There is no Hope without Jesus

[Kurieuo]

To say/believe as though God doesn't exist, when you see it is rational to minimally believe God exists as the foundation to everything else that moves and has being, is being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

That’s not what I’m asking. In this scenario, the person who concludes God must exist using rational reasoning, has no reason to behave any different than the person who uses rational reasoning and concludes God does not exist. Do you agree?

But that's what I'm saying, or challenging in your original statement; if you conclude God must exist (in the Deistic sense of an impersonal God not caring to make their self known), then it makes no sense to continue on as though Atheist just because there might be no practical behavioural difference.

What you don't get to do, unless you're actually being dishonest, is follow something stupid (and the reasoning is stupid) like: Because believing in an impersonal God who doesn't care about what we do wouldn't change my behaviour than if I were an Atheist, I'll just believe God doesn't exist also. Perhaps its the rationalist in me, but I can't get my head around the illogical of such thoughts.

For if you came to see that a priori arguments (i.e., arguments based upon reason and deduction (rationality) rather than empircal observation), leads to the conclusion merely that an impersonal God exists, then you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself, and no doubt others, if you claim to not believe in God.

*Updated to make easier to follow.

[Mallz]

It seems to make sense that if we are going to talk about God, we should at least talk about a God that at least one of us believe in. However, if you wish to talk about Allah, Odin, or some other God neither of us believes in, I’m open to that as well.

And this is why I say you keep going for the 'big guy in the sky'. Polytheism is false, you can get there with reason alone (is this news?). Your concepts about 'God'.. i'm trying to move away from cultural misconceptions you have that you show through your though process and explanations.

Did I make a mistake by assuming you worship the God of the Bible?

No, and I'm not convinced you know much of anything about the God of the Bible beyond some talking points.

My analogy of Santa Clause was not about you, it was about me. I was trying to get you to see things from my perspective.

I know, and I see it. You have a lot of blind faith. You believe santa exists because of the toys you had received? Is that really all you need to be convinced over something? I don't believe you're that naive.

Whaassup with this “big guy in the sky” thing you keep bringing up? All I said was “the God of the Bible”, and you seem to presuppose I’m thinking of some big guy in the sky! Where are you getting this stuff???

From your explanations and thought process. You keep referring to God as a being and can't get beyond the concept of such.

If you want me to understand what you believe, all you have to do is tell me what you believe, and we can go from there.

I just want my words to have their intended meaning to you when I talk with you. But that could easily be my fault, miscommunication and such. What I really want, Ken, is to show you the necessity that God exists from an Agnostic stand point, that atheism is most illogical, unreasonable and takes a unique blind faith that the inquisition would be proud of.

Whoa, whoa, slow-down pork chop! Perhaps you should go back and read what I actually wrote. All I did was make the assumption that because you claim to be Christian, that you worship the God described in the Bible, and you took that little bit of info and just ran with it! I never described the God of the bible, I never claimed he is some big guy in the sky, and I never presupposed the details of what you believe, it sounds like you're getting a little ahead of yourself here; slow down chief!

Pork Chop? What's that one from? Perhaps, but again, you're reasoning shows differently to me. And since we were talking to each other, and you know I'm Christian, how else am I supposed to take what you wrote to me?

From my position, God could be the multiverse. You see the irony in that?

Umm….No I don’t.

Do you see that the multiverse could = God?

Okay; now that you’ve described what you care about, if you want to have a discussion about God, you need to describe the God you believe in; or as I mentioned before, if you wish to discuss a God neither of us believe in, I’m open to that as well.

I'm not interested in peoples opinions about reality, I'm interested in reality. What I don't see, is how you're atheist and not agnostic. I would be interested in your thoughts of the two and where you fit, however.

So do you believe God is non intelligent, studied, measured, and analyzed by science like energy is?

I believe that the relation between the divine and created can be seen in quantum mechanics. And like with any science, the more it develops, the more we will see Him and His affects. You can study and measure and analyze God from His promises and interactions with creation. And yes, even see His light work in waves. But such areas of study are advanced from the knowledge of Gods existence and after the revelation of what this God is, as those things are engaged only on the Personhood of God (which you would have to 'get to' first). I see the first stage to be acknowledging an agnostic position (God doesn't have to be intelligent, it could be the multiverse or any materialistic explanation [which would just propose that God is material, unintelligent and seemingly random]).

