You’re going to hell for degrading god to a pile of noodles. Have fun burning for an eternity. -Erik Vavro
Connect
Contribute
The Church of the FSM is always looking for content. Details here
Support the Cause
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase the Gospel
Purchase from
Amazon.com
Purchase from BN.com
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
Give
Propaganda Buttons
Add these buttons to your site:
Miscellaneous
Bobby's Blog
Contact Bobby: Contact Me
And you can’t use the word “true” or the word “truth” or any related word in your definition of reality.
To clarify a few things, here are my opinions in a nutshell:
Fiction > Reality
Religion > Nonreligion
Chaos > Order
Darkness Stasis
Love > Fear
Linux > Mac > Windows
Cake > Pie
Brownies Good Prose > Mediocre Comics > Mediocre Prose
Neil Gaiman > Alan Moore > God
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Varthonai
Hi, there are some confusions of communications here. I was trying to respond to ‘trick who said
Quote ” A moral action is an action that is logically concluded to achieve the maximum cumulative happiness for all living things within our realm of knowledge, using our most up to date information an analysis of the subject for which the moral is defined”
unquote
I know I could have been more clear, sorry.
I was trying to put forth the intuition that killing one person to save two was not the right thing to do. As is your intuition
I know time is precious but maybe you would have time to take a look at my post off my name (click) page and then pick ‘why be moral?’. I’m not trying to be authortative or dogmatic but want to put forth what I think is the best conjecture of what is meant when someone says something is right or wrong. It’s really a semantic thesis. It might look different but take a look first because I think it makes sense and if you want to find a counter example, I’ll work hard to find a modification of my thesis or try to show why it’s not really a reasonable counter-example
But look first, please. I don’t want to come off as authoritarian and the view is clearly up for grabs against criticism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Varthonai
Now, second question:
“What is reality?”
An interesting question and I haven’t given a lot of thought to it but let me try. I went to dictionary.com and picked the one I thought was appropriate. So let’s start there,maybe
Def of Reality:The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence
Seems right, but then it’s tempting to go further. What is existence? Well we see where this is going. Got to stop some place. Some terms are really undefined. If you go to the dictionary looking for ‘exist’ you get in a pretty short loop.
I remember a story about a professor who was told that he couldn’t prove that he was in the real world. He declared ‘I refute that thusly’, with one big stomp of his foot. Maybe that was a proof, but of course he could have been dreaming he was stomping his foot.
Physical reality is a bit easier to define, I believe. To be physical means to be involved in causal relationships with things. So we can infer if a caused b that the event a was existent and the event b existed. Some philosophy of science types believe that events are the existent things, not objects, but that’s an aside.
For the most part we can define what physically exists as those objects that Physics studies. There is a bit of circularity here too and maybe in future Physics atoms will not be said to exist but maybe strings instead and atoms are some sort of artificial construct. At that point strings would be said to be the existent physical things. Actually there is a lot to be said about this, now that I think about it, we could probably write a book on reality.
:-)
So I’ll stop here on that or I’ll go on forever.
Back to about existence in general, Quine wanted to hold that to be existent is to be an object in a theory that we subscribe to, and many go for this view. So for instance, ask yourself “Is there an integer between 2 and 4?” If you weren’t talking to a philosophy you would not hesitate to say “yes”. So THERE IS a number between 2 and 4, therefore The number 3 EXISTS.
Of course we don’t mean it physically exists but it is an object in a sublanguage that we speak so it is part of a reality that we subscribe to. I’ll stop almost here because if I don’t, like I say, I’ll go on forever, with one small addition. I believe that this is what makes the anselm argument for the existence of god so interesting, for if it were valid it might make god on par maybe with numbers or concepts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Great. Immaturity of yours is welcome!
Burning in hell is what happens to me if I believe in God, he’s not much better.
God is a spirit, like a puff of air, he’s food in our religion.
Anyway God is not FSM.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
YAY it’s opposite day today!
I’m going to yawroN. :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cogito ergo sum. I cant believe that reality, even its objectivity, are being debated here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Erik – I look forward to it, at least it’ll be warmer than where i am at present and there’ll be intelligent conversation
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I’ve always wanted to go to Norway…”
.
