Why should anyone believe in Jesus, God, your religion, etc.?

Mad Lab said:

There are more famous Atheist scientists, lawyers and philosophers that became Theists after trying to disprove the Bible and Christianity then there are famous Theists that became Atheists.

Click to expand...

That's interesting, could you link to that for us? I found this long list on wiki that is the converse of your point -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_nontheism

Here is Mary's(Virgo) little lamb. Every where that Mary goes that lamb is sure to follow.
That's Hickory Dickory Dock, the mouse that ran up the clock.
The monkey on your back.
All dogs go to heaven.
The water bearer(Aquarius).
Welcome, to the rabbit hole!!
Turtle Power!!

What's very unique about that "good guy Jesus" is that the words that the Apostles recorded were consistent. Most human being's are not consistent when attempting to create a theology. This is why it's easy to rule out most of the religions out there. Consistency.

Oddly enough, when dissected by any scholar, the ENTIRE Bible is consistent, which is almost one of a kind. Especially, when thinking that not one man wrote it, but many, over many centuries.

tyler.durden said:

Let me start out by saying that I enjoy your posts and your attitude, it's nice to see you in this sub-forum. I am also very lucky in these respects. I am quite happy, happier than I've ever been, but I am not content. I experience periods of contentment after significant accomplishments, but they always fade. I think this is proper, for if we were content I don't think we'd have the motivation to progress. For the sake of discussion, I am an agnostic atheist which is to say that I do not believe in a deity, but I cannot know if one exists or not...

Click to expand...

Thank you and I enjoy your posts as well.

Speaking about happiness and contentment, I think both are unachievable for long periods of time and as you say, its very neccessary they are not.

I respect an agnostic atheist point of view. I was once one for many years and it shows wisdom and intelligence that you choose to acknowledge one can't have proof for one or the other, although you do not believe in a deity.

For many years I was very content and had periods of happiness, although there was the void we all experience as agnostic atheists. The difference between someone who believes something(deist) and someone who is not sure(agnostic atheist).This is the most valuable thing when it comes to faith, something no atheist may experience. The feeling of knowing the truth of life, which makes someone feel complete instead of just content.

tyler.durden said:

Richard Dawkins has a nice hypothesis regarding this subject. In Darwinian terms, the need to serve and/or worship may come from the childhood need of unquestioningly obeying one's parents. The vast majority of us have this tendency for obedience at infancy, and we easily heed our parents warnings of, 'don't drink that bleach!' and 'don't jump off the roof!' Those of us born without this tendency tend not to live very long and rarely get the chance to pass on the lack of this genetic trait. As we grow into adulthood this urge seems to stay with the majority of us, and we often fill the void of the comfort that comes from our parental figures' authority by substituting governments and/or gods...

Click to expand...

A enjoy many atheist authors but I dislike the atheists who are trying to disprove god rather than provide science to us about creation theory etc. Richard Dawkins is out to get religion and I think that affects his writing. I prefer others that focus on areas we can see more facts in.

Regarding Dawkins answer to an objective moral law giver, I can believe that you may explain our morality by an evolutionary process as described. But I believe God has a scientific way of doing everything, including creating morality. I believe that he implemented evolution from the spark of the universes existence including physical and metaphysical laws. I believe God works in cause and effect laws we experience everyday, not so much sporadically jumping in and doing a few miracles here and there. But this is my opinion.

tyler.durden said:

But explaining our morality


Right. I touched on this tendency above. Not all of us carry it on through adulthood...

Click to expand...

Well we could argue objective vs subjective morality but Im sure we've both heard both sides of the argument on the subject so no need.

tyler.durden said:

We humans seem to have evolved a tendency for morality, as many higher mammals do. Even Piranha don't eat their own, even in a feeding frenzy. There are plenty of evolutionary reasons to act in a moral manner, and if those are not enough, we have a secular system of law to help keep us in order. I know many atheist and human secularist families that are at least as ethical and moral as their religious counterparts, how can you support your assertion that love becomes illogical in an atheist worldview?

Click to expand...

I can agree with evolution.

I shouldn't have said love is illogical in an atheist worldview. What i ment to say that the love for every human on this earth, the way Jesus teachs, is important. But illogical for the atheist who believes that the meaning of life is survival. No logic in treating every single person(or trying), even evil people or people you dont like, with love. It wouldn't be in my opinion smart for survival, thats why we dont live that way.