[Kenny]

To say/believe as though God doesn't exist, when you see it is rational to minimally believe God exists as the foundation to everything else that moves and has being, is being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

That’s not what I’m asking. In this scenario, the person who concludes God must exist using rational reasoning, has no reason to behave any different than the person who uses rational reasoning and concludes God does not exist. Do you agree?

But that's what I'm saying, or challenging in your original statement which was: it is entirely sensible to believe and call yourself "Theist", or "Deist" (if you think it important to make a distinction between a personal God who makes their self known versus an impersonal God who doesn't).

Whether you believe God is personal and makes himself known or not is irrelevant; if you believe in God, you are theist!

What you don't get to do, unless you're actually being dishonest, is follow something stupid (and the reasoning is stupid) like: Because believing in an impersonal God who doesn't care about what we do wouldn't change my behaviour than if I were an Atheist, I'll just believe God doesn't exist.

Of course; that would be stupid! Nobody does that.

Perhaps its the rationalist in me, but I can't get my head around the illogical of such thoughts.

Ya preachin’ To the choir bruh!

For if you came to see that a priori arguments (i.e., arguments based upon reason and deduction (rationality) rather than empircal observation), leads to the conclusion merely that an impersonal God exists, then you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself, and no doubt others, if you claim to not believe in God.

I agree!

Ken

[Kenny]

It seems to make sense that if we are going to talk about God, we should at least talk about a God that at least one of us believe in. However, if you wish to talk about Allah, Odin, or some other God neither of us believes in, I’m open to that as well.

And this is why I say you keep going for the 'big guy in the sky'. Polytheism is false, you can get there with reason alone (is this news?). Your concepts about 'God'.. i'm trying to move away from cultural misconceptions you have that you show through your though process and explanations.

First of all, Allah and Odin are not Gods of polytheism. But if you are trying to get me away from misconceptions, explain your concept of God, and we can have a discussion.

Did I make a mistake by assuming you worship the God of the Bible?

No, and I'm not convinced you know much of anything about the God of the Bible beyond some talking points.

My analogy of Santa Clause was not about you, it was about me. I was trying to get you to see things from my perspective.

I know, and I see it. You have a lot of blind faith. You believe santa exists because of the toys you had received? Is that really all you need to be convinced over something? I don't believe you're that naive.

You’ve obviously missed the point I was making. You said eternal shows God’s presence. My point was to show that eternal may show God’s presence to YOU, but it does not to me.

Whaassup with this “big guy in the sky” thing you keep bringing up? All I said was “the God of the Bible”, and you seem to presuppose I’m thinking of some big guy in the sky! Where are you getting this stuff???

From your explanations and thought process. You keep referring to God as a being and can't get beyond the concept of such.

If you want me to understand what you believe, all you have to do is tell me what you believe, and we can go from there.

I just want my words to have their intended meaning to you when I talk with you. But that could easily be my fault, miscommunication and such. What I really want, Ken, is to show you the necessity that God exists from an Agnostic stand point, that atheism is most illogical, unreasonable and takes a unique blind faith that the inquisition would be proud of.

Great! I’m all ears. Lets have a conversation.

Whoa, whoa, slow-down pork chop! Perhaps you should go back and read what I actually wrote. All I did was make the assumption that because you claim to be Christian, that you worship the God described in the Bible, and you took that little bit of info and just ran with it! I never described the God of the bible, I never claimed he is some big guy in the sky, and I never presupposed the details of what you believe, it sounds like you're getting a little ahead of yourself here; slow down chief!

Pork Chop? What's that one from? Perhaps, but again, you're reasoning shows differently to me. And since we were talking to each other, and you know I'm Christian, how else am I supposed to take what you wrote to me?

From my position, God could be the multiverse. You see the irony in that?

Umm….No I don’t.

Do you see that the multiverse could = God?

There are those who worship the Sun, and Nature as God, so of course I could consider you believing in the existence of a Multiverse and calling that God. Of course I wouldn’t call it God though.

Okay; now that you’ve described what you care about, if you want to have a discussion about God, you need to describe the God you believe in; or as I mentioned before, if you wish to discuss a God neither of us believe in, I’m open to that as well.

