... A form of Protestant church. She speaks of "no bones has ever been excavated from hill Camorah"... No Arc has ever been found... What's your point?
Then they speak of Spiritual Alcohol Anonymous.... WTF?!?! I mean seriously... so all the exMormons can gather together for support.... I wonder if there's any exMormons that walk in, hear their Jesus speak and told them off.
Jump from one shit pile of lies to another doesn't make the 2nd any more valid because you didn't like the smell of the first one.
The Mormon religion is as structured as it is for a very very good reason. It is to ensure that the followers not think. Everything is thought up, and all they have to do is follow the books, the texts, and repeat what has been said. Of course, in their real lives outside of their church, you have to make decisions, but those too are regulated. The idea is you need to be told what you can or can't do. As I said earlier, this is to fill in the details as they come along. Many christian churches are personal interpretive. They are open ended interpretations and carry less structure or standard of interpretation. So... those who want structure would love the Mormon church because it clearly lines it out. Those that want to think about what they are looking into, would hate it. No wonder she hates it. She likes to think... but it's too bad because she hasn't thought enough.
Mormonism is an attempt at an intellectual's religion. It attempts to fill in as many gaps as they can. It attempts to weave a full proof story.
MAKE NO MISTAKE, Mormonism is a sect of Christianity.
The book makes it seem as though the focus was about glorifying Joseph Smith and modern day "prophets". The book also makes it seem as though they are switching the devil and God around... They are not... they are interpreting the bible through he scope of the Book of Mormon. They assume the Bible incomplete or inaccurate. The fundamental teachings of the Mormon church remains... Jesus died for the sins of the world, Jesus is thought of as the son of god and he himself is a god.
Though this is not the same interpretation as other Christians, this is Christianity. They no more "worship" Joseph Smith no more than Muslims worship Mohammad. Glorified, yes... worshiped... no.
And yes.. in the bible... if you read in Genesis, god said.... if they partake of the fruit of knowledge, "they will be one of us" if they eat of the fruit of life also. Please use only the authorized version or New King James version. New international version is interpretive and another translation of a translation. I would suggest Greek version including the apocrypha. But I don't speak Greek.
I digress... Who was god speaking to.. and who are the "us" it speaks of?
Fortunately, god kicked them out of the garden only after they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge and not the fruit of the tree of life. So... even in the Old testament, God speaks to another God... there is 2 gods at least. Mormonism attempts to fill this gap by call him God the father, Elohiem, and God the son, Yahweh.
Stupid bitch... if you actually studied the bible, you'd notice that and wonder... hmm.. what is wrong with this picture?
Mormon's has done just that and attempt to story book it into acceptable terms.
---
I haven't finished reading the book yet, but I will continue to read it... I want to puke sometimes though at the stupidity this book exudes. Ohes wells... /end rant.
-----------
Edit: I've finished reading the book, and it went on to the story of some mysterious benefactor who sent them money to start up their recovery program and teach the true christian faith..... After of course they moved out of Mormon infested towns. They then continued to expand the church and now she's an old hag still fighting a good fight, happy with her life with Jesus, and happy her husband is following her like a lost puppy.
She made amends with her family, friends, and everyone she left behind because her blind faith lead her astray.... funny how her previous faith was never thought of as blind either.
Their tripe of a pamphlet is still being circulated and designed to "help" Mormons realize they are wrong. The entire time spouting out straw-man arguments to the highest degree, getting them kicked from adds of many many papers for defamation. And yes.. they are all straw-man arguments.
I'm not a fan of Mormons like I'm not a fan of spiders... but if I see a spider intentionally being torn limb by limb for the sole purpose of sadistic enjoyment, I'm going to say something about it. If Mormons get the cheap end of the stick, I'm not going to defend they are right, but I am going to defend the fact they are being misrepresented.... besides, they don't need much to be shown for the charlatans they are.... Only problem is, slander and libel is the only way you can effectively argue against Mormons without defaming the Christian religion in the same sweep.
My evaluation... if you want a example of partitioning and bad reasoning... this book is for you.
Then, she was suddenly thrown into the hellish interpretive aspect that is Mormonism, and suddenly felt that something was missing in her life.
She explains the passage through the endowment procedure and the events that take place behind the veil and celestial room. The little mock play that made her want to get out of her seat but couldn't because she was somehow glued.
Her life didn't turn out all honky dory, but she continued with a false face and a fake determination to live the word of the church.
Suddenly one day through studying the bible, she came upon a passage that said pretty much that genealogy was a waste of time... she took that, then ran with it to the point where she realized Mormonism isn't teaching Jesus, they were teaching things of man!
Later she confided with her husband about the entire ordeal, and said she was filled with the love of Christ.
As she went through her deconversion from Mormonism, she searched through the book of Mormon with a fine tooth comb, she searched everything that contradicted with the bible. And formed a support group for those who were having trouble with deconversion of Mormonism.
During the deconversion story one particular line jumped out... She wanted to shake every Mormon she saw and unbind their eyes.
.....
.....
.....
I wanted to shake her and unbind her eyes even more.
Ok... First off Mormonism appeals to her because she wants that happy go lucky family idea that Mormons are supposed to show... even if their family really sucks. Secondly, the more you dive into Mormonism, the more and more you have to account for the inconsistency. To account for this.. more and more is weaved in. Unfortunately it doesn't always mesh in well with the base belief of the bible. This is why the bible is only held as a supplemental book, because it can not be fully trusted to be "correct".
For her to say that the the teachings of Christ was wrong in the church means she believed that the bible was true, and the book of Mormon a supplement, and not vice versa as Mormonism is actually held.
Secondly, she was miserable performing the duties assigned to her by her church. There's 2 reasons why they assign work to new people, and to people in general.
1. To give them a sense of propriety, there's less chance that people will leave, not attend, ignore, or dismiss if they have a stake in their stake.... They will not want to skip out on their duty, so they stay.
