Why do the God-haters persist?

[sealybobo]

Here it is again: can you identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods?

And here it is again, airhead... There has been NO culture or civilization devoid of spirituality. It's difficult to give you an example of something collapsing that never has existed to begin with.

But if no civilization has existed devoid of spirituality (which seems very likely to me) then how can you have any idea that a civilization without spirituality is guaranteed to collapse? You have no experience, no data, to base that claim on.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1eh1...S0P9TIdVDNJy7SiSSM8KKrh9-jH-/edit?hl=en&pli=1

It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.

Religion is for losers. We'd be better off if it went away.

 

[sealybobo]

Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.

We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.

BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".

YES!!! THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF FALSE gods but only ONE TRUE ALMIGHTY GOD!!! NOW! WISE UP!!

How do we know that Jesus's dad isn't a FALSE GOD===???

He is.

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

“Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” – Isaac Asimov

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

 

[sealybobo]

Sorry, bossy. Wrong again/as usual. The Big Bang was preceded by the singularity as far as science has determined. The singularity was a physical object.

It's actually comical to read your comments as they immediately self- refute.

You opine/whine: "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. "

If things can't create themselves, what created your gawds?

It's an old argument that leads the supernaturalist to screech, "the gawds are eternal and un-created". So just revise your whining to revise "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. ".... Excepting that the gawds get special dispensations because they're supernatural, magical and....because I say so"

Hi Hollie:
Can you please clarify by making a distinction between
A. the Universal Laws that "God" represents (which exceeds human capacity) versus
B. the local laws or rules that lesser "gods or authorities" represent on a human level

The part that man makes up, and tends to "worship idols or authorities"
is level B the local level of laws and languages for laws

The part that man DID NOT MAKE UP are the naturally self-existent
laws of nature and the universe. (so B "attempts to represent" A but B is limited and finite
so of course this is flawed and falls short of what A really is which is beyond man's ability)

For these, we could debate day and night if the knowledge/laws in A were
* created by something
* always existent without beginning point

(of course the level of B WAS created by man so this has a beginning point and history we can examine)

Please do not keep arguing about A versus B, which are clearly distinct.
These are two different levels, and this will go in circles in conflicts.
Thank you!

Emily,

I make no distinction at all between your items A and B noted above.

I know of no universal laws created by any gods. For that matter, I recognize no gods. Why do you believe there are universal laws made by one of more gods?

Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid.

Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.

See also: False Premise. Sorry Emily

 

[sealybobo]

Any god that was infinite, ultimate, and absolute would not have to hide.

The hiding is on the side of people's perceptions.
Where we divide and don't forgive conflicts,
we muddle our perception and judgment with emotionally charged biases.

So we "cloud" our judgment this way. We stay caught up in the past, and cannot see past that to see farther into the future when these conflicts are resolved.
We must resolve our conflicts first, then we can see clearly what steps to take in the present to achieve those goals in the future.
We cannot see these steps if we are too busy fighting with other neighbors and groups and blocking the process.

Thus it is said that when the Law or Lord is revealed,
it is like coming through the clouds.

We will uncloud our judgment so we can see clearly.
But in fact, the laws were in operation constantly around us.
We will just be able to see them without negative biases blocking our view.

We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

“To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world’.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[Boss]

false! there is nothing outside nature god is either part of nature or imaginary.

Sheer ignorance of the universe. There was a Big Bang... when it happened, it created time and therefore, physical reality. Nothing physical caused it because nothing physical existed. There was no time space for anything physical to exist in. Without time, there is no physical reality or existence, it means nothing. Time is created by the expanding physical universe.

God is part of nature, God is spiritual nature. Not physical. God can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. Your ignorance is in presuming there is nothing other than physical nature, when we know this can't be true because something had to cause the creation of physical nature for it to exist.

Sorry, bossy. Wrong again/as usual. The Big Bang was preceded by the singularity as far as science has determined. The singularity was a physical object.