I'm not interested in peoples opinions about reality, I'm interested in reality. What I don't see, is how you're atheist and not agnostic. I would be interested in your thoughts of the two and where you fit, however.

Okay here is how I see it. Theists believe in God, Atheist do not believe in God, and Agnostics claim it is impossible to know if God exists or not
IOW; I see Theism and Atheism about what one believes, and Agnosticism about what you KNOW; a completely different subject.
If I were an Agnostic and you asked me if I believed in God and I responded there is no way of knowing if God exists or not, I haven’t answered your question because you asked about belief not knowledge. Does this make sense to you?

So do you believe God is non intelligent, studied, measured, and analyzed by science like energy is?

I believe that the relation between the divine and created can be seen in quantum mechanics. And like with any science, the more it develops, the more we will see Him and His affects. You can study and measure and analyze God from His promises and interactions with creation. And yes, even see His light work in waves. But such areas of study are advanced from the knowledge of Gods existence and after the revelation of what this God is, as those things are engaged only on the Personhood of God (which you would have to 'get to' first). I see the first stage to be acknowledging an agnostic position (God doesn't have to be intelligent, it could be the multiverse or any materialistic explanation [which would just propose that God is material, unintelligent and seemingly random]).

How about if you just tell me what you believe God is? You’re saying a lot but we don’t seem to be getting anywhere. If you want me to consider the possibility that God is energy, the Universe, Multiverse, or something else physical? The best I can do for you is to recognize that YOU may see those things as God, but I do not.

[Kurieuo]

To say/believe as though God doesn't exist, when you see it is rational to minimally believe God exists as the foundation to everything else that moves and has being, is being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

That’s not what I’m asking. In this scenario, the person who concludes God must exist using rational reasoning, has no reason to behave any different than the person who uses rational reasoning and concludes God does not exist. Do you agree?

But that's what I'm saying, or challenging in your original statement which was: it is entirely sensible to believe and call yourself "Theist", or "Deist" (if you think it important to make a distinction between a personal God who makes their self known versus an impersonal God who doesn't).

Whether you believe God is personal and makes himself known or not is irrelevant; if you believe in God, you are theist!

What you don't get to do, unless you're actually being dishonest, is follow something stupid (and the reasoning is stupid) like: Because believing in an impersonal God who doesn't care about what we do wouldn't change my behaviour than if I were an Atheist, I'll just believe God doesn't exist.

Of course; that would be stupid! Nobody does that.

Perhaps its the rationalist in me, but I can't get my head around the illogical of such thoughts.

Ya preachin’ To the choir bruh!

For if you came to see that a priori arguments (i.e., arguments based upon reason and deduction (rationality) rather than empircal observation), leads to the conclusion merely that an impersonal God exists, then you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself, and no doubt others, if you claim to not believe in God.

I agree!

As a quick aside, I updated my previous post to be more clear to those just coming in reading. Your response here is adequate though, so I'd like to summarise and try explain why I think this has been important.

First, it seems we would actually agree that if one follows a priori arguments (pure reason) to arrive at a minimalist God position (i.e., that an all-existing being like God must exist, to the exclusion of any further Judeo-Christian propositions like God is personal, loves us, cares about us, desires a relationship with us, etc), then even if there is no practical behavioural difference to Atheism, one should still remain honest with their beliefs as Theist (or Deist).

When I re-read your words posted previously, I see you arguing the opposite, and even advocating just believing in Atheism if one arrives at the conclusion that God may exist but is impersonal -- it is this I find illogical and as being intellectually dishonest with one's self. To re-quote you again:

If God didn’t want to be known, worshipped, or control us, we might as well live as atheists; right?

Now, I wonder, whether many of the "Atheists" I have had discussions with over my 20 or so years doing such, whether they are just like this. Perhaps it's more unknowningly i.e., not a conscious decision, but more a subconscious thing.

For example, consider a person who had a crap upbringing, tough time growing up, hated their abusive or overbearing parents, or maybe their brother, sister or someone important in their life died which was very emotionally hard to deal with, maybe they had an abusive father perhaps he also went to church and convinced many he was a good "godly" man. Something like this is a recurring pattern I have heard over and over. For the person who goes through such darkness, it seems natural to vent thinking about what kind of loving and caring God would let such happen?