As an atheist, If a man with a gun walked up to my wife, a stranger and myself and told me this ,"if you dont shoot this stranger, i will shoot your wife." I would not struggle with shooting the stranger to save the person i know and love. I do not agree with this choice.

As a Christian, I would hope I would make the right decision, which would be not shoot the man, and watch my wife be killed. It's not easy, but to kill an innocent person to save an innocent life is something that should not be done. But only faith in God would justify such a noble action. Of course this situation is extreme, my point is when times truly get tough(your starving and you need to kill someone for their food or youll die), do you resort to survival or holiness?

tyler.durden said:

I am glad that you found fulfillment, jesus seems to be a popular way to do that...

Here is a great, short presentation on morality without the supernatural -

Click to expand...

Thank you. Yeah hes a "good guy".

Regarding the videos on morality without the supernatural, thank you, I have read much on that subject. And while I dont believe or disbelieve in evolutionary theories explaining morality, I can accept ether. I'm not sure if that's included in progressive theism but something like that.

I'm not stuck on morality with atheists as much as I am with there disbelief in an agent creating our universe or multi-universe. Even if proof exists of matter creating itself from nothing, it makes no sense that the beginning of all of these processes had no agent outside the system that set things in motion. Hard to believe the first something came from truly nothing in the same system or outside the system.

tyler.durden said:

That's interesting, could you link to that for us? I found this long list on wiki that is the converse of your point -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_nontheism

Click to expand...

I retract my statement. I have never seen a list of every atheist turned theist or vice versa. My point to the gentlemen was that there are DNA scientists that have converted on and from both sides, so saying that a DNA scientist turned from a theist to an atheist means nothing.

But wikipedia has extremely biased writers, especially regarding religion. It is hardly a good source for a list of subjects on topic.

Mad Lab said:

I live in lake Tahoe. I possibly do more hiking than you and I dont goto church.

What do you choose to worship Grojak? You seem to be real smart right, so don't say "i dont worship anything"

Tell us what you worship. If it's good, maybe we will all convert. ha.

Click to expand...

To quote the late George Carlin: "Joe Pesci, cause he looks like someone that will get shit done" you pray to Joe and he shows up with a baseball bat to take are of shit.

Worship is such a strong word, I don't worship any human being or object, I could almost say pot that is more a relationship of respect and love but not worship… I've often said my church is nature more specific wherever I'm hiking is my church, it's the reason I moved to the state I live. No I don't "worship" anything man, not a complicated concept or impossible.

I guess I didn't answer you question but I don't have an answer for you that supports your idea of worship.

Mad Lab said:

Thank you and I enjoy your posts as well.

Speaking about happiness and contentment, I think both are unachievable for long periods of time and as you say, its very neccessary they are not.

I respect an agnostic atheist point of view. I was once one for many years and it shows wisdom and intelligence that you choose to acknowledge one can't have proof for one or the other, although you do not believe in a deity.

For many years I was very content and had periods of happiness, although there was the void we all experience as agnostic atheists. The difference between someone who believes something(deist) and someone who is not sure(agnostic atheist).This is the most valuable thing when it comes to faith, something no atheist may experience. The feeling of knowing the truth of life, which makes someone feel complete instead of just content.

Click to expand...

That's a good way putting it, complete instead of content. I remember that feeling as I was raised as a christian. The reason I no longer yearn for it is that I believe the feeling was accomplished under false pretenses, akin to shooting heroin. It may produce a feeling of completeness but the feeling is an illusion...

A enjoy many atheist authors but I dislike the atheists who are trying to disprove god rather than provide science to us about creation theory etc. Richard Dawkins is out to get religion and I think that affects his writing. I prefer others that focus on areas we can see more facts in.

Click to expand...

Well, as you said any scientist worth his salt knows there is no way to disprove god in the same way there is no way to disprove smurfs, elves, dragons, or the popular Russell's Teapot and Flying Speghetti Monster. Dawkins makes a case for religion being a net negative force in the world, it is very reasoned and is difficult to argue against. I'm sure you've seen him in action, so I don't need to post anything of his...