It's actually comical to read your comments as they immediately self- refute.

You opine/whine: "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. "

If things can't create themselves, what created your gawds?

It's an old argument that leads the supernaturalist to screech, "the gawds are eternal and un-created". So just revise your whining to revise "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. ".... Excepting that the gawds get special dispensations because they're supernatural, magical and....because I say so"

Sorry, but nope... not wrong. There could be no physical object before the Big Bang created the time space for a physical object to exist. Physical is a state which requires time to exist. Without time, nothing physical can exist or be real because there is no physical reality.

Nothing had to create God. Creation is something which applies to physical things. The spiritual isn't created, it doesn't exist physically so there is no need for it to be created. You're trying to apply physical standards to something spiritual and when I correct your error, you're screaming "special dispensation!" Your brain is unable to comprehend something beyond physical nature, even though you should rationally know that something must have created physical nature and it couldn't be physical.

 

[Boss]

Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.

Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.

The only reason religious people are happier is the social bonding they get at church. That and ignorance is bliss.

Nonsense. You have yet to cite a single solitary example of a predominantly Atheist country or society. These visions of Utopian Atheist society are delusions running around in your empty little head that do not exist and never have.

I didn't say predominately atheist societies, since there aren't any. I said societies with a large number of atheists.

Then you are still talking about predominately spiritual nations. Case closed.

 

[Boss]

Here it is again: can you identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods?

And here it is again, airhead... There has been NO culture or civilization devoid of spirituality. It's difficult to give you an example of something collapsing that never has existed to begin with.

But if no civilization has existed devoid of spirituality (which seems very likely to me) then how can you have any idea that a civilization without spirituality is guaranteed to collapse? You have no experience, no data, to base that claim on.

Because every civilization which has abandoned spirituality has failed in short order.

 

[Montrovant]

And here it is again, airhead... There has been NO culture or civilization devoid of spirituality. It's difficult to give you an example of something collapsing that never has existed to begin with.

But if no civilization has existed devoid of spirituality (which seems very likely to me) then how can you have any idea that a civilization without spirituality is guaranteed to collapse? You have no experience, no data, to base that claim on.

Because every civilization which has abandoned spirituality has failed in short order.

Then you are saying there have been civilizations devoid of spirituality.

These contradictory statements do not help make your point.

Or are you only talking about spirituality promoted by the state?

 

[BreezeWood]

... even though you should rationally know that something must have created physical nature and it couldn't be physical.

the forces of the Everlasting are what determine physical nature, whether physical or spiritual they may both be the same.

.

 

[Boss]

But if no civilization has existed devoid of spirituality (which seems very likely to me) then how can you have any idea that a civilization without spirituality is guaranteed to collapse? You have no experience, no data, to base that claim on.

Because every civilization which has abandoned spirituality has failed in short order.

Then you are saying there have been civilizations devoid of spirituality.

These contradictory statements do not help make your point.

Or are you only talking about spirituality promoted by the state?

Is it possible for you to post once without being an obtuse ass? No, there have never been civilizations devoid of spirituality, that's why none of you have ever named a single one. The closest thing to that has been civilizations which abandoned spirituality, and they failed in short order. Now would like some crayons or a jello cup, maybe a dose of Ritalin?

 

[Boss]

... even though you should rationally know that something must have created physical nature and it couldn't be physical.

the forces of the Everlasting are what determine physical nature, whether physical or spiritual they may both be the same.

.

Except that the physical, we know, is finite and not everlasting.

 

[Hollie]

Sheer ignorance of the universe. There was a Big Bang... when it happened, it created time and therefore, physical reality. Nothing physical caused it because nothing physical existed. There was no time space for anything physical to exist in. Without time, there is no physical reality or existence, it means nothing. Time is created by the expanding physical universe.

God is part of nature, God is spiritual nature. Not physical. God can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. Your ignorance is in presuming there is nothing other than physical nature, when we know this can't be true because something had to cause the creation of physical nature for it to exist.