Thus, a person concludes that God just doesn't give a damn. He doesn't care, doesn't love, isn't there for any of us. Just look at the world and what happens. And so, the natural reaction of a person "awakening" in such a state is to become angry and "well, f#$% you too God". It is from there, that such a person then decides to believe God doesn't exist for the very same reason you said: "If God didn’t want to be known, worshipped, or control us, we might as well live as atheist." Do you feel me?

Kenny, let me say, in my discussions with you, you argue against God's existence, etc. I think you do know, and even believe that God exists. I'm not trying to annoy you, but such is just my impression and perhaps explains why you've stayed so long. Obviously, consciously, you'll deny and say you don't, but I think you've simply supressed such deeper within. Perhaps it is hung over from a time you did consciously profess belief in God, even Christ, and it has simply be buried in pain of some sort -- I don't know. BUT, I think you made a Freudian slip in your words: God doesn't care so you may as well live as atheist.

I just felt it was important to highlight this, hold the mirror up to you. I think it is important and reveals much, if you care to look and reflect.

[Kenny]

To say/believe as though God doesn't exist, when you see it is rational to minimally believe God exists as the foundation to everything else that moves and has being, is being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

That’s not what I’m asking. In this scenario, the person who concludes God must exist using rational reasoning, has no reason to behave any different than the person who uses rational reasoning and concludes God does not exist. Do you agree?

But that's what I'm saying, or challenging in your original statement which was: it is entirely sensible to believe and call yourself "Theist", or "Deist" (if you think it important to make a distinction between a personal God who makes their self known versus an impersonal God who doesn't).

Whether you believe God is personal and makes himself known or not is irrelevant; if you believe in God, you are theist!

What you don't get to do, unless you're actually being dishonest, is follow something stupid (and the reasoning is stupid) like: Because believing in an impersonal God who doesn't care about what we do wouldn't change my behaviour than if I were an Atheist, I'll just believe God doesn't exist.

Of course; that would be stupid! Nobody does that.

Perhaps its the rationalist in me, but I can't get my head around the illogical of such thoughts.

Ya preachin’ To the choir bruh!

For if you came to see that a priori arguments (i.e., arguments based upon reason and deduction (rationality) rather than empircal observation), leads to the conclusion merely that an impersonal God exists, then you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself, and no doubt others, if you claim to not believe in God.

I agree!

As a quick aside, I updated my previous post to be more clear to those just coming in reading. Your response here is adequate though, so I'd like to summarise and try explain why I think this has been important.

First, it seems we would actually agree that if one follows a priori arguments (pure reason) to arrive at a minimalist God position (i.e., that an all-existing being like God must exist, to the exclusion of any further Judeo-Christian propositions like God is personal, loves us, cares about us, desires a relationship with us, etc), then even if there is no practical behavioural difference to Atheism, one should still remain honest with their beliefs as Theist (or Deist).

When I re-read your words posted previously, I see you arguing the opposite, and even advocating just believing in Atheism if one arrives at the conclusion that God may exist but is impersonal -- it is this I find illogical and as being intellectually dishonest with one's self. To re-quote you again:

If God didn’t want to be known, worshipped, or control us, we might as well live as atheists; right?

Now, I wonder, whether many of the "Atheists" I have had discussions with over my 20 or so years doing such, whether they are just like this. Perhaps it's more unknowningly i.e., not a conscious decision, but more a subconscious thing.

It appears you’ve misunderstood the point I was making. You seem to think I was suggesting if God existed that way and everybody knew it, Atheists would live as if God didn’t exist to include denying his existence. That isn’t what I was saying.
I was saying; if he existed that way, NOBODY would know he existed. But that wouldn’t stop dishonest people from starting religions claiming he exists and fooling followers (theists) into believing a fabricated version of God they created; perhaps one that wants to be worshipped, known, and influence our behavior (IOW we would have a situation exactly as he have now) and the Atheists would be incorrectly believing God doesn’t exist. To this I said “you might as well live like Atheists” now this is not because we would choose to, but because our only option would be to act as if something fabricated were God.

[Kurieuo]

I didn't say you said if "everybody knew God existed," rather you said, to again quote you verbatim: "If God didn’t want to be known, worshipped, or control us, we might as well live as atheist." The implications of what you wrote are clear, even if you don't like those implications, that is the whole point of Freudian slips. Those implications being, if a person feels God is impersonal and doesn't care about us, then they may as well live as atheists.