Stavanger is the Seventh Circle.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.stavanger-web.com/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
While enjoying your eternity in Hell, don’t forget to visit these places of Ill Repute:
.
http://www.stavanger-web.com/touristinfo/pubs.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All good pirates need a place to lodge while in Hell, here is a good one (I re3commend it highly):
.
http://www.radissonsas.com/cs/Satellite/Page/RadissonSAS/Page/rsasLocation/1053434513428/en/hotelCode–svgza/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hm… couldnt we also see if we could move hell? I mean, Norway is beautiful and all, but its cold… I’m part Russian, but I hate the cold. Cant we make Norway the cold part of hell and some place like… I dunno, Barbados, the hot part of hell? This whole “I’m going to Norway when I die” thing is really getting me down.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Warmth (Caribbean)=Heaven
.
Cold (Norway)=Hell
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
LOL, hotel link was broken here it is:
.
http://www.radisson.com/hoteldirectory/hotelbio.jsp?hotelCode=SVGZA&origin=Hotel%20Directory&backURI=%2Freservation%2FhotelPreference.do
.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DreadPirateBen
“Norway is beautiful and all, but its cold…”
But there’ll be a big warm fire won’t there?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes but you need to be carefull or else you get burned in hell.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Debauchry in hell:
.
http://www.herlige-restauranter.com/Webdesk/netblast/pages/index.html?id=77664
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@bill
I am no so sure killing one person to save two people is not the most moral action. This makes a general assumption that we can assign “value” to particular people to even propose we can logically conclude it to be a moral action (assigning “value” is very difficult if not impossible). What about killing one person to save a million lives? What if that one person was the one person to find a cure for cancer, and in essence would save more than a million lives if we did not kill him/her. Ultimately, to kill any person, and for it to be moral, we would have to conclude the current and future value of that person does not override the current morality of killing him/her. It will always be an immoral action to kill a person, but there are degrees of morality. It may be (if we can logically conclude value), that it would be a larger immoral action NOT to kill that person. There are both moral/immoral actions, as well as moral/immoral inactions. Though this might seem cruel, it could possibly be the better of two evils.
.
If we COULD concluded that killing this person would achieve the maximum cumulative happiness for all living things, it could be the more moral action if not killing the person causes more harm than the actual killing of that person. The problem is actually being able to conclude that that is the case…. is very difficult if not impossible (in this scenerio).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@’trick
Hi ‘trick. You’ve made some interesting points and it gives me an opportunity to say some things I find of interest. If we take my theory of ethics seriously then we can see the problem of killing one person to save two as a moral dilemma. A moral dilemma is where there are two or more moral principles in conflict. On the one hand, using one person as an instrument for good is not treating that person as a person, i.e. is not respectful. On the other hand we have the saving of lives, an act of kindness and caring.
My thesis is that there is no objective way to decide the ‘right’ thing to do when these principles truly conflict. You have what are called incommensurables, impossible to measure or compare. But the decision you make determines the kind of person that you are. So, if you would kill the one to save the two, then this says something about how much kinder you are than respectful. If you would not kill the one to say the two, then you would rate higher as a respectful person and not as high on kindness. Your choice about what kind of person you want to be is your choice
But there are other issues. For when you look at a problem like this in terms of a utilitarian view, maximizing value, you can’t narrow your focus to merely this simple consequence, you must also take into consideration all of the effects of your action. Assume for a minute your incarceration is not of issue. You can ask things like, if someone sees you do this would it make them more likely to do something similar in a similar situation. Furthermore, you might ask if it undermines peoples sense of security to realize that there are people who would kill them if they thought it would save a couple of lives. In terms of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, one might not like the kill 1 save 2 choice. But as you point out, there is some number like maybe kill 1 to save 10000 where almost everyone will be on board.
Ursula LeGuin argues differently in a short story called ‘The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas’ She posits a idealize society, where everyone is happy but one person, one constantly tortured miserable person, who did nothing wrong. But for some reason because he is tortured, the rest of the society is perfect, happy and healthy. Anyway, it’s a good read.