Sorry, bossy. Wrong again/as usual. The Big Bang was preceded by the singularity as far as science has determined. The singularity was a physical object.

It's actually comical to read your comments as they immediately self- refute.

You opine/whine: "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. "

If things can't create themselves, what created your gawds?

It's an old argument that leads the supernaturalist to screech, "the gawds are eternal and un-created". So just revise your whining to revise "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. ".... Excepting that the gawds get special dispensations because they're supernatural, magical and....because I say so"

Sorry, but nope... not wrong. There could be no physical object before the Big Bang created the time space for a physical object to exist. Physical is a state which requires time to exist. Without time, nothing physical can exist or be real because there is no physical reality.

Nothing had to create God. Creation is something which applies to physical things. The spiritual isn't created, it doesn't exist physically so there is no need for it to be created. You're trying to apply physical standards to something spiritual and when I correct your error, you're screaming "special dispensation!" Your brain is unable to comprehend something beyond physical nature, even though you should rationally know that something must have created physical nature and it couldn't be physical.

You're not paying attention. Obviously something existed before the Big Bang and that something was a singularity.

And as expected, you continue to require special pleadings for your gods because you feel that supernaturalism and magic are except from the standards of reason and rationality.

As usual, boss has to invoke "special dispensations" for his argument -- i.e., one must assume as true the point that boss is trying to make, which is there is a supernatural cause behind all of this, to support the assertion that there is a supernatural cause behind all of this. Once again, begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.

But hey, boss, why let facts and evidence cloud your decision making.

 

[Hollie]

Because every civilization which has abandoned spirituality has failed in short order.

Then you are saying there have been civilizations devoid of spirituality.

These contradictory statements do not help make your point.

Or are you only talking about spirituality promoted by the state?

Is it possible for you to post once without being an obtuse ass? No, there have never been civilizations devoid of spirituality, that's why none of you have ever named a single one. The closest thing to that has been civilizations which abandoned spirituality, and they failed in short order. Now would like some crayons or a jello cup, maybe a dose of Ritalin?

Such an angry boss. You're continually confused. You confuse fear and superstition with your inventions of "spiritual nature". As it had been pointed out to you, some civilizations and cultures invented various conceptions of natural objects representing their fears and superstitions regarding events and circumstances they didn't understand.

Anthropologists would call this sympathetic magic, which is the ascription of magical properties to everyday acts and objects in an effort to control ones environment.

 

[Hollie]

And here it is again, airhead... There has been NO culture or civilization devoid of spirituality. It's difficult to give you an example of something collapsing that never has existed to begin with.

But if no civilization has existed devoid of spirituality (which seems very likely to me) then how can you have any idea that a civilization without spirituality is guaranteed to collapse? You have no experience, no data, to base that claim on.

Because every civilization which has abandoned spirituality has failed in short order.

Identify those civilizations for us. And, make sure you identify a direct cause and affect relationship between abandoning "spirituality" and the failure "in short order" of that civilization.

 

[Mephisto]

And here it is again, airhead... There has been NO culture or civilization devoid of spirituality. It's difficult to give you an example of something collapsing that never has existed to begin with.

hold on! your definition of spirituality is razor thin.
you are ignoring the elephant in the room.. more cultures have collapsed OR been destroyed BECAUSE OF SPIRTUALITY than all the other causes combined.
since no culture has ever been spirituality free.. there is no way to know if it would collapse or not.

Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.

Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.

The only reason religious people are happier is the social bonding they get at church. That and ignorance is bliss.

I grew up Catholic, wife grew up Luthern. I did 12 years of CCD...have not stepped foot in a church for mass since our wedding.

 

[GISMYS]

hold on! your definition of spirituality is razor thin.
you are ignoring the elephant in the room.. more cultures have collapsed OR been destroyed BECAUSE OF SPIRTUALITY than all the other causes combined.
since no culture has ever been spirituality free.. there is no way to know if it would collapse or not.

Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.

Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.