You've added additional thoughts now, "if he existed that way, NOBODY would know he existed." There are two ways in which this statement can be taken within the current context: 1) God exists in an impersonal way, or 2) God exists in an anti-personal way. Only with an anti-personal God would I agree nobody would know he existed. Yet, an impersonal God who chooses to merely not reveal himself, can still be known to exist.

People can know God exists, even if he doesn't make himself known. One way of seeking God is with our minds, rationality. God's existence isn't just speculated baselessly, but often comes via a priori reasoning, that is, knowledge that comes from theoretical deducation. Yes, further to such, Christians believe God is personal and reveals Himself also, that we have a revealed knowledge from God and can know more specific things (such as God's standards, our broken relationship with God, need for reconciliation, and Christ being the way for such). But, such revelation isn't necessary to merely know God exists. Aristotle is a case in point.

At the polar opposite end, if God actually doesn't want us to know he exists, then such a God isn't just impersonal but anti-personal. An anti-personal God would presumably not be knowable since such a person would ensure he's never found out about. Since arguments for God's existence are largely a priori, if God didn't want us to know about his existence then he would either need to create us without rationality or as irrational beings.

So then, I'd agree with you that an anti-personal God would not be known, but I would disagree if you simply meant a non-personal God who merely chooses to not directly reveal himself. Christians believe in a personal God however.

[Kenny]

I didn't say you said if "everybody knew God existed," rather you said, to again quote you verbatim: "If God didn’t want to be known, worshipped, or control us, we might as well live as atheist." The implications of what you wrote are clear, even if you don't like those implications, that is the whole point of Freudian slips. Those implications being, if a person feels God is impersonal and doesn't care about us, then they may as well live as atheists.

Context my friend; it’s all about context.

Another poster asked me to pretend I believe God exist, and then describe this God to her.
Now in order to understand my response, you have to look at it from an atheist point of view, not a theistic view (which is what you seem to be doing)
Because I see no evidence of Gods existence, I described a God that doesn't want to be known. Now in the context of this scenario, if God didn’t want to be known, NOBODY would know he exist; do you agree?
So that would mean if anybody writes a book about God, starts a religion about God, claims to speak for, or even know God, that person is lying; do you agree?
This is when I said “might as well live like atheists” (which is the same as living like theists except you don’t worship or recognize God) because trying to live like a theist in such a scenario would be living based on a lie. Does this make sense now?

[PaulSacramento]

Ah, the circle...the favorite shape.

[Philip]

And a whole lot of people don't believe God exists because they don't want to know that He does - particularly if He "might" be the God of the Bible, as they know THAT God wants them to live in a different way, and to submit themselves, in love, to Him. And so many don't desire to sincerely seek what they don't want to find - rather convenient, I'd say. They'd rather stay convinced of the only God that truly matters to them: The one they see in the mirror every morning! But failing to seek, not wanting to know, desiring only to please themselves - these are all things that add up to rejecting God. Scripture tells us IF we want to know the truth about God, He is more than willing to reveal Himself to them. But He won't force them to seek Him!

[RickD]

Guys,

I'm afraid you're not being fair to Kenny.

Kenny has said that he would believe in God, if God meets Kenny's demands for making Himself known.

[Kenny]

And a whole lot of people don't believe God exists because they don't want to know that He does - particularly if He "might" be the God of the Bible, as they know THAT God wants them to live in a different way, and to submit themselves, in love, to Him. And so many don't desire to sincerely seek what they don't want to find - rather convenient, I'd say. They'd rather stay convinced of the only God that truly matters to them: The one they see in the mirror every morning! But failing to seek, not wanting to know, desiring only to please themselves - these are all things that add up to rejecting God. Scripture tells us IF we want to know the truth about God, He is more than willing to reveal Himself to them. But He won't force them to seek Him!

Ya don't have to become an atheist in order to do what cha want.

K

[Kurieuo]

I didn't say you said if "everybody knew God existed," rather you said, to again quote you verbatim: "If God didn’t want to be known, worshipped, or control us, we might as well live as atheist." The implications of what you wrote are clear, even if you don't like those implications, that is the whole point of Freudian slips. Those implications being, if a person feels God is impersonal and doesn't care about us, then they may as well live as atheists.

Context my friend; it’s all about context.

