Hebrews 11:6 - I mean is this just common logic ? If you don’t believe in a magical character how would you possibly try to please a magical character?
James 1:5-6 ask God for wisdom
If you don’t believe in a God why would you ever ask Him for wisdom? Again rocket science 101.
And now that you don’t believe in God you are saying making basic logical statements shows an unloving God?
I disagree. I read it those verses as simple logical statements with logical conclusions.
What rock and what hard place is it that you find yourself in either way?
Want some more rocket science 101?
If you never read the Bible you won’t understand the Bible.
If you read the Bible and don’t believe in a God it probably isn’t going to be that interesting and you probably won’t read it much.
But a fundamentalist, hand in a glove absolutist? Yeah that’s what wrecks the Bible and any inspirational truth. And places believers in bondage. And drives them away completely.
Goodbye baby. Goodbye bathwater.
Adults and showers only now!
I am gonna back out of this channel now and let you all continue.
On 5/3/2024 at 4:00 PM, Charity said:
On 5/4/2024 at 12:57 PM, chockfull said:
Trying to respond to this I think a previous response somehow showed up missing.
What I find ironic is someone with no belief in any inspiration in scripture telling me to “look deeper” into scripture.
No my remark is not snarky it is in the practical realm.
What is pleasing God? It varies per individual but to me it involves seeking out a virtuous life. I like my life better seeking out virtue than I do trying to parse over some VPW regurgitation of manifestations in a book he stole or “the law of believing” which actually I think we’ve shown to have spiritualist origins here on GSC.
Does God “always” provide wisdom when I ask? I think so, whether it is in the form of the word of a friend, a sunrise, an idea, an observation about nature, a secular writing striking me in a way, or about a hundred other practical ways I could mention.
But to you He is “an unloving Father” because of how you interpret Gen 2 & 3 and are stuck on VPW believing fantasy and some idiot who is blabbing about devil spirits in a medical situation.
Yeah I get it. It’s always the hypocrites that drive people away from churches and they are everywhere.
But what do you want to build in your life? Tearing down idols is only half of a renovation project.
On 5/4/2024 at 8:51 PM, chockfull said:
I view Gen 2 and 3 as allegorical illustrating freedom of choice between good and evil that is available to every living soul.
You most certainly are interpreting it in a fundamentalist sense from my perspective.
Faith means different things in the Bible I think most count 5 usages.
The idea of devil spirits is upsetting. Having spiritual causes of illnesses is upsetting. Mental illnesses which can look like devil spirits are upsetting. Being sick is upsetting. Cancer and chemo is upsetting. VP said cancer was a devil spirit. Then he died of it.
What .... doctrine are you talking about? Those records in the gospels are Jesus healing a couple kids by removing a spiritual cause of the illness?
So healing the kids was ....? Dang that is real cynical. Not a view I want to share at all.
On 5/5/2024 at 9:32 AM, chockfull said:
The way you are inserting comments into my quote makes it impossible to answer any of your questions inline and I’m not cutting and pasting every one of them from all over everywhere. If I’m not answering all your questions that is why.
So much of this is Christianity 101.
God as Creator was not a dictator so he did not interfere in His creation every microsecond but set up systems where people could choose to talk to Him or not.
Those who do He helps but not in a direct interference way for the most part. Certain circumstances dictate miracles such as those we read of Jesus on earth.
Mankind has arrived at whatever state he is in through his own choice. Yes this is allegorical as today people also arrive at their own state through their own choice.
What other parts of the Bible are allegorical? A lot of them. Even VPs teaching highlights verses with “figures of speech” as different from a direct reading. Remember the whole Athletes of the Spirit debacle with TWI taking figurative language to a new low?
With respect to the devil spirit comments you are choosing to be confused as you don’t believe they exist. From your mouth.
Jesus healed children by removing a spiritual cause of their illness. At least that is what seems pretty clear in those verses.
Your grandson has a known mental condition that has negative and positive ramifications. This is not a devil spirit. This is not a spiritual cause.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
So now for my questions.