We might also ask if you would want everyone to be of the mind to kill one to save two. For it’s hard to defend the position that you should do it but that you wouldn’t want to see everyone doing it. If you complicate it with the different values that could be given to different lives, like maybe an American life is worth 10 Iraqi lives? Or one of our guys (whatever your country) is worth 10 of their guys, then again you might have a principle that you would not want universally adopted. I knew a guy once who said that he would kill 10,000 Iraqis to save one American life. I don’t usually say this sort of thing but I told him that was insane.
And the final point is about happiness being the main value. Take a thought experiment where suppose everyone would be a lot happier if we could lower everyone’s IQ by 20 pts. I know it’s hard to imagine but suppose it were true. You know, ignorance is bliss? Or suppose we could put everyone in the Matrix leading perfectly healthy and happy and imaginary lives. Would we want to do that? Would you want to be hooked up like that, if you didn’t know afterwards you were hooked up, but you’d be happy? Your choice. I’m just trying to argue here that we may have more than the one value of happiness. Anyway, I hope you find this interesting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
bill,
You make some interesting points youself, however, the only reason it is a moral dilemma is because we do NOT (can not) have all of the facts for us to make a logical decision. I propose that if we could have all the facts and make a clearcut logical assessment as to the happiness for the now and the future, that there really is no dilemma at all. If it is KNOWN that not killing a person is a cause of more sadness, grief, pain, or other negative effects, than killing the person and all of its consequences, then our inaction becomes an action of immorality.
.
The reason I choose “happiness” is that I believe everything we do, we do because that is what will give us the most happiness. See my other view: http://www.tricksplace.com/views/004-Our_Selfish_Selves.pdf
.
We might not voluntarily decrease IQ or place people into The Matrix because we might believe that it would not make us happier. Then again there are people who do mind altering drugs because they are not happy in their real life and this alternative makes them happy (but usually not in the long run…which should be looked at as well). You bring up an interesting point because I know I would not want my IQ decreased to be happier. (However) I think this is due to my belief that logic and critical thinking makes me happy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Keep in mind that I am totally agreeintg with you that it is a moral dilemma, but that does not take away from my point as to how a moral should come about. Some morals we just cannot come to given our lack of information on the subject. These are the ones that we should not come to an absolute conclusion on based on our “feelings” of the subject.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@’trick
I understand where you are coming from. You are committed to Utilitarianism and thus believe that that all of my concerns i.e. integrity, respect and kindness can all ultimately be reduced to the greatest value for the greatest number. Others have maintained similar things. Kant thought that all of these could be reduced to respect, and he had different ways of expressing this. Others think that it all has to do with keeping your contracts with individuals and humanity in general, in other words integrity.
And any of these might really be the case. In fact they might all be the case, which would make them commensurable after all.
But until that time when we can see how they reduce (which we cannot fully see now), for the sake of action we may have to treat them as if they cannot be reduced. That is when considering an action in the real world now we might want to ask ourselves all these questions. What would be the kind thing to do, what would be the honorable thing to do, what would be the most respectful thing to do? All these questions may give us a deeper insite into the nuances of the decision than just asking the question, what’s the action with the greatest outcome? As you suggested we will not really be able to see what action has the greatest outcome because we will likely always be in at least a partial state of ignorance.
So until the day when we can show that all of these are reducible to one of them, or something else, we have to behave as if there were irreducible.
Besided when people say something is wrong, the can usually easily trace it to the breaking of one of the 3 principles, or 4 principles if they are religious.
Also, you didn’t quite address my question with its presupposition. If you could lower your IQ by 20 points and know you would be happier, would you? You avoided the question directly by saying if you lowered your IQ by 20 points you wouldn’t be happier, denying the premise of the question. But consider that tomorrow you found out you are wrong and you would in fact be happier, if you lowered your IQ 20 or 30 or 40 pts. Maybe you wouldn’t be solving problems but you see that there is something else you would get much more satisfaction from. I don’t believe you would do it, even if you were certain because you have more values than happiness that you want to keep.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with you for the most part.
.