Regarding Dawkins answer to an objective moral law giver, I can believe that you may explain our morality by an evolutionary process as described. But I believe God has a scientific way of doing everything, including creating morality. I believe that he implemented evolution from the spark of the universes existence including physical and metaphysical laws. I believe God works in cause and effect laws we experience everyday, not so much sporadically jumping in and doing a few miracles here and there. But this is my opinion.

Click to expand...

An interesting view, almost more deist than theist...

Well we could argue objective vs subjective morality but Im sure we've both heard both sides of the argument on the subject so no need.

Click to expand...

Here's a VERY interesting talk by Sam Harris on a science-based view of morality I recently viewed. Most scientists steer clear of the subject of morality, but he takes it head on. I think you'd find it interesting, and you may agree with most of it. Even just the first 15 or 20 mins shows the meat of his outlook -

I can agree with evolution.

I shouldn't have said love is illogical in an atheist worldview. What i ment to say that the love for every human on this earth, the way Jesus teachs, is important. But illogical for the atheist who believes that the meaning of life is survival. No logic in treating every single person(or trying), even evil people or people you dont like, with love. It wouldn't be in my opinion smart for survival, thats why we dont live that way.

Click to expand...

This makes more sense. An athiest worldview is a little misleading as atheism only tells us one thing about a person, that they lack belief in a deity. Many atheists believe whacky shit: homeopathy, alien abduction, conspiracy theory and all brand of pseudo-science. Some atheists may have the view that the meaning of life is survival, but ime atheists feel free to ascribe to life their own meaning. I personally like Ayn Rand's take on the meaning of human life - to bring forth the positive ideas in one's mind into concrete objective reality. IOW, all of the accomplishments of industry and art started off as a mere idea in someone's mind, and the arduous process of bringing that idea into the physical world is our life's purpose. Being free of creator's dictates allows non-believers to choose their own meaning for their lives, which can be very liberating...

As an atheist, If a man with a gun walked up to my wife, a stranger and myself and told me this ,"if you dont shoot this stranger, i will shoot your wife." I would not struggle with shooting the stranger to save the person i know and love. I do not agree with this choice.

As a Christian, I would hope I would make the right decision, which would be not shoot the man, and watch my wife be killed. It's not easy, but to kill an innocent person to save an innocent life is something that should not be done. But only faith in God would justify such a noble action. Of course this situation is extreme, my point is when times truly get tough(your starving and you need to kill someone for their food or youll die), do you resort to survival or holiness?

Click to expand...

Again, there is no one atheist worldview and many different atheists would have varying views on this dilemma. I think yours is a False Dichotomy, if you are familiar with logical fallacies -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

A false dilemma (also called black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, false dichotomy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of the false alternative, or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

I would personally attempt to shoot the perpetrator of this heinous act. He may shoot me or my wife in the process, but to me this is a better alternative to the choice he offered. I'd likely have support and assistance of the stranger and/or my wife, and with my choice If any innocents die it would not be on me...

I'm not stuck on morality with atheists as much as I am with there disbelief in an agent creating our universe or multi-universe. Even if proof exists of matter creating itself from nothing, it makes no sense that the beginning of all of these processes had no agent outside the system that set things in motion. Hard to believe the first something came from truly nothing in the same system or outside the system.

Click to expand...

Many theists seems stuck on the erroneous premise that our universe came from nothing. Big Bang Theory says that the singularity from which our universe sprang was a highly ordered and infinitely hot, dense point of energy. The problem with positing a god set things in motion is that we now have the problem of explaining the existence of such a complex creature. As difficult as it is to explain the origins of our universe, it is much more difficult to explain the genesis of a complex creator. If the answer is that this creator has always existed, why not simply skip a step and state that the cycle of the universe has always existed, eliminating the explanatory need of a creator?

Grojak said:

To quote the late George Carlin: "Joe Pesci, cause he looks like someone that will get shit done" you pray to Joe and he shows up with a baseball bat to take are of shit.

Worship is such a strong word, I don't worship any human being or object, I could almost say pot that is more a relationship of respect and love but not worship… I've often said my church is nature more specific wherever I'm hiking is my church, it's the reason I moved to the state I live. No I don't "worship" anything man, not a complicated concept or impossible.

I guess I didn't answer you question but I don't have an answer for you that supports your idea of worship.

Click to expand...