What was Jesus doing to those children if not healing them? If he wasn’t removing a spiritual cause then the only other logical conclusion would involve some form of mental child abuse. Is that what you believe happened?
I am not gaslighting anything. I am commenting on words proceeding from your own mouth. If it’s not gas coming out of your mouth how can it be lit on fire?
On 5/5/2024 at 9:21 PM, chockfull said:
I guess this is called “personification” where you take all of the negative elements you experienced from a cult, label man’s abuse as God being an abusive partner, and equate some form of leaving Christianity as leaving an abusive marriage arrangement.
Your life your business. Not a path that has the slightest interest for me.
If you are saying I’m living in denial I think maybe the mirror would point 3 fingers back at yourself. You are equating fundamentalism and more specifically the specific bondage of TWI with scripture and all of Christianity. “If that is as far as you want to go” that is the height of ego to think that I am refusing to “go deeper” or some BS you still have ingrained from cult fundamentalism. Being a scribe or a Pharisee is not “going deeper” as accurately illustrated by my Lords interaction with them.
The vast majority of all Christians consider TWI a cult and VPs teachings to be self aggrandizing plagiarism.
So was Jesus abusing those children he cast spirits out of? Still waiting on that answer. What does your “going deeper” tell you there?
8 hours ago, chockfull said:
Chockfull, If any of your posts you think are missing were to me, I have quoted the ones I have received above. Do you find one or more of these ones are missing?
It seems like those are folks that still need to break the bonds of the fundamentalist cult before building their lives in a constructive fashion.
I certainly don’t need that. The Christianity I accepted in my youth is still sound and solid and nothing like the bondage of TWI. I can and do point out their doctrinal and practical errors.
What I dislike is the ego shown in viewpoints. It seems like a “dog in the manger” approach. We can’t eat any of the hay but we are going to bark at all the cows to keep them away from the hay.
I am growing to understand OldSkools perspective on sharing from a perspective that will not be respected.
Deconversion isn't about walking away from a cult. After leaving twi, people began analyzing what they were taught and deciding which doctrines to discard and which to keep all the while retaining their Christian beliefs. That is called deconstructing. Deconversion is walking away from that belief along with believing in the entire book it is based on.
Regarding your "dog in the manger" idiom and connecting it with egotistical viewpoints you say have been shown on this thread, I don't think that is an accurate statement. I have disagreed with your position on scripture and your explanations of some verses, but I don't think I have criticized you personally for sharing them. If I have, I apologize. But simply having disagreements doesn't mean someone is being egotistical or disrespectful.
Oldskool, by the way, was not referring to comments made on the "Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith" forum.
How do humanist account for creation? Certainly there is some explaining about how earth came to be.
Here are a couple of quotes from the website Raf shared in an earlier post from the American Humanist Association called What is Humanism.
- Humanists seek to understand the universe by using science and its methods of critical inquiry-logical reasoning, empirical evidence, and skeptical evaluation of conjectures and conclusions-to obtain reliable knowledge. (Steven Schafersman)
- Humanism considers the universe to be the result of an extremely long and complex evolution under immutable laws of nature...Because science cannot now and probably never will be able to explain the ultimate origin or destiny of the universe, I think Humanism can include more than atheists and agnostics. The lack of definite answers to these ultimate questions leaves room for reasonable people to hypothesize about the origin of the natural universe, and even to hope for some form of life beyond this one...Thus, in my opinion, people holding such views can be Humanists if they believe that humanity is on its own in this world, and the lack of any evidence for an afterlife means this life should be lived as though it’s the only one we have. (Joseph C. Sommer)
I don't know is as good as it gets as stated there....
"I don't know" is a solid humanist response. I would say that we, as humanists, have no basis for knowing how the earth, the universe and matter came to be.
There are multiple explanations that could be compatible with humanism. I'm partial to "Who ever said the universe was ever in a state of nothing?"
On another note, I think the realization that we are one species among millions living one one planet among trillions circling one star among trillions and that there is nothing cosmically special about us... I don't know about you, but I would consider that position as far from "arrogant" as can be conceived. It's certainly less arrogant than "the creator who shaped the rings of Saturn and makes it rain diamonds on Jupiter has a deep interest in where I put my penis."