As for the IQ question, the ONLY reason I would not do it is because truth makes me happy. Such as in The Matrix, I would rather know the truth and live in the world that was not so great, as the truth makes me happy. If this was NOT the case, in a scenerio where truth, logic, intellegence, and critical thinking was not important to me, why wouldn’t I choose the less IQ? The only reason I wouldn’t is that these factors ARE important to me and the type of happiness that I wish to obtain. Since your scenerio would have to take these factors (and a mutitude of others) out of the equation for it to be applicable, if it did…there is No reason for me NOT to do it for my own happiness. The reason you do not believe I would is because you probably believe you would not. But I assure you, the reasoning that you would not has to do with your own idea of what you prefer for your own happiness. You need to take those completely out of the equation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The values that you talk about would all fall under the umbrella of what makes you happy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘trick
O.K. I understand your thesis but the only thing you have said to counter my thesis and my reasons is that it disagrees with your thesis. So, then, it’s natural for me to ask:What are your reasons?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wasn’t countering your thesis. I like your thesis. Yours seems to delve more into the psychology of the topic and the why. I was just offering my point of view on the subject. I think the two are compatible to a degree. What do you think? Incompatible?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘trick
I think it depends
If your thesis is that ultimately all the things that I mentioned are reducible to or founded upon the belief that these principles bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number, then certainly they are compatible. But when you show me how, I would then have to change my view that three are incommensurable.
Some have even claimed that the reason God created his commandments is because he sees them as a way that leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
I was arguing once with someone who claimed that God’s commandment against homosexual acts was because he cared for us and that homosexual acts are unhealthy. He was talking about male homosexual acts mostly and we didn’t get much further on that because we couldn’t agree on whether it was unhealthy or not.
But even thou he thought god was also against female homosexual acts, he couldn’t come up with a health reason.
I should expose you, if you aren’t already familiar with it, to the difference between rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism, next post
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@’trick
Utilitarianism breaks down into many different kinds. Some hold that it only applies to your own good and others claim it is over all good for all human beings, or all lifeforms. In general the thesis is that the rightness or wrongness of an act depends only upon the goodness or badness of the consequences. In your case, you equate goodness or badness with happiness or unhappiness. The hedonist utilitarian uses pleasure or displeasure. There has been a lot written upon the relation of pleasure to happiness.
Anyway, an act utilitarian is contrasted with the rule-utilitarian. The rule utilitarian claims we should follow the rule that will lead to the best consequences if everyone were to follow the rule.
You seem to be stating your view from the act utilitarian point of view. There are difficulties both views, but of course, there are difficulties with all views (except mine of course, hehe).
One problem with both forms of utilitarianism is that we have a hard time or even impossible time trying to come up with how good any act is. After all, we have to consider not just the happiness of the people around us, but how it will affect future generations maybe thousands of years into the future, assuming humanity makes it that long, or other life forms. The butterfly effect compounds the uncertainty. It can be shown that if you know all the positions of all the atoms around the earth and can predict the weather a month down the line, that the neglecting of a single butterfly flapping his wings in south america may throw off your calculations to miss a hurricane in north america a month later. Small changes can make big differences and uncertainty compounds.
Secondly, by utilitarianism every act you ever do is thus a moral act, because every act has potential for good and bad. This seems counter intuitive
The special problem with act utilitarianism is that it does not easily account for why not keeping your promises, (for example) is considered wrong.
If you’ve made a promise then in the specific circumstance you can always ask, is it better if I keep this promise or break it and this will lead to breaking the promise more often than if we didn’t even think about it.
And finally its not clear whether you really want people out there calculating what they think is the act that will bring about the greatest good. It’s way to easy to see how they can be wrong and ultimately bring about more suffering because of it.
The rule-utilitarian may be able to justify why we should keep our promises, but has other problems. Suppose you are in a situation where you know that if you keep your promise then it will likely result in a negative consequence.
So anyway, that’s the drift of how the argument generally goes, and the most problematic part is there doesn’t seem to be a way to show that utilitarianism must be true. It get’s posited and adopted but the principle itself is never well justified. There have been tries, but it is generally accepted that the justifications fail.