2. To give them something to do. To give them purpose. To give them an occupation that will keep them busy in a desirable direction. If someone was questioning their belief, what better way to avoid thinking about it than to keep yourself busy. In that process of keeping yourself busy, why don't you do the work that has been assigned to you anyways. And with that, you avoid counter thought and enforce a belief at the same time.
So she sounded pretty bitter about being assigned presidency of the primary within weeks of joining.... well.. yeah.. that's the trap...
Later of course she talks about how they didn't put her on the spotlight in a Christian church... Lol... big surprise... you like to reap the rewards but not work for it... I understand, but the Mormon church is about community and togetherness... it's always been about banding together in spite of all oppositions. AND sadly enough.. if you're no longer in that group, you are cast out.
Now... what really really irritates me, is she doesn't take that same inquisitive nature and apply it to the religion she is endorsing... A form of Protestant church. She speaks of "no bones has ever been excavated from hill Camorah"... No Arc has ever been found... What's your point?
Then they speak of Spiritual Alcohol Anonymous.... WTF?!?! I mean seriously... so all the exMormons can gather together for support.... I wonder if there's any exMormons that walk in, hear their Jesus speak and told them off.
Jump from one shit pile of lies to another doesn't make the 2nd any more valid because you didn't like the smell of the first one.
The Mormon religion is as structured as it is for a very very good reason. It is to ensure that the followers not think. Everything is thought up, and all they have to do is follow the books, the texts, and repeat what has been said. Of course, in their real lives outside of their church, you have to make decisions, but those too are regulated. The idea is you need to be told what you can or can't do. As I said earlier, this is to fill in the details as they come along. Many christian churches are personal interpretive. They are open ended interpretations and carry less structure or standard of interpretation. So... those who want structure would love the Mormon church because it clearly lines it out. Those that want to think about what they are looking into, would hate it. No wonder she hates it. She likes to think... but it's too bad because she hasn't thought enough.
Mormonism is an attempt at an intellectual's religion. It attempts to fill in as many gaps as they can. It attempts to weave a full proof story.
MAKE NO MISTAKE, Mormonism is a sect of Christianity.
The book makes it seem as though the focus was about glorifying Joseph Smith and modern day "prophets". The book also makes it seem as though they are switching the devil and God around... They are not... they are interpreting the bible through he scope of the Book of Mormon. They assume the Bible incomplete or inaccurate. The fundamental teachings of the Mormon church remains... Jesus died for the sins of the world, Jesus is thought of as the son of god and he himself is a god.
Though this is not the same interpretation as other Christians, this is Christianity. They no more "worship" Joseph Smith no more than Muslims worship Mohammad. Glorified, yes... worshiped... no.
And yes.. in the bible... if you read in Genesis, god said.... if they partake of the fruit of knowledge, "they will be one of us" if they eat of the fruit of life also. Please use only the authorized version or New King James version. New international version is interpretive and another translation of a translation. I would suggest Greek version including the apocrypha. But I don't speak Greek.
I digress... Who was god speaking to.. and who are the "us" it speaks of?
Fortunately, god kicked them out of the garden only after they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge and not the fruit of the tree of life. So... even in the Old testament, God speaks to another God... there is 2 gods at least. Mormonism attempts to fill this gap by call him God the father, Elohiem, and God the son, Yahweh.
Stupid bitch... if you actually studied the bible, you'd notice that and wonder... hmm.. what is wrong with this picture?
Mormon's has done just that and attempt to story book it into acceptable terms.
---
I haven't finished reading the book yet, but I will continue to read it... I want to puke sometimes though at the stupidity this book exudes. Ohes wells... /end rant.
-----------
Edit: I've finished reading the book, and it went on to the story of some mysterious benefactor who sent them money to start up their recovery program and teach the true christian faith..... After of course they moved out of Mormon infested towns. They then continued to expand the church and now she's an old hag still fighting a good fight, happy with her life with Jesus, and happy her husband is following her like a lost puppy.
She made amends with her family, friends, and everyone she left behind because her blind faith lead her astray.... funny how her previous faith was never thought of as blind either.
Their tripe of a pamphlet is still being circulated and designed to "help" Mormons realize they are wrong. The entire time spouting out straw-man arguments to the highest degree, getting them kicked from adds of many many papers for defamation. And yes.. they are all straw-man arguments.
I'm not a fan of Mormons like I'm not a fan of spiders... but if I see a spider intentionally being torn limb by limb for the sole purpose of sadistic enjoyment, I'm going to say something about it. If Mormons get the cheap end of the stick, I'm not going to defend they are right, but I am going to defend the fact they are being misrepresented.... besides, they don't need much to be shown for the charlatans they are.... Only problem is, slander and libel is the only way you can effectively argue against Mormons without defaming the Christian religion in the same sweep.
My evaluation... if you want a example of partitioning and bad reasoning... this book is for you.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
The Case for Christ
I was going to write a chapter by chapter rebuttal for every point made in the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel....
After reading 2 chapters... I've realized if I did that, I'd be writing a book on it's own.
I am simply appalled at the amount of intellectual dishonesty that's being spewed from the book. Part 1 was tormenting as every point was literally rubbish in the actual realm of academia. First by establishing the authenticity of the iconic gospels, in standard academia, anonymous authorship means just that.... anonymous. NO one knows who actually wrote the books in question. No solid evidence can truly point them that the people who actually wrote them are tied to the people they've been attributed to. To argue that it's a historically a first hand account when the authorship has not been established is absurd. In fact, it is even mentioned in the book, the authorship is not confirmed.
Then... it goes to say... well... here's some historic evidence outside the bible. Sadly, he mentions Josephus.... And of course the passage he mentions that is most beneficial to the case, is an "interpolation"... Ie... it has interpretive translation inserts, or additional inserts from other copiers that are not part of the original.... But duly asserts "the passage as a whole is authentic"....