The only reason religious people are happier is the social bonding they get at church. That and ignorance is bliss.

I grew up Catholic, wife grew up Luthern. I did 12 years of CCD...have not stepped foot in a church for mass since our wedding.

YES!!! SATAN IS A LIAR AN THE FATHER OF LIARD! and you??

 

[Montrovant]

Because every civilization which has abandoned spirituality has failed in short order.

Then you are saying there have been civilizations devoid of spirituality.

These contradictory statements do not help make your point.

Or are you only talking about spirituality promoted by the state?

Is it possible for you to post once without being an obtuse ass? No, there have never been civilizations devoid of spirituality, that's why none of you have ever named a single one. The closest thing to that has been civilizations which abandoned spirituality, and they failed in short order. Now would like some crayons or a jello cup, maybe a dose of Ritalin?

Perhaps if you made a little bit of sense, these kinds of issues wouldn't arise.

So if a society abandons spirituality, that society still has spirituality? So what, exactly, do you mean when you say societies have abandoned spirituality? They gave up spirituality, but kept spirituality? Do you mean to say they gave up outward acknowledgement of spirituality?

You said this :

Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.

Notice that you say no civilization has existed long in the absence of spirituality, which means that there have been civilizations without spirituality for at least some time.

So we have you saying civilizations have existed without spirituality, then saying no civilization has ever been devoid of spirituality, then saying civilizations have abandoned spirituality, but not been devoid of spirituality, and you think I'm the one being obtuse?

 

[Boss]

Sorry, bossy. Wrong again/as usual. The Big Bang was preceded by the singularity as far as science has determined. The singularity was a physical object.

It's actually comical to read your comments as they immediately self- refute.

You opine/whine: "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. "

If things can't create themselves, what created your gawds?

It's an old argument that leads the supernaturalist to screech, "the gawds are eternal and un-created". So just revise your whining to revise "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. ".... Excepting that the gawds get special dispensations because they're supernatural, magical and....because I say so"

Sorry, but nope... not wrong. There could be no physical object before the Big Bang created the time space for a physical object to exist. Physical is a state which requires time to exist. Without time, nothing physical can exist or be real because there is no physical reality.

Nothing had to create God. Creation is something which applies to physical things. The spiritual isn't created, it doesn't exist physically so there is no need for it to be created. You're trying to apply physical standards to something spiritual and when I correct your error, you're screaming "special dispensation!" Your brain is unable to comprehend something beyond physical nature, even though you should rationally know that something must have created physical nature and it couldn't be physical.

You're not paying attention. Obviously something existed before the Big Bang and that something was a singularity.

And as expected, you continue to require special pleadings for your gods because you feel that supernaturalism and magic are except from the standards of reason and rationality.

As usual, boss has to invoke "special dispensations" for his argument -- i.e., one must assume as true the point that boss is trying to make, which is there is a supernatural cause behind all of this, to support the assertion that there is a supernatural cause behind all of this. Once again, begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.

But hey, boss, why let facts and evidence cloud your decision making.

Obviously something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space. You keep yammering about "singularity" like you know what you're talking about, but you are an ignoramus. Singularity theorem posits the Big Bang began as singularity. This did not exist before the Big Bang, nor has it ever been theorized by any source I am familiar with. The correct answer from a science perspective is, we don't know what existed before the Big Bang because science can only deal with physical nature, which didn't yet exist. What we know is, whatever existed couldn't be physical.

It's just a little cray-cray to be asking me to demonstrate the physical existence of something that could not physically exist. As you said, it's obvious something existed before the Big Bang, and we can be certain it wasn't physical because physical did not yet exist.

 

[Boss]

Then you are saying there have been civilizations devoid of spirituality.

These contradictory statements do not help make your point.

Or are you only talking about spirituality promoted by the state?

Is it possible for you to post once without being an obtuse ass? No, there have never been civilizations devoid of spirituality, that's why none of you have ever named a single one. The closest thing to that has been civilizations which abandoned spirituality, and they failed in short order. Now would like some crayons or a jello cup, maybe a dose of Ritalin?