We all worship something. You likely worship experiences, material things and money or something else like cannabis or partying. We all do, we are human. This subject is not even debatable.

What do you kiss at the end of night before bed? What would destroy you if I took it away?

Mad Lab said:

We all worship something. You likely worship experiences, material things and money or something else like cannabis or partying. We all do, we are human. This subject is not even debatable.

What do you kiss at the end of night before bed? What would destroy you if I took it away?

Click to expand...

Well, let's look at the definition - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worship

1wor·ship
noun \ˈwər-shəp also ˈwȯr-\
: the act of showing respect and love for a god especially by praying with other people who believe in the same god : the act of worshipping God or a god

: excessive admiration for someone

Full Definition of WORSHIP
1
chiefly British : a person of importance —used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)
2
: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
3
: a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
4
: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem <worship of the dollar>

I don't kiss anyone or anything before I go to bed. I love my son more than anything, and I sometimes feel if he were taken away from me I would be destroyed. But I certainly don't worship my son. I don't have any experiences that match these definitions, and I don't desire to. I think most people have the urge to do these things (as most people are drawn to believe in a deity), but certainly not all. One who is overwhelmed by the need may not understand that some others are not. At the very least, it seems debatable...

Me sleep alone most of the time.

Worshiping to me is being obsesses with whatever U are worship. True we all need somethings, I guess I worship food and water for sure. Sex, drugs, music, TV are all nice and worship by many, let not forget cell phones, lol....I think every 20 year old worships their phone today

tyler.durden said:

Well, let's look at the definition - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worship

1wor·ship
noun \ˈwər-shəp also ˈwȯr-\
: the act of showing respect and love for a god especially by praying with other people who believe in the same god : the act of worshipping God or a god

: excessive admiration for someone

Full Definition of WORSHIP
1
chiefly British : a person of importance —used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)
2
: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
3
: a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
4
: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem <worship of the dollar>

I don't kiss anyone or anything before I go to bed. I love my son more than anything, and I sometimes feel if he were taken away from me I would be destroyed. But I certainly don't worship my son. I don't have any experiences that match these definitions, and I don't desire to. I think most people have the urge to do these things (as most people are drawn to believe in a deity), but certainly not all. One who is overwhelmed by the need may not understand that some others are not. At the very least, it seems debatable...

Click to expand...

Thanks for the definition. But I think you know what I mean. I wish I had time for extremely cavalier debates such as this one. Next.

Also in regards to atheism and different worldviews. Of course, nothing is black and white. Noone has the same exact belief as another, common sense.

What I am referring to is the foundation of atheism. An atheist chooses no foundation besides science, which isn't really a spiritual guide. So we can only judge atheism based on science, of which the foundation says the meaning of life is simply survival.

Am i saying an atheist cant be a good person? Of course I'm not. Am I saying an atheist cant love or be generous? Of course not. Am I saying an atheist cant justify morality? No, I'm not.

All I care about is a philosophy about life that is good for mankind. Because there is only one foundation with atheism, which is survival, what does this produce? People choosing whatever they want to believe is right and wrong. Problem is with atheism, there's really no such thing as right and wrong, this is subjective.

What happens when the whole world needs to decide on what is right and wrong based on whatever their parents may have thought them to (possibly)be the right thing to do? A few may be great people, but the majority, do you really think they will make good decisions if they believe there is no punishment eternally?

I judge a philosophy based on one thing, "is it the best thing for mankind"

Do you honestly think atheism is the answer to that? If you say yes, that will be the first unintelligent thing you have said in this thread.

Mad Lab said:

Thanks for the definition. But I think you know what I mean. I wish I had time for extremely cavalier debates such as this one. Next.

Click to expand...

I did not know what you meant. Grojak stated that he understands the qualities of respect, love, and the appreciation of beauty, but that he does not experience worship. You responded stating that all humans worship and that your statement was not debatable. Since I have a similar experience to Grojak's, I thought I would share it and demonstrate not all humans have the need or desire to worship. I am showing concern for an important concept, which is the opposite of cavalier...

Mad Lab said:

...What I am referring to is the foundation of atheism. An atheist chooses no foundation besides science, which isn't really a spiritual guide. So we can only judge atheism based on science, of which the foundation says the meaning of life is simply survival.

Click to expand...