HOW THE FUCK is it authentic when he blatantly says that they're interpolations in every other line?
The passage as a whole paints the picture of Jesus as a the messiah. The passage without interpolation paints him as an adored Jewish preacher. How intellectually dishonest do you have to be?
If this was evidence used in a modern court case, it'd be tossed out so fast, it wouldn't even be given a evidence number.
Scientific evidence: I found a single line that shuts down the entire chapter.... And it comes up in the first 2 pages of the chapter.
"Spiritual truths cannot be proved or disproved by archaeological discoveries"
I agree and enough said... yet the book tries to prove it anyways.
Bethlehem and the Census with the infanticide. He states that who would notice a few infant deaths around a small town of Bethlehem... such a small town wouldn't have that big of infant population... let alone male infant population of 2 years or younger.
See.. this is where they conveniently forgot the previous first 2 pages. In all of the land, EVERY person was supposed to be in the land of their house... So... As with Joseph and Mary, those who were of the House of David, HAD to be in Bethlehem. And according to Jewish traditions, all seeds of David, well.. that's the house of Judah.... That's a lot of people that migrated there for the Census. That's not just a small town anymore.
And then... no census ever occurred in that magnitude. But the historical quote claiming anyone of a different province must go to their house to take a census, well.. that's just saying, if there's a census, go to your home if you're from a different province. NOT your linage house.
I finished part one today... such intellectual dishonesty, I can't stomach too much more... I hated the faux skeptic from the start... but this just adds too it. I suppose he's not a faux skeptic, but a skeptic with really low standard for evidence. Hell... with the level of skepticism he's got, he might as well believe aliens really do abduct people. Unlike the case from antiquity, there's first hand accounts from independent sources and well documented events and descriptions unrivaled by anything from antiquity.
I've finished "Under the Banner of Heaven" today, interesting book about fundi Mormonism. Got me thinking about the social construct of marriage and plural marriage and why it's being frowned upon. To be honest, I don't think it's a bad thing, it wouldn't hurt if all parties were in agreement, though I would have to say it's less plausible in application than in theory. Crazy people will be crazy.
I've started to read, "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" By Thomas S Kuhn... First portion he sounds like a kid who has been rejected by the cool kid's club and is whining that they're just a bunch of elitist pricks. NEWS FLASH... crap ideas are crap. I want my elitists to be pricks, I want my best of the best to be the best. I will not settle for a pool of knowledge to be tainted by ideas that can not stand the scrutiny of intellectual gauntlet known as the peer review process. If someone can find a mistake in the ideas and theory I present, I want to know about it, both so I can correct it, and so I can improve upon it. Unlike the soft touch of society, knowledge has no qualms about how someone would feel if they have their ideas shat on because it's not fully justified.
Kuhn at one point states that every paradigm shift is completely opposite of existing paradigm and then continues to replaces it once it meets the approval of the majority.... then later in the essay states the Newtonian paradigm is the basis and essentially improved upon by the Einsteinian paradigm.... wait... Wat?
I don't know exactly where to place Kuhn... I wouldn't say he's an idiot, I think he's just speaking out of place... Though I do not claim to be an expert, I can call bullshit when I see it.
Lee Strobel is still an idiot.
After reading 2 chapters... I've realized if I did that, I'd be writing a book on it's own.
I am simply appalled at the amount of intellectual dishonesty that's being spewed from the book. Part 1 was tormenting as every point was literally rubbish in the actual realm of academia. First by establishing the authenticity of the iconic gospels, in standard academia, anonymous authorship means just that.... anonymous. NO one knows who actually wrote the books in question. No solid evidence can truly point them that the people who actually wrote them are tied to the people they've been attributed to. To argue that it's a historically a first hand account when the authorship has not been established is absurd. In fact, it is even mentioned in the book, the authorship is not confirmed.
Then... it goes to say... well... here's some historic evidence outside the bible. Sadly, he mentions Josephus.... And of course the passage he mentions that is most beneficial to the case, is an "interpolation"... Ie... it has interpretive translation inserts, or additional inserts from other copiers that are not part of the original.... But duly asserts "the passage as a whole is authentic"....
HOW THE FUCK is it authentic when he blatantly says that they're interpolations in every other line?
The passage as a whole paints the picture of Jesus as a the messiah. The passage without interpolation paints him as an adored Jewish preacher. How intellectually dishonest do you have to be?
If this was evidence used in a modern court case, it'd be tossed out so fast, it wouldn't even be given a evidence number.
Scientific evidence: I found a single line that shuts down the entire chapter.... And it comes up in the first 2 pages of the chapter.
"Spiritual truths cannot be proved or disproved by archaeological discoveries"
I agree and enough said... yet the book tries to prove it anyways.
Bethlehem and the Census with the infanticide. He states that who would notice a few infant deaths around a small town of Bethlehem... such a small town wouldn't have that big of infant population... let alone male infant population of 2 years or younger.
See.. this is where they conveniently forgot the previous first 2 pages. In all of the land, EVERY person was supposed to be in the land of their house... So... As with Joseph and Mary, those who were of the House of David, HAD to be in Bethlehem. And according to Jewish traditions, all seeds of David, well.. that's the house of Judah.... That's a lot of people that migrated there for the Census. That's not just a small town anymore.
And then... no census ever occurred in that magnitude. But the historical quote claiming anyone of a different province must go to their house to take a census, well.. that's just saying, if there's a census, go to your home if you're from a different province. NOT your linage house.
I finished part one today... such intellectual dishonesty, I can't stomach too much more... I hated the faux skeptic from the start... but this just adds too it. I suppose he's not a faux skeptic, but a skeptic with really low standard for evidence. Hell... with the level of skepticism he's got, he might as well believe aliens really do abduct people. Unlike the case from antiquity, there's first hand accounts from independent sources and well documented events and descriptions unrivaled by anything from antiquity.
