belief with proof

@tseirpeht dont be offended, im a curios person, I do this out of curiosity and will use answers on this site to write a paper. I think I am allowed to study the human mind am I not? it is not a question of putting members down, im asking opinions we each have our opinions, if you find it insulting please refer to the questions about atheists you will also find christian members trying to put down atheists and nonbelievers of christ… I do not need god, he was never there, I was a believer once too… and thus do not need your blessing, you can damn me to hell if you will and nothing will happen

@alkane yes its the sentence, you phrased it perfectly sorry didnt tell you O_o copyright??? :P

To assume that he feels superior is to do wrong by him (not all that holy dude, lol). If he thinks he is correct, that doesn’t mean he is looking at himself as being superior or anything. He is referring to a hypocrisy that has been used against atheists and agnostic people. For you to judge him as some form of ideological supremacist is to do him wrong, so I don’t think you need to be praying for him tseirpeht, lol.

I agree that we can believe in anything we want. Obviously alkane is a religious person and he has made no attempt to put-down your opinion, etc. That’s an opinion I can respect :)! We are all entitled to have our own beliefs. If we believe that evolution is the reality of our existence, then that is up to us as individuals. For someone who ‘believes’ in God to say ‘believing’ in evolution is wrong, is in fact wrong himself/ herself.

Personally I believe in the theory of evolution and I believe the scientific evidence/ merit for it is there. If someone wishes to believe otherwise, then it is entirely up to him/ her and I will not try to start a conflict. I believe in freedom of choice here. We should be able to believe in anything; it is how we act on those beliefs that matters :).

It’s called being agnostic…in order to believe something, you have to have proof of it’s existance. Otherwise it’s just religion.

Why do so many people not understand Agnosticism? O_o

Evolution = Everything was made from nothing, and Nothing became Everything?

Religion = Everything was made by God, and through the Word of God, Everything became Something…

Personally I’m a Christian and I believe there is plenty of proof behind what I believe, it’s just most people don’t know where to look for it or how to…

That’s my exact, exact line from an answer on another question!!! (lol)

I don’t doubt evolution, at all. I just prefer the belief in God over science.

I TOTALLY agree! Lol. It’s called being agnostic…in order to believe something, you have to have proof of it’s existance. Otherwise it’s just religion.

I agree totally!

and yes I think you can believe in evolution like you can believe in god well atleast I beleive in evolution. The only thing different is evolution is a theory and doesnt have the religion label…and like evolution still leaves the question of when and why did evolution start and who started it? you know so its like a religion with no beginning if that makes any sence. lol

You can not expect to find G-d without looking for him. Sometimes “seeing” something isn’t all its cracked up to be. The reason that I believe you do not see G-d is because your words close your heart. Look at yourself you have such a hatred for religion that you insult its members in efforts to convince yourself of your own superiority. Or are you trying to bait a response? Well the difference between you and I is that I love you enough to pray for you, and there are no words that you can ever say to stop me.

G-d bless you because I think that you need it more then you know.

*“you talk nonsense, he doesnt answer needed prayers or hunger wouldnt exist or deaths or anything bad…

so you are wrong…”

OK This is the mindset that many people make the mistake of having, now im going to try to state my opinion without offending anyone, but this is the most overused and ignorant statement anyone can ever make. World Hunger, Deaths and “Bad Things” are the problem of MEN. Sure, God created man, but Men made the evils that are on Earth, because we have ultimate control of our destiny and we are choosing to fck it up and you CANNOT blame that on God.Just because your parents made you does not mean you can hold them responsible for the mistakes you make, so why blame God for OUR mistakes. God presents us with oppertunities, and it is OUR decision to do the right thing, or the wrong thing. Everyone has a conscience, and they can go with it or against it, God isn’t going to stand behind you and slap your hand every time YOU make a mistake, he is not a babysitter.And prayers are not a wishing well. God isnt there to wait hand and foot to suit YOUR needs, he dies for your sins and now he has to grant you wishes? Clearly you need to read a little bit more on religion and God before you criticize it, and I say that with absolutely no intentions of being btchy or rude. And another thing is that the bible nor christianity contradict Evolution, you can beleive in God and evolution, hell you could even say that GOD created Evolotion himself.

I personally agree with Mr. Albert Einstein in saying that “God does not do evil things, evil is the absence of God, as darkness is the absence of light”.