I hope you find this interesting. If you do there is a lot of literature on it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘trick
One more thing, I don’t think my thesis is a psychological one as much as it is a semantical one. The foundation starting at the question “what do people mean to say when they say an act is right or wrong?” Just like “what to people mean to convey when they say that ‘X is a bachelor’?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ah..tis the reason the moral should be “logically concluded” in my opinion (and not faith based). Really that is what my view is about the most, why morals that come about through religion can be most flawed because they are static beliefs that cannot change, where as those that come through logic can change once more information is aquired.
.
It’s funny, I had a similar debate with a religious person about it (homosexuality) being unhealthy, which he could not show why it is unhealthy as well. He referenced aids like the disease was a homosexual only one (which it is clearly not). He had also stated it to be unnatural because one cannot obtain children that way, which I had to clearly state to him what about people that just cannot have kids, people that choose not to, and birth control methods!
.
I think my beliefs more align with act-itilitarianism. I don’t list off static rules, but rather have a process to come about rules that can obviously change and are flexible. A mix of classical utilitarianism and even some negative-utilitarianism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘trick
I just opened the newspaper and found this cartoon. Seemed relevant. :-)
http://homepage.mac.com/billtomlinson/enjoy.jpg
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
On that note, I did not create my view on a specific concept of utilitarianism. If it tends to fall closely to one of those categories, that is because it is what I found to be most logical. I donot create my views around a specific influence and thus do not necessarily catagorize it as such, even if it falls within those confines.
.
Also, per your example, I do not believe “keeping a promise” to be a good moral. I see know reason why, if there is good reason and has positive effects, that not keeping the promise could be just as good. It all depends on circumstance. And, as long as they calculate what brings about the “most good” in a critical thinking/logical fashion, and do not make assumptions or come to conclusions when there is not enough evidence (in a sense be agnostic thinking in those situations, using probability as a method), I see know reason why good morals would not come about. Maybe you are thinking, because people would not do that (or find ways around it), that this concept is too idealistic. I might agree with that, but not less founded or less logical if processed correctly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@trick
I don’t think a rule utilitarian believes he has a list of static rules, but rather he has a process for dicovering those rules. The best judgement as to what those rules are at any time can change. The process of discovering the rules might be a long one. They would claim however that the rules that you ultimately come to at the end if they are clearly shown to bring about more good than bad are the rules we should be following.
But anyway, it’s about the rules for acts, not acts themselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hehheh…nice cartoon. On to my next view about animal rights :D
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well…if the process is using logic with it’s many facetts then I fall into rule utilitarian. From what I read about it on wikipedia, I still think seem to align more closely with act-utilitarianism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘trick
I’m not terribly happy with wikipedia’s definitions of act and rule utilitarianism. The first definition confuses pleasure with happiness and the second talks about ’social value’ which is a long way from what Mills presented.
You might want to see something a little more in depth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@bill
Ah yes…the more I look into it…the more I think I align closer to rule-utilitarianism, and I would argue that the rules can be enumerated very specifically. I do see some of the problems; however, even with the problems, it still seems to be the most logical way given the alternatives (ie. using intuition).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@’trick
Intuition is not the only alternative but I can see why you dismiss it.
I don’t believe in anything like a moral intuition that you are born with. Moral intuition is a function of the society you grow up in and are taught by. But all societies have to survive and this narrows down the ‘moral intuitions’ that a society would have to have. Otherwise the society would have died out and nothing would have been passed on.
However, individual intuitions vary greatly. Some have the moral intuition that being gay is wrong, for instance. While others have exactly the opposite intuition. This is the main problem with the ‘intuition’ notion. What do you do when intuitions conflict, which they often do?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
X-actly!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hei just in response of the “hell”-convictions.
Not only because you mock the Creator, but because of other sins to, every person is doomed to die. The saddest part is that most people don’t care if they’ll die in the end. I wonder if these people enjoy this life on earth so much, that they are satisfied already.
I can imagine this way of appeciating life is the result of contintinuously being confronted with the disappointments in this life. Simultaniously you want to blindfold yourself from the truth, just because the pain would be unbearable if you realise the misery of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“degrading god to a pile of noodles”
i like it. nobody ever put it so nicely for me.