I've finished "Under the Banner of Heaven" today, interesting book about fundi Mormonism. Got me thinking about the social construct of marriage and plural marriage and why it's being frowned upon. To be honest, I don't think it's a bad thing, it wouldn't hurt if all parties were in agreement, though I would have to say it's less plausible in application than in theory. Crazy people will be crazy.
I've started to read, "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" By Thomas S Kuhn... First portion he sounds like a kid who has been rejected by the cool kid's club and is whining that they're just a bunch of elitist pricks. NEWS FLASH... crap ideas are crap. I want my elitists to be pricks, I want my best of the best to be the best. I will not settle for a pool of knowledge to be tainted by ideas that can not stand the scrutiny of intellectual gauntlet known as the peer review process. If someone can find a mistake in the ideas and theory I present, I want to know about it, both so I can correct it, and so I can improve upon it. Unlike the soft touch of society, knowledge has no qualms about how someone would feel if they have their ideas shat on because it's not fully justified.
Kuhn at one point states that every paradigm shift is completely opposite of existing paradigm and then continues to replaces it once it meets the approval of the majority.... then later in the essay states the Newtonian paradigm is the basis and essentially improved upon by the Einsteinian paradigm.... wait... Wat?
I don't know exactly where to place Kuhn... I wouldn't say he's an idiot, I think he's just speaking out of place... Though I do not claim to be an expert, I can call bullshit when I see it.
Lee Strobel is still an idiot.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Doubting my Atheism
All my life I've been a skeptic, but it wasn't until closer to my adult life that I take up the title of Atheist.
I hear Christians give talks,sermons, and/or speeches about doubting their faith. And of course, they teach not to doubt it. Normally, I don't care if you believe this, I don't care you believe in unicorns and one day doubt that. What I do care is that you preach ignorance. By preaching, your "recovery" from doubt, and encourage others to recover as well is absolute intellectual treason.
I digress.
Never once have I doubted my skepticism. Never have I wondered if I was wrong about doubting... That I should simply believe.
My Sunday school teachers always hated my questions. They never expect a 6 year old to ask, why. Or for a 7 year old to show the logical incoherence in a statement.
I suppose you really can't doubt your need to understand more than what has been presented to you.
Since I've officiated the title of atheist upon myself, I never once questioned if I was wrong in doing so. Though skepticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Most Atheists are skeptics, and skeptics are definitely atheists... "Agnostics" are actually atheist but don't understand the term correctly... They're just agnostic-atheists.
Perhaps my skepticism is preventing my questioning of my atheism, because any evidence that attempts to turn my atheism, must pass my skeptic test, or meet the burden of proof (my level of skepticism).
One thing is for sure, my atheism is not hindering my skepticism, in fact, it encourages it.
My atheism standards are; "Only believe in a god that can proven".
My skepticism standards are; "You must believe in claim that has met the burden of proof, all others must be held as unproven."
They go hand in hand. So no, I have never doubted either.
Which brings me to my point. Why is it that someone can even doubt atheism? Especially when it is a null stance. Especially it is the ONLY stance until the burden of proof ha been met.
Every time I hear someone who "de-converted" from atheism, I question if they were skeptics at all. I question religious people who claim to be skeptics.
I question why Theists doubt their faith, then shy away from pursuing the doubt to find out exactly why. Or to find the exact answer to why they began to doubt it in the first place. Or better yet, to actually try to find the answer to the doubt in question.
I've doubted a lot of things in the past. Sometimes, I don't find the answers of my doubts, That's OK... Really.. that's OK, you don't have to have the answer to everything. BUT, I don't continue as though the answer was correct in the first place. Sometimes I do find the answer, and it's not what I expected or even want to believe, but I HAVE to believe it; of course until there's contradictory evidence.
I've been approached at atheist who doubts their atheism... Do you know what I do?
I laugh at them. I make fun of them. I poke at their intellect. I poke at their reason to doubt. I ridicule them.
You might be thinking to yourself, "well.. that's not a way to encourage atheism".
And you would be right. I don't care to "convert" people to atheism.
If they haven't already decided to be a skeptic, there isn't a point to keeping them as an atheist.
If you've rejected your god because of a stupid personal reason, no reason at all, desire to break away or rebel, bla bla bla...
You deserve to be in the religion and I will laugh at you the same, even if you've "broken away", the stigma of it's ignorance still resides in your mind.
Chances are, once you've reconciled the issues, forgotten about the issue, or simply looked past it, you are likely to return to believing in a invisible sky father.
For myself, I demand the proof of burden is met. My guidelines of my belief are stringent and is a heavy demand. If someone chooses to believe something for their own reasons, I don't care. What I do care about is if it's justified. If it's rational. Their standards may not be a strict as mine, and that's their business. But, if they're irrational, it tends to rub off on others. It tends to be passed on to children. It tends to influence others who follow them. To me, that is the death of the future of human intellect. I want to stamp out ignorance.
So, you may accept that little green space men planted the DNA seed upon the earth, and use it to farm free roaming livestock for their consumption at a later time; However, I don't.
Oddly enough, this passes for a rational reason to believe the inception of life on earth, however, does not pass my personal reason to believe.
Of course this doesn't address the regression of actual abiogenisis, just life on earth.
The belief of a sky god who created everything and watches everything you do of every day of every moment of your life, who can do anything, and knows everything, and can not possibly be wrong; is absolutely irrational. I encourage the doubt, and instead of finding the "answers" in a circular reasoning holy book, find actual answers. Or keep the belief as unproven until you find sufficient evidence.
I hear Christians give talks,sermons, and/or speeches about doubting their faith. And of course, they teach not to doubt it. Normally, I don't care if you believe this, I don't care you believe in unicorns and one day doubt that. What I do care is that you preach ignorance. By preaching, your "recovery" from doubt, and encourage others to recover as well is absolute intellectual treason.