Another poster asked me to pretend I believe God exist, and then describe this God to her.
Now in order to understand my response, you have to look at it from an atheist point of view, not a theistic view (which is what you seem to be doing)
Because I see no evidence of Gods existence, I described a God that doesn't want to be known. Now in the context of this scenario, if God didn’t want to be known, NOBODY would know he exist; do you agree?
So that would mean if anybody writes a book about God, starts a religion about God, claims to speak for, or even know God, that person is lying; do you agree?
This is when I said “might as well live like atheists” (which is the same as living like theists except you don’t worship or recognize God) because trying to live like a theist in such a scenario would be living based on a lie. Does this make sense now?

I get that, and understand, however I feel you're still missing certain implications. You're also overlooking the fact that you did once believe God existed, so then it wasn't always the case you thought God didn't want to be known.

A logical progression from Theism to Atheism is actually through Apatheism ("the attitude of apathy towards the existence or non-existence of god(s). It is more of an attitude rather than a belief, claim or belief system."). This apathy towards God, which you have articulated you once believed in, could be especially accentuated during some emotional turmoil experienced. For example, it might be a close loved one dying, suffering extreme abuse or something the like.

Then a person becomes angry with God, because if God exists then he did care about you in your time of pain, indeed such persons will often say God doesn't seem to care about a great many people and often create positive arguments against an all-good and all-loving God based upon pain and suffering experienced in our world. So then, to the person who does believe in God, who goes through darkness in their lives, it is easy to understand an emotional reaction like, "If God doesn't care about me, then screw God."

From there, people may start arguing God away and start rebranding themselves as a newly awakened rational Atheist. In actuality, their change in position wasn't at all rational but largely from a very emotional perhaps hurtful spot.

[Kenny]

I didn't say you said if "everybody knew God existed," rather you said, to again quote you verbatim: "If God didn’t want to be known, worshipped, or control us, we might as well live as atheist." The implications of what you wrote are clear, even if you don't like those implications, that is the whole point of Freudian slips. Those implications being, if a person feels God is impersonal and doesn't care about us, then they may as well live as atheists.

Context my friend; it’s all about context.

Another poster asked me to pretend I believe God exist, and then describe this God to her.
Now in order to understand my response, you have to look at it from an atheist point of view, not a theistic view (which is what you seem to be doing)
Because I see no evidence of Gods existence, I described a God that doesn't want to be known. Now in the context of this scenario, if God didn’t want to be known, NOBODY would know he exist; do you agree?
So that would mean if anybody writes a book about God, starts a religion about God, claims to speak for, or even know God, that person is lying; do you agree?
This is when I said “might as well live like atheists” (which is the same as living like theists except you don’t worship or recognize God) because trying to live like a theist in such a scenario would be living based on a lie. Does this make sense now?

I get that, and understand, however I feel you're still missing certain implications. You're also overlooking the fact that you did once believe God existed, so then it wasn't always the case you thought God didn't want to be known.

A logical progression from Theism to Atheism is actually through Apatheism ("the attitude of apathy towards the existence or non-existence of god(s). It is more of an attitude rather than a belief, claim or belief system."). This apathy towards God, which you have articulated you once believed in, could be especially accentuated during some emotional turmoil experienced. For example, it might be a close loved one dying, suffering extreme abuse or something the like.

Then a person becomes angry with God, because if God exists then he did care about you in your time of pain, indeed such persons will often say God doesn't seem to care about a great many people and often create positive arguments against an all-good and all-loving God based upon pain and suffering experienced in our world. So then, to the person who does believe in God, who goes through darkness in their lives, it is easy to understand an emotional reaction like, "If God doesn't care about me, then screw God."

From there, people may start arguing God away and start rebranding themselves as a newly awakened rational Atheist. In actuality, their change in position wasn't at all rational but largely from a very emotional perhaps hurtful spot.

Apathy did not cause me to go from Theism to Atheism, it was motivation; the opposite. As I said before, the reason I was Christian in the first place was because that is the way I was raised. As a child; like many children indoctrination was responsible for my involvement with theism because I trusted and believed the people who taught me. But as I got older I decided to test what I was taught to make sure what I was told was the truth, and this search for the truth was what lead me away from Theism, to become the person I am today.

[PaulSacramento]

What is truth kenny?