“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” ― Arthur Conan Doyle, The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes
"
"I don't know" is a solid humanist response. I would say that we, as humanists, have no basis for knowing how the earth, the universe and matter came to be.
There are multiple explanations that could be compatible with humanism. I'm partial to "Who ever said the universe was ever in a state of nothing?"
On another note, I think the realization that we are one species among millions living one one planet among trillions circling one star among trillions and that there is nothing cosmically special about us... I don't know about you, but I would consider that position as far from "arrogant" as can be conceived. It's certainly less arrogant than "the creator who shaped the rings of Saturn and makes it rain diamonds on Jupiter has a deep interest in where I put my penis."
Your last sentence deserves a and made me each of the dozen times I reread it. Okay, I knew about Saturn but had to google the diamonds raining on Jupiter part - very cool. Among all the endings though that could have made your point, your choice is an entertainingly creative one.
There's the rub. Nothing about the origin of the universe as it is known today makes sense to most people, especially not laymen. I've read renowned scientist after renowned scientist try to explain it, and my mind cannot grasp it.
Science is funny that way.
Imagine you're at a point in space and you send two objects in opposite directions, both at the speed of light. One object goes "east" at the speed of light for one year. The other object goes "west" at the speed of light for one year. When that year is over, how far apart will those objects be? Two light years, right? Right. So what is the relative velocity of those two objects (in relationship to each other). It should be 2 times the speed of light, right? But it's not. It's still the speed of light. How is that possible? I HAVE NO IDEA. But I do know it is correct. And THAT is why I am not an astrophysicist. Because I can't get that to make sense in my head. Relativity changes our normal understanding of the way natural laws are supposed to work.
"When you have ruled out the impossible..."
When it comes to the beginning of the known universe, I DARE YOU rule out the impossible. SO much easier said than done.
How did nothing create everything without a Creator outside of time, space and energy? No idea. I have yet to see any evidence the universe was EVER in a state of "nothing," but even if it were, that "nothing" became "everything" is MORE probable than a being outside of time, space and energy sitting around forever and ever and ever without origin and without beginning before finally deciding to do what he always knew all along he was going to do!
At some point our understanding breaks down. Whether it breaks down at the dawn of the universe or the dawn of a deity, it breaks down. We KNOW there's a universe. We surmise a deity because, what, we can't account for the beginning of the universe? OK. We can't account for the beginning of the deity either. So can we then surmise the existence of a superdeity, a God's GOD, to account for His existence? Great, let's do that. So now the universe has a God. That God has a GOD. But why stop there? Clearly, GOD could not have come from nothing. Maybe GOD came from GgOoDd, who came from GGOODD, who came from... Turtles all the way down.
We have not established the existence of the first God, much less His,HIS, HhIiSs or HHIISS!
Eliminate the impossible? I DARE you?
But we DO know the universe exists. That it came into existence is evident. What happened before that? We have no idea, and any speculation is just that.
"Whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
The elimination of the impossible has not been established, and the inclusion of a deity in the field of "whatever remains, however improbable" has likewise not been established. Far from it.
There's the rub. Nothing about the origin of the universe as it is known today makes sense to most people, especially not laymen. I've read renowned scientist after renowned scientist try to explain it, and my mind cannot grasp it.
Science is funny that way.
Imagine you're at a point in space and you send two objects in opposite directions, both at the speed of light. One object goes "east" at the speed of light for one year. The other object goes "west" at the speed of light for one year. When that year is over, how far apart will those objects be? Two light years, right? Right. So what is the relative velocity of those two objects (in relationship to each other). It should be 2 times the speed of light, right? But it's not. It's still the speed of light. How is that possible? I HAVE NO IDEA. But I do know it is correct. And THAT is why I am not an astrophysicist. Because I can't get that to make sense in my head. Relativity changes our normal understanding of the way natural laws are supposed to work.
"When you have ruled out the impossible..."
When it comes to the beginning of the known universe, I DARE YOU rule out the impossible. SO much easier said than done.