I digress.
Never once have I doubted my skepticism. Never have I wondered if I was wrong about doubting... That I should simply believe.
My Sunday school teachers always hated my questions. They never expect a 6 year old to ask, why. Or for a 7 year old to show the logical incoherence in a statement.
I suppose you really can't doubt your need to understand more than what has been presented to you.
Since I've officiated the title of atheist upon myself, I never once questioned if I was wrong in doing so. Though skepticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Most Atheists are skeptics, and skeptics are definitely atheists... "Agnostics" are actually atheist but don't understand the term correctly... They're just agnostic-atheists.
Perhaps my skepticism is preventing my questioning of my atheism, because any evidence that attempts to turn my atheism, must pass my skeptic test, or meet the burden of proof (my level of skepticism).
One thing is for sure, my atheism is not hindering my skepticism, in fact, it encourages it.
My atheism standards are; "Only believe in a god that can proven".
My skepticism standards are; "You must believe in claim that has met the burden of proof, all others must be held as unproven."
They go hand in hand. So no, I have never doubted either.
Which brings me to my point. Why is it that someone can even doubt atheism? Especially when it is a null stance. Especially it is the ONLY stance until the burden of proof ha been met.
Every time I hear someone who "de-converted" from atheism, I question if they were skeptics at all. I question religious people who claim to be skeptics.
I question why Theists doubt their faith, then shy away from pursuing the doubt to find out exactly why. Or to find the exact answer to why they began to doubt it in the first place. Or better yet, to actually try to find the answer to the doubt in question.
I've doubted a lot of things in the past. Sometimes, I don't find the answers of my doubts, That's OK... Really.. that's OK, you don't have to have the answer to everything. BUT, I don't continue as though the answer was correct in the first place. Sometimes I do find the answer, and it's not what I expected or even want to believe, but I HAVE to believe it; of course until there's contradictory evidence.
I've been approached at atheist who doubts their atheism... Do you know what I do?
I laugh at them. I make fun of them. I poke at their intellect. I poke at their reason to doubt. I ridicule them.
You might be thinking to yourself, "well.. that's not a way to encourage atheism".
And you would be right. I don't care to "convert" people to atheism.
If they haven't already decided to be a skeptic, there isn't a point to keeping them as an atheist.
If you've rejected your god because of a stupid personal reason, no reason at all, desire to break away or rebel, bla bla bla...
You deserve to be in the religion and I will laugh at you the same, even if you've "broken away", the stigma of it's ignorance still resides in your mind.
Chances are, once you've reconciled the issues, forgotten about the issue, or simply looked past it, you are likely to return to believing in a invisible sky father.
For myself, I demand the proof of burden is met. My guidelines of my belief are stringent and is a heavy demand. If someone chooses to believe something for their own reasons, I don't care. What I do care about is if it's justified. If it's rational. Their standards may not be a strict as mine, and that's their business. But, if they're irrational, it tends to rub off on others. It tends to be passed on to children. It tends to influence others who follow them. To me, that is the death of the future of human intellect. I want to stamp out ignorance.
So, you may accept that little green space men planted the DNA seed upon the earth, and use it to farm free roaming livestock for their consumption at a later time; However, I don't.
Oddly enough, this passes for a rational reason to believe the inception of life on earth, however, does not pass my personal reason to believe.
Of course this doesn't address the regression of actual abiogenisis, just life on earth.
The belief of a sky god who created everything and watches everything you do of every day of every moment of your life, who can do anything, and knows everything, and can not possibly be wrong; is absolutely irrational. I encourage the doubt, and instead of finding the "answers" in a circular reasoning holy book, find actual answers. Or keep the belief as unproven until you find sufficient evidence.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Odd thoughts that cross my mind
I was contemplating something that happened a while back. Perhaps it isn't anything in particular, but just something rather odd.
I was hanging out with some people I knew, I guess you can call them friends, though not really close friends. And, as guys would have it, we started to boast about our past dealings with women, love, and the topic of virginity.
The time came around to share my story. My first time was with a gorgeous and beautiful girl. I started to explain how gorgeous she was, how beautiful she was. I started to say how I'm glad it wasn't with someone fat, ugly, and whom I'd regret. As with guys, and especially with guys you're not too close with, it's a topic where you don't necessarily share your deeper feelings. It as strictly a platonic bolster.
From the left rear seat, we'll call him G for the time being. He spoke up. He is a rather intellectual person, and highly opinionated.
"That's not how I'd like to remember my first time, I'd expect it to be deeper than that."
Something inside of me snapped.... How dare this pompous idiot tell me I'm shallow without even really knowing the full story.
I instantly responded with.
"Hey G, maybe you're right... Maybe I should remember her the way she really was. I should remember how I threw my heart and everything I had into our relationship, how much love I devoted to her and only her only to have my heart ripped into a thousand pieces by her cheating, lying, and cruel desires."
By this time, my car was quiet. I added, "but hey, at least she was cute."
Even to this day, that moment irritated me. Of course when G is around, I'll put in a smile and act friendly. But still it irritates me.
His overly opinionated position probably stems from his relative intellect with those around him. And perhaps that's what irritates me. Because I can identify with it, and luckily I have grown out of it because of the environment I've been fortunate to have.
G isn't used to being challenged by someone of equal or greater intellect than himself, he's used to people relying on what he says to be truth, or at least logically inductive truth. Well tough, I'm smarter than you G. I don't say this out of empty bolster, I simply am. I don't take the crap that comes out of your mouth as gold. And... I have actively sought out people who are of equal intellect if not above that of my own. I value their input, I value their views, I value their constructive criticism on what I think is right or wrong. And I have grown, since I was a kid, to accept when I am wrong.