And in my opinion, there are faithful souls, and there are corrupt souls, heck, his right hand man ended up being the very representation of Evil and God put us on this Earth to filter out the good souls from the bad, God and Evil at war, and those of us that fall under corruption I.e. Athiests or whatever, will not be able to join God in the ultimate perfect, utopia we refer to as Heaven. Now im not saying that you will go to hell, or a “firey” lake, because personally I dont really believe in “hell”, or at least the one I am taught, but you just wont go to Heaven. Once again let me MAKE THIS CLEAR I am not trying to offend anyone, and I hope I did not. I have nothing against athiest, I belive in the right to believe in your own thing and do your own thing, im just stating my opinion*.thanks =]

no it doesnt make sense if god is absent in his decision to do bad then he isnt there at all… hes supposed to be everywhere so really its his fault ^_^ this make sense?

*“you talk nonsense, he doesnt answer needed prayers or hunger wouldnt exist or deaths or anything bad…

so you are wrong…”

OK This is the mindset that many people make the mistake of having, now im going to try to state my opinion without offending anyone, but this is the most overused and ignorant statement anyone can ever make. World Hunger, Deaths and “Bad Things” are the problem of MEN. Sure, God created man, but Men made the evils that are on Earth, because we have ultimate control of our destiny and we are choosing to fck it up and you CANNOT blame that on God.Just because your parents made you does not mean you can hold them responsible for the mistakes you make, so why blame God for OUR mistakes. God presents us with oppertunities, and it is OUR decision to do the right thing, or the wrong thing. Everyone has a conscience, and they can go with it or against it, God isn’t going to stand behind you and slap your hand every time YOU make a mistake, he is not a babysitter.And prayers are not a wishing well. God isnt there to wait hand and foot to suit YOUR needs, he dies for your sins and now he has to grant you wishes? Clearly you need to read a little bit more on religion and God before you criticize it, and I say that with absolutely no intentions of being btchy or rude. And another thing is that the bible nor christianity contradict Evolution, you can beleive in God and evolution, hell you could even say that GOD created Evolotion himself.

I personally agree with Mr. Albert Einstein in saying that “God does not do evil things, evil is the absence of God, as darkness is the absence of light”.

And in my opinion, there are faithful souls, and there are corrupt souls, heck, his right hand man ended up being the very representation of Evil and God put us on this Earth to filter out the good souls from the bad, God and Evil at war, and those of us that fall under corruption I.e. Athiests or whatever, will not be able to join God in the ultimate perfect, utopia we refer to as Heaven. Once again let me MAKE THIS CLEAR I am not trying to offend anyone, and I hope I did not. I have nothing against athiest, I belive in the right to believe in your own thing and do your own thing, im just stating my opinion*.thanks =]

I totally understand what you mean “yummeh”, but as far as the quote goes, yes God is supposed to be around us, But the quote means with the absence of God in your life and the decisions you make, like for instance if a guy is contimplating on whether or not to rob a bank or something, If he does it, than he’s rejecting the word of God in that he shall not steal, therefor God is absent in his decision, does that make sense?

“A side question: So then would you consider a concept that (by belief, or in theory) exists outside our subjective universe, to be beyond or operates above the rules of quantum mechanics?”

Quantum mechanics is in essence an anarchy. It is devoid of any hard rule. It must be. It can suggest a wave of possibilities that is dependent upon a subjective mind experiencing one possibility and fixing it into reality.

My mind is limited but I can imagine a super collective-minded universe in which individual minds experience reality from every viewpoint… I can also imagine a separate reality for all individuals outside of my mind. But to imagine a world without a subjective viewpoint is to expand beyond the mental limitations of my own mind… and I am unable.

“Certainly you are acquainted with individuals OUTSIDE of those two categories…”

Assuming I am not an idealist…[in which case I couldn’t assume anymore than my mind] I am acquainted with many physicalists… The fact that their viewpoint contradicts my own would not invalidate my own. If empirical evidence precludes them from the necessary knowledge to stake a claim on the existence of a god… this would be their subjective knowledge.. differing from mine… or any unknown mind holding efficient criteria to prove or disprove god.

I can’t argue much further with the Christ analogy. It was simply based on the number of attributes one needs to establish the adherence of a philosophy. If I say that I require more pieces of information to establish a christian than to establish an agnostic… especially when the etymology of agnosticism contains at least a temporarily true statement… I don’t think I am remiss.