O-argh
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am asking to the creator of FSM: “Aren’t all religions evil?” I agree they are, and I am a christian. Certainly I believe in the gospel, but I consider it to be not a religion, but merely the truth. Maybe someone told you already, but the message of Jesus is unique in this way He is representing God Who has the most profound love for His creation. “Why?” you would ask: Because His love for us is proven in the ACT of love. He has given us the outcome of this worlds tragedy by sacrificing Himself. Wich of gods would do that? We even couldn’t imagine a God so great, that He would bear the humiliation for our salvation, even though, do you find it in your heart this Act is normal? When you love your children, you would give your live for them.
Now, for the MOST IMPORTANT MESSAGE OF GOD: aside of the fact He has made it possible for us to be saved in therms of FACT, there is the FAITH part as well.
Listen people, please take my Word, God is speaking through me, just consider and think it over and over:
“My Loving God has given to ALL the promise of the ultimate Life. No pain, no fear, no wars, no sickness, no death, no guilt because of no sin. HE HAS GIVEN YOU THE KEY TO HEAVEN FOR FREE, so that we would never fail to have the courage to grasp our chance even though we are sinning. And because of this KEY, a child of God is capable in overcoming his sin in life, at least to a certain point. God does not expect us to be perfect at the end of the road, for there ’s a new beginnig what so ever when this world has come to and end. For who believes God is this trustful Love, this creature will inherit a perfect life in the afterlife. But who has heard this Gospel of Truth and has not excepted Gods Love and Salvation, this creature is pride and does not want to admit to God that sin is ruling the world. For this creature is also agreeing to this evil world to be satisfactory still, he is a child of the devil and like to do whatever his father wants him to do. He rather wants the lie than the truth, for his father is the father of lie and no truth will ever be in him.
So when you FSM-herd are considering a better life approaching, just recall this Word and don’t denie the truth. God offers you salvation for free, just check the bible! Don’t listen to all that false learnings of the bible, find out for yourself if there is real LOVE excisting. I know every human heart is crying out for such a love, but we are all afraid to be dissappointed. Don’t be, and keep on having the good faith “Everything is gonna be allright!”. And if you see the world can’t make this happening, just take my Word, for He is God, and He is the Lamb of God, He is Truth and the Good Shepherd!
1 John 4:11
“And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.”
And I’m telling you: Not because of my goodness, or love or what ever good intention I would have, but only because of His LOVE for me, I KNOW I will live an real live in the future. This is my HOPE, it is profound and steady als a Rock, because I have received the CERTAINTY that God has given me by His Word, for His Word and Promise is never to be doubted.
God saves!
Bless u all, children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Raf:
Baaaaaaahh, Baaaaaaaahh. (translation: I’ll stick with this herd thank you)
And I’m not a child, haven’t been for a while now. That’s the problem with your faith: it basically says I know what’s good for you just listen to me. I’ll think for myself thank you.
*
FSM rules!
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Have nice Bull for sale. Buy Bull. Buy Bull. Get your nice Bull here. Special price today only. Buy Bull here
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmm..can get sheep too if want..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RE:Raf. It’s amazing how far a little ignorance can get you. God speaks through Raf. 2000 years ago he may have been seen as a Prophet, unfortunately for him, those times have passed and he has merely become little more than a madman in dire need of electro-shock therapy.
.
As to the original post, surely telling Atheists they will burn in Hell is ultimately pointless as Atheists believe in neither Heaven nor Hell.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Raf – I know you sincerely believe in your “Sky Fairy” – but I am sorry, he doesn’t exist – in a way I am glad the belief makes you feel strong and happy, but ultimately it is a delusion, and I would rather have the truth and make the most of life as it is, warts and all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Rafs nurse
Could you kindly cut the ‘mind-broadening’ medication you have been giving your patient. I think his mind needs to clear up before you allow him back on the internet.
One thousand living-your-life-by-a-fairy-tale penalty points to Raf.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Raf – are you going to come back or are you just teasing me :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Alchemist
Don’t hold your breath for a response, the staff at his mental ward probably found out about his posts and have strapped him to his bed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0