In fact, I have been told that I'm wrong about everything since I was a kid. Never did I doubt my parents on this issue until the evidence that I was correct was so undeniably blatant, did I admit to myself, that I was actually right for once.
Unfortunately, that has left a scar on my confidence, and I usually try to seek justification from someone else to validate my actions. Though, I've gotten better, there's still a hint of it every so often.
From all the time I've known G, he hasn't once admitted about being wrong about anything. And, even when I've called him on a bunch of crap he's spewed out, he still won't admit it.
Sorry G, Just because you've never been around anyone as smart as you or smarter, doesn't give you the license to assume anything of anyone, or how they should think, act, or even choose to remember. And because I am smarter than you, I will shut you down for every bullshit that comes out of your mouth. I don't care if you've never encountered that in the past, your word is not gold. I don't care if you've surrounded yourself with people who do take your word as gold. I find real friends are those who don't take your word for gold, nor do they think your words are nothing but bullshit.
End of rant.
I was hanging out with some people I knew, I guess you can call them friends, though not really close friends. And, as guys would have it, we started to boast about our past dealings with women, love, and the topic of virginity.
The time came around to share my story. My first time was with a gorgeous and beautiful girl. I started to explain how gorgeous she was, how beautiful she was. I started to say how I'm glad it wasn't with someone fat, ugly, and whom I'd regret. As with guys, and especially with guys you're not too close with, it's a topic where you don't necessarily share your deeper feelings. It as strictly a platonic bolster.
From the left rear seat, we'll call him G for the time being. He spoke up. He is a rather intellectual person, and highly opinionated.
"That's not how I'd like to remember my first time, I'd expect it to be deeper than that."
Something inside of me snapped.... How dare this pompous idiot tell me I'm shallow without even really knowing the full story.
I instantly responded with.
"Hey G, maybe you're right... Maybe I should remember her the way she really was. I should remember how I threw my heart and everything I had into our relationship, how much love I devoted to her and only her only to have my heart ripped into a thousand pieces by her cheating, lying, and cruel desires."
By this time, my car was quiet. I added, "but hey, at least she was cute."
Even to this day, that moment irritated me. Of course when G is around, I'll put in a smile and act friendly. But still it irritates me.
His overly opinionated position probably stems from his relative intellect with those around him. And perhaps that's what irritates me. Because I can identify with it, and luckily I have grown out of it because of the environment I've been fortunate to have.
G isn't used to being challenged by someone of equal or greater intellect than himself, he's used to people relying on what he says to be truth, or at least logically inductive truth. Well tough, I'm smarter than you G. I don't say this out of empty bolster, I simply am. I don't take the crap that comes out of your mouth as gold. And... I have actively sought out people who are of equal intellect if not above that of my own. I value their input, I value their views, I value their constructive criticism on what I think is right or wrong. And I have grown, since I was a kid, to accept when I am wrong.
In fact, I have been told that I'm wrong about everything since I was a kid. Never did I doubt my parents on this issue until the evidence that I was correct was so undeniably blatant, did I admit to myself, that I was actually right for once.
Unfortunately, that has left a scar on my confidence, and I usually try to seek justification from someone else to validate my actions. Though, I've gotten better, there's still a hint of it every so often.
From all the time I've known G, he hasn't once admitted about being wrong about anything. And, even when I've called him on a bunch of crap he's spewed out, he still won't admit it.
Sorry G, Just because you've never been around anyone as smart as you or smarter, doesn't give you the license to assume anything of anyone, or how they should think, act, or even choose to remember. And because I am smarter than you, I will shut you down for every bullshit that comes out of your mouth. I don't care if you've never encountered that in the past, your word is not gold. I don't care if you've surrounded yourself with people who do take your word as gold. I find real friends are those who don't take your word for gold, nor do they think your words are nothing but bullshit.
End of rant.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Understandings, Missunderstandings, and Plain old you just don't know what you're talking about.
I've been debating somebody over the concept of "Super-rational". At first I waved it offhandedly as trivially easy to understand and deal with. However, this person continually insist it was "beyond" our reason to rationalize. IE... we simply can't reason out something so it must be super-rational. He then states to acting on these unreasoned actions as perfectly logical, to believe in super-rational ideas, according to his belief, beyond reasoned understanding, is perfectly rational.
For those who don't know Super-rationality. From what I've understood it, it's a perspective that transcends the local perspective in terms of reasoning. An example I've used to demonstrate this is:
Imagine you're in a room. You are given the option to raise your hand or not to raise your hand. In the adjacent room is an exact duplicate of yourself. He/She too has the option to raise their hand or not raise their hand.
In 10 seconds, you both will be killed unless one and only one of you raises your hands. You can not communicate with each other, you can't see each other, you simply can infer that what the other you is going to do, you will do as well.
To this end, you can not rationally make a decision whether or not to raise your hand. You are stuck at a dead end.
Now, if you take into perspective outside of that room, you have an option. A super-rational option. Flip a coin.
Probabilistically, you have a 50/50 chance of a coin ending up heads. If you flip it again, there's a good chance it'll end up tails. You can use this as a rational anchor to make a decision of any kind. You can safely assume the other you will be making the same logical conclusion. Out of 2 flips, the chances are good one will be head, the other tail.
Now, what if the scenario was with a random person and not with a duplicate of yourself? The decision for a flip of a coin will then revert to a chaotic irrational decision making tool. You can not be sure the other person will follow your line of thought. Again, we're limited by the local perspective.
I gave the person the 2nd scenario and not the first. His response looked nothing like rationality. His solution was actually, "the super-rational thing to do would be to assume that this room is an unsafe place and attempt to find a way out"
Way to confuse the concept with the details.