I missed your point… and looking back I do not feel foolish in having missed it. It was murky in my opinion… but having the previous posts to refer to I finally understood. My point being that instead of concluding that I am missing your points… first you should make every effort to establish them as clearly as possible.

“…Ah, see ‘’CANnot know’’ & ‘’the STATE of not knowing’’ supply TWO different common forms of Agnosticism… the former is absolute, the latter can be interpreted as temporal.”

Absolutism is a condition of a stagnant mind. I find it hard in distinguishing a state of not knowing that is in flux from any current conditional. One suggests that we have exhausted all avenues available to us… but it must also acknowledge unknown avenues else it would be a form of atheism. When I suggested the etymology as the definition it was with this understanding… and why I consider the simplest statement as the best because it allows for future conditionals.

By virtue of the fact that you can allow for criteria outside of our tangible states to impact your position… relates to me that you can use your mind for its intended purpose. If we only be creatures of sensation… where would civilization be now?

“The ‘absence of knowing’ focuses on the individual. An ‘absence of knowledge’ is more suited to the philosophy.”

Knowledge is subjective…and inherently different based on the personal philosophy… idealists and dualists would disagree outright with the agnostic position. Philosophy is an individual belief.

“Similar to defining a ‘Christian’ as someone who is ‘Christ-like’ …it omits the philosophies involved, and implies an grossly inaccurate (arguably impossible) oversimplified characteristic.”

I disagree with the provided counterpart. Christ had numerous works that substantiated his philosophy. To the contrary… agnosticism is founded on the principle that no position can be attained. I think it is staying with that philosophy to simplify it… this was accomplished by the etymology… and the reason I chose to reiterate.

“grossly inaccurate”… “impossible”… “oversimplified” are pejoratives.

Everything would be subjective in a subjective universe as is proposed by quantum mechanics…

A side question: So then would you consider a concept that (by belief, or in theory) exists outside our subjective universe, to be beyond or operates above the rules of quantum mechanics?

To themselves or to you? An idealist would dismiss proving anything to you because he would consider proving that you exist impossible. Dualists would be able to consider abstractions in proving god… and may be able to or not but you can do the research for their thought processes yourself… more on this later.

Certainly you are acquainted with individuals OUTSIDE of those two categories…

Positions… This is why I argued that your original comparison is unfounded.

I only used the comparison to suggest that a etymological definition is an insufficient representation of the philosophies. Not as a means of qualifying one over the other. I think the only way to accurately represent a specific system of beliefs would be to give it a value of (1) …they would ALL have a value of (1)… but I suppose from a mathematical perspective, that would accomplish nothing really.

Yeah… I did miss that point… but you must admit the articulation was suspect.

Not really… the explanation started when I commented on how your definition of Agnosticism was ‘’…an oversimplification.’’

and I think that the gist of the philosophy is in the statement that we cannot know… or the state of not knowing.

…Ah, see ‘’CANnot know’’ & ‘’the STATE of not knowing’’ supply TWO different common forms of Agnosticism… the former is absolute, the latter can be interpreted as temporal.

Sometimes, simplifying somehow paradoxically complicates things…but I DO like the way your mind works.

Actually the teachings of the Bible do conflict with the theory of evolution (and quite profoundly so). It wouldn’t take much to figure that out, lol. Adam and Eve were not Apes :P. I may be an atheist, but I certainly agree with kyra112 in that people are responsible for their own destinies (and can influence those of others for that matter). If I were a religious man, I would not pin the evils of Man on Man’s creator. However, in saying that, the context in which informer_220 used that statement justified it. Not all prayers are answered and so he is right there, but so are you.

You are right in that God will answer prayers within reason, but ultimately we are responsible for our own destinies and we are here to make use of what God has given us. If we can’t do that, it is not his responsibility to pick up the pieces for us. I believe in the empowerment of individuals (as an atheist) and so I support that philosophical aspect of certain religions. However, I do believe that some people out there are not really given a fair go. Please feel free to lecture me if my interpretation of the matter is off, lol.

As for evil being an absence of God… He is meant to be all around us (everywhere), so I can’t take that quote literally (unless he is referring to divine intervention, rather than God’s presence). Apparently God created all, in which case he created evil too. In a way, things wouldn’t work too well without it, lol.