How did nothing create everything without a Creator outside of time, space and energy? No idea. I have yet to see any evidence the universe was EVER in a state of "nothing," but even if it were, that "nothing" became "everything" is MORE probable than a being outside of time, space and energy sitting around forever and ever and ever without origin and without beginning before finally deciding to do what he always knew all along he was going to do!
At some point our understanding breaks down. Whether it breaks down at the dawn of the universe or the dawn of a deity, it breaks down. We KNOW there's a universe. We surmise a deity because, what, we can't account for the beginning of the universe? OK. We can't account for the beginning of the deity either. So can we then surmise the existence of a superdeity, a God's GOD, to account for His existence? Great, let's do that. So now the universe has a God. That God has a GOD. But why stop there? Clearly, GOD could not have come from nothing. Maybe GOD came from GgOoDd, who came from GGOODD, who came from... Turtles all the way down.
We have not established the existence of the first God, much less His,HIS, HhIiSs or HHIISS!
Eliminate the impossible? I DARE you?
But we DO know the universe exists. That it came into existence is evident. What happened before that? We have no idea, and any speculation is just that.
"Whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
The elimination of the impossible has not been established, and the inclusion of a deity in the field of "whatever remains, however improbable" has likewise not been established. Far from it.
Dear Friend.. I agree. At least supposing that is even possible..
the old geometers, mathematicians and philosophers were very wise- they left the fundamentals pretty much undefined. Want to change your world view? Go right ahead.. hope that you can come up with something better..
Edited by Ham stupid AI self corrected with no good reason
Nobody goes through deconversion. They only realize they've gone through it. We don't set out to lose faith. It just happens and we realize it almost after the fact.
Deprogramming imposes a change of belief from without. Deconversion takes place within. It is slow and steady right up until the end, when the cognitive dissonance between what you believe and what you call yourself becomes unbearable.
The final "decision" is conscious, but it's after-the-fact. By the time you call yourself an unbeliever, the believing is long gone.
My entire journey played out in front of all of you. You can see it in the arguments I made and in the arguments I stopped making.
Afterward, there was a period of reflection, retracing steps, realizing where, when and how things changed.
Nobody goes through deconversion. They only realize they've gone through it. We don't set out to lose faith. It just happens and we realize it almost after the fact.
Deprogramming imposes a change of belief from without. Deconversion takes place within. It is slow and steady right up until the end, when the cognitive dissonance between what you believe and what you call yourself becomes unbearable.
The final "decision" is conscious, but it's after-the-fact. By the time you call yourself an unbeliever, the believing is long gone.
My entire journey played out in front of all of you. You can see it in the arguments I made and in the arguments I stopped making.
Afterward, there was a period of reflection, retracing steps, realizing where, when and how things changed.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts Raf. On the Harmonic Atheist podcast, I have watched a wide range of people tell their deconversion story from when they first started believing right through to the end - just as you described above. The videos are usually between 90-120 minutes long as their journey was never cut and dry. I think of what it must have been like for you to share and discuss your thoughts and feelings about the process you were going through at the time. It could not have been easy yet it must have been helpful. I give you much credit for doing so.
P.S. I forgot to mention how I often can relate to what was being shared on these podcasts.
This has always been my favorite deconversion story.
This is Julia Sweeney, who played the Androgynous "Pat" on Saturday Night Live.
Raf it's two hours long and judging from the first 7 minutes, really can't take her comic act. Can you summarize the most important and impressive points from your point of view?
Naturalism is a motive for humanism. You can be a naturalist and a nihilist, but I can't imagine any humanist would put up much of a fight if you equated humanism with naturalism.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
77
56
93
230
Popular Days
May 18
36
May 13
28
May 16
24
Nov 13
24
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 77 posts
Rocky 56 posts
Nathan_Jr 93 posts
Charity 230 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2024
36 posts
May 13 2024
28 posts
May 16 2024
24 posts
Nov 13 2024
24 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
Yeah, see. That kinda leaves us between a rock and a hard place. We were either following the teachings of a man with devil spirits or he was wrong about what he taught. That means he could have been
Raf
I consider myself humanist as well. Since there is no hierarchy in humanism, no one really gets to define it. This website gathers various definitions that permit us to ascertain some kind of co
waysider
When you consider the irony in this, it's almost comical in a perversely twisted way. Want something from God? Follow a complicated formula. Make sure to cross every T and dot every I. Want
Posted Images
Charity
Chockfull, If any of your posts you think are missing were to me, I have quoted the ones I have received above. Do you find one or more of these ones are missing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Deconversion isn't about walking away from a cult. After leaving twi, people began analyzing what they were taught and deciding which doctrines to discard and which to keep all the while retaining their Christian beliefs. That is called deconstructing. Deconversion is walking away from that belief along with believing in the entire book it is based on.