This is not true. Many atheists care nothing for science, and are very ignorant of the process. AFAIK, actual science has never ventured an assertion as to what the meaning of life is, it seems outside its realm. Would you link to that for us? It does observe that the main goal of life seems to be centered around passing on its genes, but I don't know of any science that speaks to the meaning of human life...

Am i saying an atheist cant be a good person? Of course I'm not. Am I saying an atheist cant love or be generous? Of course not. Am I saying an atheist cant justify morality? No, I'm not.

All I care about is a philosophy about life that is good for mankind. Because there is only one foundation with atheism, which is survival, what does this produce? People choosing whatever they want to believe is right and wrong. Problem is with atheism, there's really no such thing as right and wrong, this is subjective.

Click to expand...

You keep stating that the only foundation for atheism is survival. This may have been true for you when you were an atheist, but this is not a foundation of atheism. Many atheists don't believe because there they haven't come across a good argument in support of this belief, and because no empirical evidence has yet been discovered. If you can support your statement that survival is a foundation of atheism, or that atheism even has a foundation, I would love to take a look. Human morality shares many attributes, but has always shown many individual differences among cultures. The closest I've seen science come to addressing morality is contained in Sam Harris' talk that I posted earlier. It posits that the worst scenario is the the greatest possible suffering for all, hence the best scenario being the least amount of suffering for all. How we get there is a matter of debate, but all moral actions fall somewhere within this continuum...

What happens when the whole world needs to decide on what is right and wrong based on whatever their parents may have thought them to (possibly)be the right thing to do? A few may be great people, but the majority, do you really think they will make good decisions if they believe there is no punishment eternally?

Click to expand...

Sure. I think we always have overall, which is mainly why there are 7 billion of us on this planet (and that figure is rapidly rising). Study after study shows that the actions of non-believers are at least as moral, and oftentimes more moral than their believing counterparts. Our morality doesn't seem very different than other higher mammals, and they of course, aren't considering an afterlife. Even the punishment of death and prison doesn't seem to prohibit believers from immoral actions, as per capita, there are far more believers behind bars than atheists. If you google 'studies that support the morality of atheists', you will see a lot of these studies, they are very interesting...

I judge a philosophy based on one thing, "is it the best thing for mankind"

Click to expand...

That's good, it seems that idea is emerging from science, as well...

Do you honestly think atheism is the answer to that? If you say yes, that will be the first unintelligent thing you have said in this thread.

Click to expand...

I don't think something as simple as the lack of belief in deities can do much by itself. I also think it's fairly evident that religion is not the answer either. I think education, science, logic and rationality are things likely to bring us closer to what is best for mankind. It also seems that there is a correlation that the more people are exposed to these things, the more likely they are to be atheist...

I'm very open, there well might be some kind of god but then again maybe not. I tend to lean to the no god but I would not bet on it, lol.

I also would not be shock if there are a bunch of other Earths out there with all types of strange animals and who knows what, if so then who's their god ? Thats why I tent to lean to no god. How could something have power over all we can't even see ?

Lightning spark life on Earth it seems like, if it happen here it could happen anywhere. How lightning happens, who knows, maybe thats part of God ? We can explain why lightning happens, so we brush it off, that can't be god

Quote " I think education, science, logic and rationality are things likely to bring us closer to what is best for mankind"

Yes I agree but not all the way. Religion is good cause it honors certain values that never change or slowly changes. When certain things have been taboo for ages and then we change things in a few decades, well that seems too risky. Change should sometimes happen but slowly, the slower the better most often, IMO. We should not be so fast to change what our forefathers believed in for thousands of years. There might be more to something that only time will show.

For the most part I agree with that Pope guy. Yeah I use birth control and abortion is alright too, lol but I see where the Pope is coming from, that sometimes man should not try to play god. If two people have sex, maybe its cause god wants them to have a child for his plans later on. Women don't get pregnant every time they have sex , birth control or not, so once U start using birth control, U are taking things in to your own hands and playing god so to say.