Nice argument… kudos

if you truly look for proof of God and Evolution then you might see that God has provided proof for his belief.for some reason school are still saying evolution is real when so many scientist are saying its a lost theory with no scientific support. all of evolution is based on the origin of how earth began and what they say is some chemicals on earth in a warm pool of water formed the firsst cell, once a scientist who tried to recreate this thought he did it but later on they found out he used a chemical that didnt exist yet. a reporter who was an athist was determined to prove evolution and prove that god did not exist, after he gatherd the facts up he divided up a room with tape, one one side was proof for gods existant and the other was proof for evolution when he was done he saw evolution side was almost empty exept for little things that really didnt even prove evolution and the other was actuall proof of Gods existants, he was still determined to prove he God wsnt real until he became a christian, my point if you look for god with an open heart and mind then you really will find the truth while evolution is still scientificly a theory

golf claps

captainassassin:

It’s the definition provided by the etymology… the prefix “a” denotes the negative of the root…

Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term… and his philosophy surely plunges deeper than the concise treatment I offered… but what is the problem?

Are you suggesting that I misunderstand the philosophy or simply acknowledging that you comprehend beyond the definition I provided?

I understand that an intangible is impossible to prove… and that this subsumes the sentiment of not knowing… at least for Huxley.

Sometimes the simplest answer is the best… It is a simplification.. I disagree it oversimplifies… I would argue that it gleans the philosophy of needless words and directs the philosophical traveler to the same destination via the shortest route.

“Then you could assume that Quantum Physics is subjective as well? I consider PEOPLE to be subjective, not knowledge. And the subjectivity is by no means a constant.”

Everything would be subjective in a subjective universe as is proposed by quantum mechanics… but that is neither here nor there in this discussion because I dropped that argument in order to satisfy your logical constraints. Knowledge is subjective… truth would be objective in such a world… Knowledge would be pieces to a puzzle and they may be construed and disseminated unevenly amongst the subjects.

but in doing so you disregard those that hold alternate philosophies…

“…how so? Do you know someone who can prove or disprove the existence of deities?”

To themselves or to you? An idealist would dismiss proving anything to you because he would consider proving that you exist impossible. Dualists would be able to consider abstractions in proving god… and may be able to or not but you can do the research for their thought processes yourself… more on this later.

Positions… I suppose I am being ambiguous in my choice of words. Instead of a multiple choice imagine a set of scales… a two pan balance. We can measure ones “christness” or not by value of of like attributes being placed in one pan and dislike attributes in the opposing. We can do this by virtue of those tenets that were substantiated however they were. We can conclude that one is christ-like and document the differentiation by the difference in value. To be agnostic is to forego the scales. To announce that the only tenet is the realization that there is no need of the scales… because there is nothing to be weighed… I am not considering validity in the tenets… only the amounts one can possibly hold in the given philosophies. This is why I argued that your original comparison is unfounded.

“I attacked nothing… you missed the point again. The POINT is, the philosophies involved are much more complex than the etymology of the name suggests… in BOTH cases”…[regarding]…”Those works are ‘depictions’ of Christ, written by OTHERS. The canonized works depicting him as living a ‘perfect’ life, and being the son of God. Such accomplishments are impossible to those who practice Christianity.”

Yeah… I did miss that point… but you must admit the articulation was suspect.

I agree that both are more complex than the etymology,,, I think one must first know Christianity’s tenets in order to evaluate their measure.

The beauty of agnosticism is the simplicity… it is the default belief… it is adding no value and coming to no conclusion… it is the most scientific of philosophies. I think the etymology hit the mark… and I think that the gist of the philosophy is in the statement that we cannot know… or the state of not knowing.

Does this suggest the lack of criteria… yes… not the lack of insight. The lack of criteria is a human lacking however… we are creatures of sensation… the foresight to acknowledge that simply because we cannot observe the phenomena doesn’t mean that we should necessarily discount it is a step in the right direction. You must admit that in leaving the possibility open you then must imagine either scenario. Similar to an unopen schrodingers kitten carrier. If you discount one because it is not provable then you are de facto atheist. Thereby when you asked if I could provide you the name of one who could prove god… the answer is that in holding with your philosophy… you must imagine the possibility.

Perhaps it is subjective…

“Perhaps it isn’t…”

Seems we have nailed down the definition of “perhaps”

“…and… you missed the point again…”

Forgive me then… we are not all officer grade.