After I kept telling him super-rationality is not the same as beyond rational, that it is actually a philosophical abstract perspective, he finally got it. However, still didn't admit he was wrong. Simply walked away telling me that I've finally started to skip the BS and get to the real point. *sigh*
I carried about my daily thoughts and didn't ponder on this too much. Few days later I was watching The Atheist Experience, and last Sunday, a caller in the last 10 min of the show called in and started to blab about first cause.
He shifts the burden of proof to disprove his statement, and also to find alternative to the creation of the universe.
He structures it much like many creationists do, "We know nothing can come from nothing, so something must come from something and that something we call god."
Argument from ignorance, proof of ignorance.
So the hosts of the show continue to tell him where the fallacies are. What can be argued correctly and what can't...
Even an alternative creation story was proposed, however, was completely dismissed even without second thought. How ironic, he dismisses other creation theory without evidence, however, requires proof against his.
But the bottom line came to... "If you can't disprove that my god created the universe, it has to be true" And completely ignored the fact that they've said it a million times, it's a fallacy.
At first, I want to subscribe to his forums and rip him a new one. After a while of thinking, I know these types. They're fundamentalists who won't listen to logic, reason, and even when it's so blatant they will find ways to work it around their beliefs. They will never admit they were wrong. This reminds me of "Shockofgod", and his anti-atheist radio show. He invites atheists to call into his show to answer a "simple question".
"What proof and evidence can you provide that proves atheism is accurate and correct?"
It's frustrating that idiots would ask such a blatantly invalid question. And... worst of all, when atheist do call in to tell him it's not a valid question, he ignores it and continues to state the question absurdly. Accusing the atheists of "playing word games", or ignoring the issue. Or not answering the question.
Which brings me to my point. Why are people so ignorant and love it? Why do they choose to live their life so brain dead and not see the false things for what they are and the true things for what they are? Why do people insist on pushing the ignorance on others? And when someone tries to legitimately educate them because of their desire to see the human race as a whole advance, they are hindered by the desire to hold on to ignorance and superstition?
Plug your ears and ignore logic if you want, but please... please don't bring your idiocy out to other people. Unlike you, some people like as few false beliefs as possible. And for the love of your god you worship, don't teach your children about your god as though it was truth.
------------------------ Additional Discussion---------------------
I started to point this out on a video on youtube about the stupidity of shock of god. And lo and behold, a defender came around.
He first starts by telling me, The question is a rhetorical question designed to show the stupidity of the fact of believing something without proof.
Ironicly, I pointed out that religion does not have proof, and... Atheism isn't a belief in anything, it's a rejection because the burden of proof has not been met.
With a witless response, I am accused of either being an agnostic, or not knowing what all this religion speak is all about.
By this time of course, I'm growing tired of stupidity.
I calmly explained the difference between Atheism, theism, gnostics, and agnostics. I think he might finally have understood.... Then again.. I shouldn't assume. He no longer asserts I'm agnostic, he goes back to the play on words of the question.
Claiming it's "Rehtorical".
My response was:
"It's not a rhetorical question. It's an invalid question.
I've wasted enough time on you. You throw your lot with idiocy.
1. You don't even know what atheism is
2. You don't even know what agnostic/gnostic is
3. You believe need of proof of a null stance is valid
4. You turn around and tell me atheism "belief" is based on no evidence, yet no evidence has ever proven any deity, let alone the biblical one
5. You believe atheism has "beliefs" that constitutes it as religion-like
Idiot"
With that he responded with:
"ha what are you an idiot? Look in a dictionary and learn what the hell you are talking about."
I've had enough... really I have... I ended with:
"I'm sorry... you're right...
6. How can I expect you to understand what rhetorical even means if you can't understand the rest?
.....
You see what I did there... that was a rhetorical question."
I swear... some people just are idiots...
For those who don't know Super-rationality. From what I've understood it, it's a perspective that transcends the local perspective in terms of reasoning. An example I've used to demonstrate this is:
Imagine you're in a room. You are given the option to raise your hand or not to raise your hand. In the adjacent room is an exact duplicate of yourself. He/She too has the option to raise their hand or not raise their hand.
In 10 seconds, you both will be killed unless one and only one of you raises your hands. You can not communicate with each other, you can't see each other, you simply can infer that what the other you is going to do, you will do as well.
To this end, you can not rationally make a decision whether or not to raise your hand. You are stuck at a dead end.
Now, if you take into perspective outside of that room, you have an option. A super-rational option. Flip a coin.
Probabilistically, you have a 50/50 chance of a coin ending up heads. If you flip it again, there's a good chance it'll end up tails. You can use this as a rational anchor to make a decision of any kind. You can safely assume the other you will be making the same logical conclusion. Out of 2 flips, the chances are good one will be head, the other tail.
Now, what if the scenario was with a random person and not with a duplicate of yourself? The decision for a flip of a coin will then revert to a chaotic irrational decision making tool. You can not be sure the other person will follow your line of thought. Again, we're limited by the local perspective.
I gave the person the 2nd scenario and not the first. His response looked nothing like rationality. His solution was actually, "the super-rational thing to do would be to assume that this room is an unsafe place and attempt to find a way out"
Way to confuse the concept with the details.
After I kept telling him super-rationality is not the same as beyond rational, that it is actually a philosophical abstract perspective, he finally got it. However, still didn't admit he was wrong. Simply walked away telling me that I've finally started to skip the BS and get to the real point. *sigh*
I carried about my daily thoughts and didn't ponder on this too much. Few days later I was watching The Atheist Experience, and last Sunday, a caller in the last 10 min of the show called in and started to blab about first cause.
He shifts the burden of proof to disprove his statement, and also to find alternative to the creation of the universe.
He structures it much like many creationists do, "We know nothing can come from nothing, so something must come from something and that something we call god."
Argument from ignorance, proof of ignorance.
So the hosts of the show continue to tell him where the fallacies are. What can be argued correctly and what can't...
Even an alternative creation story was proposed, however, was completely dismissed even without second thought. How ironic, he dismisses other creation theory without evidence, however, requires proof against his.