I feel very strongly thats its wrong to kill, that its only OK to take a life in order to save lives. These anti abortion but pro death penalty people make me sick. They are so ready to force a child on to a person but then all gone ho to kill that baby once it grows up, un real

I like to ask the Pope his views on weed-well all drugs in fact. I wonder if he agrees that god made drugs to help us at times ? It be totally awesome if the Pope went medical with pot, well maybe not but a Pope smoking a joint, wow...gee they sip wine, so what the F

Mary had a little lamb.....
Swing Low, Sweet Chariot.......
Hi, Ho, the Dairy-O, the Rat takes the cheese......
She'll be riding 6 White(Gold) horses when she comes........
Sing along! What other ones do you know?
When your done, do a cartwheel!

Same Old Story. Same Old Song And Dance, My Friend.

I think everything a few gentlemen here have said summed up where atheists, agnostic, theists and deists get to eventually in the creation and morality conversations.

But I think we can all agree that logic or rational will not prove any one of our stances. Saying that, and being that we are all morally conscience individuals, I think the only real conversations to have about religion is the philosophies behind them and why we may or may not agree with them.

For instance, what Skylor mentions above is very intelligent:

"Yes I agree but not all the way. Religion is good cause it honors certain values that never change or slowly changes. When certain things have been taboo for ages and then we change things in a few decades, well that seems too risky. Change should sometimes happen but slowly, the slower the better most often, IMO. We should not be so fast to change what our forefathers believed in for thousands of years. There might be more to something that only time will show."

I would love to debate some of the philosophy behind Jesus, especially with tyler.

If I told you a man perfectly identified the human condition and the perfect remedy for it, you would say: that's not a man, there must be a few things i disagree with, noone knows how to live perfectly.

What if a man told you the best advice to live a life that involved having to consider the physical and mental well-being of everyone that you shared this world with, whether it's family, friends, enemies, strangers or most importantly, your own self.

I'd say that's what everyone wants to know(or should want to know) but no man could possibly give such perfect advice. And if he did, he would have no authority, he's just a man, not a deity.

But If you somehow agreed with every point this 'man' had to make about your own personal values and morals(or new morals you never saw were of value until explained) and he also had authority, he was God in human form, and he did the best job any man has done in history in convincing of such.

This god, unlike 99% of man-made deities, came to earth in form of a man, to suffer as one, as we all suffer. But the one thing that set this God above others is that he did one thing that he asks of all men: he gave up being God. In fact, no other Gods seem godly if compared, because these other gods resemble humans in their actions. It is not a consistent parental love of the purist form.



But, first you'd have to agree this philosophy is perfect. We'd have to go through point by point, debating whether their is enough proof to say that the advice produces more positive than negative effects.

Example: Jesus gives advice for men and women to be married before living under the same roof. Most would say this is old advice, and God's advice should be updated. All we can really do in this case may be looking at statistics on cohabitation before marriage divorce rates.

"According to statistics gathered by US Attorney Legal Services, living together before getting married doesn't accomplish the goal that couples think that it will. A couple who does not live together prior to getting married has a 20 percent chance of being divorced within five years. If the couple has lived together beforehand, that number jumps to 49 percent."

So i challenge anyone to a debate on the philosophy Jesus taught and flaws that may be associated. Show me it's not perfect.

Please bring the verses and references you'd like to discuss.



BTW, to everyone conversing, I enjoy your opinions and thoughts regardless of if agreement or not. Just wanna say thanks for talking about something alot of people dont take the time to research or converse about: the meaning of life.

BTW

Another example:

Jesus says to treat my body well, if not it is a sin.
*not a really bad sin, but more advice to someone so they wont have to deal with the repercussions of such actions.

Why should i? It's not hurting anyone if I eat Popeyes chicken everyday.

Answer: Science tells us what eating that will do everyday, and that would increase the risk of cancer. And although it is your body and you may not be hurting anyone physically, if you are in a hospital dying from cancer and your family has to sit there and watch you, this is hurting the people you care about not physically but mentally.

Here's the cool thing. All this advice was given before we had science to tell us what was good and what is bad.

We also never had psychology or the testing associated.

It's funny so many psychologists, after so much data as piled up, have figured out good advice to give humans that is the same advice Jesus gave without testing or science, in the frickin bronze age. Getting some things right? Maybe, but most if not all? very odd if he didnt exist or a group of guys got together and figured this stuff out or guessed.

It's like marriage counseling (good ones) give Jesus' advice but they take away Jesus LOL. We do this with so many things.


BTW- I'm addicted to Popeyes... lol I'm working on it.