Are you suggesting that I misunderstand the philosophy or simply acknowledging that you comprehend beyond the definition I provided?

…possibly both…

The ‘absence of knowing’ focuses on the individual. An ‘absence of knowledge’ is more suited to the philosophy.

Similar to defining a ‘Christian’ as someone who is ‘Christ-like’ …it omits the philosophies involved, and implies an grossly inaccurate (arguably impossible) oversimplified characteristic.

If everything was made by god, then who made god? Is god exempt from the assumption that everything had a creator? If order cannot come from nothing, then how could god even exist? I think the better premise would be that no/thing required a creator.

I just think it’s easier for some people to think “god” created everything. Another reason I think that people wouldn’t believe in evolution is because they are ignorant of the logic and science involved.

There are also people who believe in god for emotional reasons, they just seem highly convinced of the truth of their religion. I think they’d deny the truth if it hit them in the face, if it conflicted with their beliefs.

I don’t think God is one to act against a person’s free will. I don’t think she is actually really referring to an absence of God… More like an absence of recognition of God. I think this is one of those points that actually leads into various other arguments :P. Really once again, you are both right… It would just depend on the way in which you look at it. That’s what makes these topics so much fun, lol.

uh no we’re not. first of all the only reason we don’t need proof in God is because He answers prayers but only if you need them!!! so why don’t you go and ask Him the question you just asked everybody else, and read the Bible!!!

@ jessibby255

you talk nonsense, he doesnt answer needed prayers or hunger wouldnt exist or deaths or anything bad…

so you are wrong…

Well, if you really look at it Evolution really is a Belief..No one really knows what happened…Where did God come from well it doesn’t matter really God is God…

serinaty: If being atheist is to say that everything came from nothing and being Christian is to say that everything was made by something (God), then where did God come from? If you are saying that God always existed, then that would also mean that he came from nothing, which makes your belief no less flawed than any atheist’s.

Well a lot of people refer to agnosticism as being something half way between atheism and religion. How we define agnosticism today will have a similar (or perhaps identical) meaning to the term ‘nosticism’ of the past (just after Jesus’s time). Someone who is genuinely agnostic is someone who is looking for the truth (outside of theism, etc). They will not say that God exists, nor will they say that he, she or it (lol) doesn’t. That’s what my interpretation of agnosticism is anyway :D.

Knowledge is subjective

That’s a generalization. But if you think so, then what is objective?

…and inherently different based on the personal philosophy… idealists and dualists would disagree outright with the agnostic position. Philosophy is an individual belief.

You missed the point. The core principle of Agnosticism regards the existence or non-existence of deities as UNKNOWABLE. Its not a belief that the individual ‘doesn’t know’ …but that they ‘CAN’T know’ …implying the absence of knowledge, not an absence of knowing.

Christ had numerous works that substantiated his philosophy.

Those works are ‘depictions’ of Christ, written by OTHERS. The canonized works depicting him as living a ‘perfect’ life, and being the son of God. Such accomplishments are impossible to those who practice Christianity.

To the contrary… agnosticism is founded on the principle that no position can be attained.

That in itself IS a postition. So to describe it as such is contradictory.

“grossly inaccurate”… “impossible”… “oversimplified” are pejoratives.

Perhaps if you subectively interpret them as such.

Actually serinaty, it does matter when you try to put down the theory of evolution. If you ask atheists for proof of that theory, they have equal right to ask you for the same. In my opinion the theory of evolution does have a substantial amount of supporting evidence (which does directly defy what is written in the Bible). In my opinion, God comes from the same place as the theory of evolution, but I’m not here to talk about all that, lol. Really, if you wish to suggest that the theory of evolution is a fallacy, then you will be required to present supporting evidence for your belief (that’s what arguments are about :D).

Gnosis = knowledge… agnosticism = the state of not knowing.

It is somewhat perplexing to me why agnostics and the various atheists never debate the philosophical differences in their given belief systems with each other… there are major conflicts between the philosophies… I am not sure why they are all lumped together. I’ll leave that for others to consider.