Regarding your "dog in the manger" idiom and connecting it with egotistical viewpoints you say have been shown on this thread, I don't think that is an accurate statement. I have disagreed with your position on scripture and your explanations of some verses, but I don't think I have criticized you personally for sharing them. If I have, I apologize. But simply having disagreements doesn't mean someone is being egotistical or disrespectful.
Oldskool, by the way, was not referring to comments made on the "Atheism, nontheism, skepticism: Questioning Faith" forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Here are a couple of quotes from the website Raf shared in an earlier post from the American Humanist Association called What is Humanism.
- Humanists seek to understand the universe by using science and its methods of critical inquiry-logical reasoning, empirical evidence, and skeptical evaluation of conjectures and conclusions-to obtain reliable knowledge. (Steven Schafersman)
- Humanism considers the universe to be the result of an extremely long and complex evolution under immutable laws of nature...Because science cannot now and probably never will be able to explain the ultimate origin or destiny of the universe, I think Humanism can include more than atheists and agnostics. The lack of definite answers to these ultimate questions leaves room for reasonable people to hypothesize about the origin of the natural universe, and even to hope for some form of life beyond this one...Thus, in my opinion, people holding such views can be Humanists if they believe that humanity is on its own in this world, and the lack of any evidence for an afterlife means this life should be lived as though it’s the only one we have. (Joseph C. Sommer)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Interesting....
I don't know is as good as it gets as stated there....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"I don't know" is a solid humanist response. I would say that we, as humanists, have no basis for knowing how the earth, the universe and matter came to be.
There are multiple explanations that could be compatible with humanism. I'm partial to "Who ever said the universe was ever in a state of nothing?"
On another note, I think the realization that we are one species among millions living one one planet among trillions circling one star among trillions and that there is nothing cosmically special about us... I don't know about you, but I would consider that position as far from "arrogant" as can be conceived. It's certainly less arrogant than "the creator who shaped the rings of Saturn and makes it rain diamonds on Jupiter has a deep interest in where I put my penis."
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
wow raf! lol, no problems with that thinking
you know the old saying
“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” ― Arthur Conan Doyle, The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes
"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I do like that, much I don't know.....yet.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Your last sentence deserves a
and made me 
each of the dozen times I reread it. Okay, I knew about Saturn but had to google the diamonds raining on Jupiter part - very cool. Among all the endings though that could have made your point, your choice is an entertainingly creative one. 
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
"Compassion becomes real
when we recognize
our shared humanity."
~Pema Chodron
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"When you have ruled out the impossible..."
There's the rub. Nothing about the origin of the universe as it is known today makes sense to most people, especially not laymen. I've read renowned scientist after renowned scientist try to explain it, and my mind cannot grasp it.
Science is funny that way.
Imagine you're at a point in space and you send two objects in opposite directions, both at the speed of light. One object goes "east" at the speed of light for one year. The other object goes "west" at the speed of light for one year. When that year is over, how far apart will those objects be? Two light years, right? Right. So what is the relative velocity of those two objects (in relationship to each other). It should be 2 times the speed of light, right? But it's not. It's still the speed of light. How is that possible? I HAVE NO IDEA. But I do know it is correct. And THAT is why I am not an astrophysicist. Because I can't get that to make sense in my head. Relativity changes our normal understanding of the way natural laws are supposed to work.
"When you have ruled out the impossible..."
When it comes to the beginning of the known universe, I DARE YOU rule out the impossible. SO much easier said than done.