But the bottom line came to... "If you can't disprove that my god created the universe, it has to be true" And completely ignored the fact that they've said it a million times, it's a fallacy.
At first, I want to subscribe to his forums and rip him a new one. After a while of thinking, I know these types. They're fundamentalists who won't listen to logic, reason, and even when it's so blatant they will find ways to work it around their beliefs. They will never admit they were wrong. This reminds me of "Shockofgod", and his anti-atheist radio show. He invites atheists to call into his show to answer a "simple question".
"What proof and evidence can you provide that proves atheism is accurate and correct?"
It's frustrating that idiots would ask such a blatantly invalid question. And... worst of all, when atheist do call in to tell him it's not a valid question, he ignores it and continues to state the question absurdly. Accusing the atheists of "playing word games", or ignoring the issue. Or not answering the question.
Which brings me to my point. Why are people so ignorant and love it? Why do they choose to live their life so brain dead and not see the false things for what they are and the true things for what they are? Why do people insist on pushing the ignorance on others? And when someone tries to legitimately educate them because of their desire to see the human race as a whole advance, they are hindered by the desire to hold on to ignorance and superstition?
Plug your ears and ignore logic if you want, but please... please don't bring your idiocy out to other people. Unlike you, some people like as few false beliefs as possible. And for the love of your god you worship, don't teach your children about your god as though it was truth.
------------------------ Additional Discussion---------------------
I started to point this out on a video on youtube about the stupidity of shock of god. And lo and behold, a defender came around.
He first starts by telling me, The question is a rhetorical question designed to show the stupidity of the fact of believing something without proof.
Ironicly, I pointed out that religion does not have proof, and... Atheism isn't a belief in anything, it's a rejection because the burden of proof has not been met.
With a witless response, I am accused of either being an agnostic, or not knowing what all this religion speak is all about.
By this time of course, I'm growing tired of stupidity.
I calmly explained the difference between Atheism, theism, gnostics, and agnostics. I think he might finally have understood.... Then again.. I shouldn't assume. He no longer asserts I'm agnostic, he goes back to the play on words of the question.
Claiming it's "Rehtorical".
My response was:
"It's not a rhetorical question. It's an invalid question.
I've wasted enough time on you. You throw your lot with idiocy.
1. You don't even know what atheism is
2. You don't even know what agnostic/gnostic is
3. You believe need of proof of a null stance is valid
4. You turn around and tell me atheism "belief" is based on no evidence, yet no evidence has ever proven any deity, let alone the biblical one
5. You believe atheism has "beliefs" that constitutes it as religion-like
Idiot"
With that he responded with:
"ha what are you an idiot? Look in a dictionary and learn what the hell you are talking about."
I've had enough... really I have... I ended with:
"I'm sorry... you're right...
6. How can I expect you to understand what rhetorical even means if you can't understand the rest?
.....
You see what I did there... that was a rhetorical question."
I swear... some people just are idiots...
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Love in the family
As I was sitting around contemplating life and love and what not. I came to think about my Sister's husband. He is a very pious individual. He annoys the crap out of me...
Anyways, we seem to have a lot in common although he is 4 years older than me. We have a lot of similar interests, quirks, mannerism, writing styles, fashion tastes... etc... With one exception. I broke out of religion and rejected any form of deity. He stands behind his religion unwaveringly. Much like me, he has a very strong logical flow of thought, however, it doesn't seem to apply to his religion. Somehow it's out of bounds for him. We've gotten into many heated debates about it, and in the end, for the sake of my sister, I don't push it any further; she too is very religious, unfortunately.
Which leads me to my question. If two consenting adult individuals wish to be together, would it matter if they were blood related?
The reason such an odd build up, is because, I questioned if my sister was actually looking for a guy much like me because of me... I however do not like my sister in such a way. In fact I particularly don't like Asians in general... I am Asian by the way.
Entertaining the thought, if it were the case; granted it was insured the two individuals don't procreate, I personally do not have a problem with that.
What if they did want a child?
I believe as long as it is within normal bounds of inheritable disease rates, it would be no different than having a normal child.
Many people have argued that it usually increases the chances to a greater chance than normal, and over a course of time it will compound the problem.
Of course, one could argue that people with higher chances of heart diseases shouldn't have children by that same criteria.
I don't believe we can set a criterion that will exclude incestuous relations without exclusions of others.
In the end, I would have no issues with two adults who understand the risks whom still want to be together and conceive a child.
Anyways, we seem to have a lot in common although he is 4 years older than me. We have a lot of similar interests, quirks, mannerism, writing styles, fashion tastes... etc... With one exception. I broke out of religion and rejected any form of deity. He stands behind his religion unwaveringly. Much like me, he has a very strong logical flow of thought, however, it doesn't seem to apply to his religion. Somehow it's out of bounds for him. We've gotten into many heated debates about it, and in the end, for the sake of my sister, I don't push it any further; she too is very religious, unfortunately.
Which leads me to my question. If two consenting adult individuals wish to be together, would it matter if they were blood related?
The reason such an odd build up, is because, I questioned if my sister was actually looking for a guy much like me because of me... I however do not like my sister in such a way. In fact I particularly don't like Asians in general... I am Asian by the way.
Entertaining the thought, if it were the case; granted it was insured the two individuals don't procreate, I personally do not have a problem with that.
What if they did want a child?
I believe as long as it is within normal bounds of inheritable disease rates, it would be no different than having a normal child.
Many people have argued that it usually increases the chances to a greater chance than normal, and over a course of time it will compound the problem.
Of course, one could argue that people with higher chances of heart diseases shouldn't have children by that same criteria.
I don't believe we can set a criterion that will exclude incestuous relations without exclusions of others.
In the end, I would have no issues with two adults who understand the risks whom still want to be together and conceive a child.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)