Perhaps if you made a little bit of sense, these kinds of issues wouldn't arise.

So if a society abandons spirituality, that society still has spirituality? So what, exactly, do you mean when you say societies have abandoned spirituality? They gave up spirituality, but kept spirituality? Do you mean to say they gave up outward acknowledgement of spirituality?

You said this :

Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.

Notice that you say no civilization has existed long in the absence of spirituality, which means that there have been civilizations without spirituality for at least some time.

So we have you saying civilizations have existed without spirituality, then saying no civilization has ever been devoid of spirituality, then saying civilizations have abandoned spirituality, but not been devoid of spirituality, and you think I'm the one being obtuse?

Yes, you are being obtuse. Trying to muddy the water with nonsense and pretending you don't understand what I have said. Name a civilization devoid of spirituality, or shut the fuck up. If you can't name one, we have to presume you don't have a legitimate argument.

Can humans live under water? No... but technically, you could throw a human under water and before they drowned, they would be living under water. This does not change the statement that humans cannot live under water. It's an obtuse, and franky immature way, of avoiding a fact. Grow the fuck up and debate like an adult please.

 

[sealybobo]

Nonsense. You have yet to cite a single solitary example of a predominantly Atheist country or society. These visions of Utopian Atheist society are delusions running around in your empty little head that do not exist and never have.

I didn't say predominately atheist societies, since there aren't any. I said societies with a large number of atheists.

Then you are still talking about predominately spiritual nations. Case closed.

For those of you who said Hitler was an atheist. First of all, you all shut up when I asked you for proof that German's in 1940 were majority atheists. Anyways, I was reading something and I saw this:

Having lived in Germany and extensively interviewed many (now elderly) former members of Hitler's Nazi Party for a book I was writing on the religion of the Nazis, I can say categorically that Hitler had (or at least his people believed he had) a Vision. It was a vision of a world at peace (for 1000 years, no less), a world purified of disruptive or "undesirable" people, a world united in what Hitler called "A New Christianity," a world where things worked smoothly and people were happy because of "strong, steady leadership" (even during times of change), a world guided by a leader who held tenaciously to a singular vision.

Trust me, people do not need to believe in god(s). Completely unnecessary. In fact I would argue harmful. The Kings 5000 years ago made that shit up to tell their slaves. Did you see 12 years a slave? Watch it. The Master is reading the bible to his slaves and the messages he was trying to get to sink in was honor/respect your master. The Pharoh/Slave Master/Kings were our gods back then. They made it up. Or they took the idea that people 1000's of years earlier made up and refined it/tweeked it to suit their purposes.

Same as the old testament. They didn't buy into the Egyptian religion, they made their own up. The greeks made up Hercules and Zeus. If you want to say your proof of god is the fact that we instinctively made it up, well we made up a lot of things that don't exist. Ghosts for example or demons or angels or witches or vampires. Yea that's it. There must be a Dracula because we couldn't have made that up.

The old testament has too many holes so religion had to evolve with the times so it was time to come up with the new testament. I don't know how the jews stay with the old testament. Actually they don't. They eat shellfish and they don't do eye for an eye anymore.

The Greek gods and the Egyptian gods didn't last forever. Neither did Rome. Neither will America and neither will christianity Europe is enlightened and I don't know how America will continue to keep the red states so damn ignorant. But I see there are always religious shows on tv. Crazy preachers, ministers and rabbi's. They'll keep trying and I'm sure there will always be people who want religion. Probably the majority like always will be the masses. And maybe we do need god to keep them from starting a revolution. Maybe I should shut up about the fact that there probably is no god.

P.S. I did say sorry to god today if he exists. I said I would come here and admit it. My brain says there is no god but if there is, I don't want to disrespect him. Just people who claim to know him. He don't know you! That'd be like a whale in the ocean caring about a Tardigrade.