How did nothing create everything without a Creator outside of time, space and energy? No idea. I have yet to see any evidence the universe was EVER in a state of "nothing," but even if it were, that "nothing" became "everything" is MORE probable than a being outside of time, space and energy sitting around forever and ever and ever without origin and without beginning before finally deciding to do what he always knew all along he was going to do!
At some point our understanding breaks down. Whether it breaks down at the dawn of the universe or the dawn of a deity, it breaks down. We KNOW there's a universe. We surmise a deity because, what, we can't account for the beginning of the universe? OK. We can't account for the beginning of the deity either. So can we then surmise the existence of a superdeity, a God's GOD, to account for His existence? Great, let's do that. So now the universe has a God. That God has a GOD. But why stop there? Clearly, GOD could not have come from nothing. Maybe GOD came from GgOoDd, who came from GGOODD, who came from... Turtles all the way down.
We have not established the existence of the first God, much less His,HIS, HhIiSs or HHIISS!
Eliminate the impossible? I DARE you?
But we DO know the universe exists. That it came into existence is evident. What happened before that? We have no idea, and any speculation is just that.
"Whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
The elimination of the impossible has not been established, and the inclusion of a deity in the field of "whatever remains, however improbable" has likewise not been established. Far from it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Dear Friend.. I agree. At least supposing that is even possible..
the old geometers, mathematicians and philosophers were very wise- they left the fundamentals pretty much undefined. Want to change your world view? Go right ahead.. hope that you can come up with something better..
Edited by Hamstupid AI self corrected with no good reason
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
"Deconversion" sounds a heck of a lot like "deprogramming".
One cannot abandon the support that the last step of the ladder afforded one.. sorry, you really were not there..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
No, deconversion is done voluntarily.
Really not where?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Nobody goes through deconversion. They only realize they've gone through it. We don't set out to lose faith. It just happens and we realize it almost after the fact.
Deprogramming imposes a change of belief from without. Deconversion takes place within. It is slow and steady right up until the end, when the cognitive dissonance between what you believe and what you call yourself becomes unbearable.
The final "decision" is conscious, but it's after-the-fact. By the time you call yourself an unbeliever, the believing is long gone.
My entire journey played out in front of all of you. You can see it in the arguments I made and in the arguments I stopped making.
Afterward, there was a period of reflection, retracing steps, realizing where, when and how things changed.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yeah I don't know what this means.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Thank you for sharing your thoughts Raf. On the Harmonic Atheist podcast, I have watched a wide range of people tell their deconversion story from when they first started believing right through to the end - just as you described above. The videos are usually between 90-120 minutes long as their journey was never cut and dry. I think of what it must have been like for you to share and discuss your thoughts and feelings about the process you were going through at the time. It could not have been easy yet it must have been helpful. I give you much credit for doing so.
P.S. I forgot to mention how I often can relate to what was being shared on these podcasts.
Edited by CharityAdd a P.S.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This has always been my favorite deconversion story.
This is Julia Sweeney, who played the Androgynous "Pat" on Saturday Night Live.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Raf it's two hours long and judging from the first 7 minutes, really can't take her comic act. Can you summarize the most important and impressive points from your point of view?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think the best I can do is point you to reviews that capture how this made other people feel.
https://www.amazon.com/Letting-Go-God-Julia-Sweeney/product-reviews/B001J21JRQ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Thx Raf. I got to the below comment and it made me smile. Gotta get to work now though! I will read the rest later or tomorrow.
"The invisible and the non-existent often look very much alike."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Same goes for a being "outside of time, space and matter."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Less polite than Sweeney but still entertaining. I actually laughed at this BEFORE my deconversion, but it resonates more now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Yes he's funny and very bold. Obviously he threw away the idea a long time ago that he will be meeting the lord when he dies, LOL.
BTW Raf, wanted to ask you: is "humanism" the same as "naturalism". Please advise, thx.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Naturalism is a motive for humanism. You can be a naturalist and a nihilist, but I can't imagine any humanist would put up much of a fight if you equated humanism with naturalism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.