This question is being interpreted by some as a variation of the “ring” question. Here are a few more threads that delve into the impossible question… any conclusion coming down on one side or the other in the debate is hypocritical… http://www.funadvice.com/q/for_christians_do_both_scientic_believe http://www.funadvice.com/q/god_is_like_a_ring http://www.funadvice.com/q/i_dont_get_it_11799

Evolution and God aren’t mutually exclusive. evolution describes the mechanism that has driven the variations of life on earth… not the genesis of life… nor the quantum mechanics underlying those visible surface mechanics described by the theory of evolution.

“That’s a generalization. But if you think so, then what is objective?”

According to Quantum Physics… not much… but to play ball in your park I will say reality is objective… knowledge of that reality is subjective… not generalizing.

I don’t think I did miss the point. To revisit what I said… You’re relying on the acceptance of the philosophy to those that don’t. Yes… I am aware that you appoint “to know” to the individual and “knowledge” as a consistent generality independent of the individual… but in doing so you disregard those that hold alternate philosophies… such as idealists and dualists. Their criteria is not of the same set. Their measurement is not dependent upon your standards.

“Those works are ‘depictions’ of Christ, written by OTHERS. The canonized works depicting him as living a ‘perfect’ life, and being the son of God. Such accomplishments are impossible to those who practice Christianity.”

Regardless of how they were substantiated… and came to be tenets of Christianity… we do have a relative list of what they are… and why taking one position in preference over the other would weigh ones actions as more Christ-like or less Christ-like. Contrasted with the agnostic philosophy that a position is impossible to hold… this is a relatively simple concept to grasp… and in my opinion… doesn’t confuse an audience to describe a simple concept in simple terms.

You attack the philosophy instead of my contrasting its list of tenets against the lack of tenets in agnosticism… Agnosticism as a philosophy ultimately has one tenet.. that a lack of necessary information in the concrete universe precludes us from knowing whether a god exists or not. My point was that your comparison was not fair… since you did not argue the point… I assume you did not miss it.

To the contrary… agnosticism is founded on the principle that no position can be attained.

“That in itself IS a postition. So to describe it as such is contradictory.”

Nope! It is the lack of a position… and lacks the value of a positive or negative position… it is a valueless placeholder…such as zero. I am not disregarding its merit.. zero is of great merit as is acknowledging a lack of what is necessary to determine a position… but it isn’t the same… and thusly isn’t a contradiction.

“grossly inaccurate”… “impossible”… “oversimplified” are pejoratives.

“Perhaps if you subectively interpret them as such.”

Perhaps it is subjective… but your lack of illustration lends the conclusion that they are a quick and easy way of altering public opinion… as is the case when you suggest I miss your points.

Hi informer, I really know where your coming from with this question, but you know as well as I do that some folks will only say about their religion what’s been drummed into them, on the other hand others will speak of their faith, their personal beliefs of what life has taught them, religion and faith are two different things, I personally believe that “God” or concience, or inner guidance,or whatever we wish to call a force of goodness within us, shapes our lives and moulds us into something better by believing in ourselves and listening to that voice inside us whatever you may call it, to guiding us to the right way for each of us to our own individual destiny, whether we listen or not is compleyley up to us. Franklyn

According to Quantum Physics… not much… but to play ball in your park I will say reality is objective… knowledge of that reality is subjective… not generalizing.

Then you could assume that Quantum Physics is subjective as well? I consider PEOPLE to be subjective, not knowledge. And the subjectivity is by no means a constant.

but in doing so you disregard those that hold alternate philosophies…

…how so? Do you know someone who can prove or disprove the existence of deities?

Nope! It is the lack of a position…

Position A: I’m right, you’re wrong. Position B: You’re wrong, I’m right. Position C: You’re both right. Position D: You’re ALL WRONG. Position E: What are we talking about?

They’re ALL positions. The rules of mathmatics don’t all apply to religion.

You attack the philosophy instead of my contrasting its list of tenets against the lack of tenets in agnosticism…

I attacked nothing… you missed the point again. The POINT is, the philosophies involved are much more complex than the etymology of the name suggests… in BOTH cases.

Perhaps it is subjective…

Perhaps it isn’t…

but your lack of illustration lends the conclusion that they are a quick and easy way of altering public opinion… as is the case when you suggest I miss your points.

…and… you missed the point again…

hunger in, say, africa isnt exactly mans doing, since it was always like that if they have no resources to feed themselves how can that be a fault of man? water isnt created by man, so drought isnt his fault, famine isnt either…

now, lots of people have been turned christian there, and yet no prayers are heard and they still are in the same position they were before…