This Qualifies as a ‘Scandal’ in the Catholic Church?

Maybe if more of them had kids, more of them would care about child welfare!

Maybe it’s possible that I am so lacking of morals that I don’t understand why this is immoral? That must be it.

And a person like me, who does not believe in any god? Can I not be moral?

I am.
Don’t worry about sins, I don’t have any. They are a religion concept, I don’t follow any religion.
The sins you say I have are only in your head.

Ah, for that I use common sense. No gods needed.

It depends on what you mean by “believers” and “unbelievers.”  There are many people who profess to believe, but actually don’t.  That is, there are many professing Christians who are practicing atheists (http://wp.me/pKqSA-eu).

My primary source of information regarding the moral benefit of “going to God” is my own life.  When I tried to live morally on my own, I reached one level.  But when I went to God I was pulled higher – by His higher standards and my desire to please Him by reaching for those higher standards.

Mike, with respect,  ‘sin’ in its literal form is a religious invention, it is meaningless to me. Its colloquialize variants: offense, transgression, fault, regrettable, and wrong;  still hold meaning.

I can, and have, committed ‘wrongs’ in my past. When it happens, rather than seek forgiveness and absolution from a faceless entity, which REALLY does not address the ‘wrong’, I make amends to those I have wronged, I seek their forgiveness and I right my wrongs. Once forgiven, I choose to not unburden my conscience, instead I carry the guilt of these transgressions as a reminder to never make the same mistakes.

As a former Catholic, I have to say, my life was easier when ‘accountability’ meant a five minute confession and having to recite the same prayer twelve times. Now I have to actually learn from my mistakes since absolution and forgiveness do not come easily.

I can’t help but think you’re trying to No True Scotsman your way out of this.

Not at all.  I wasn’t the one who raised the  believer-unbeliever distinction.  I was merely trying to respond to it, and relate it to my original point.

Go back to my original comment which was to distinguish between those who go to God and those who go to church.  

“Sin” is defined as a transgression of divine law. Since there are no gods, there is no sin. It’s a completely meaningless and in some ways immoral concept to Christians. In reality, sins are merely man made inventions with the sole purpose of controlling people in every small detail. That’s why so many sins are thought crimes are things that don’t actually hurt anyone

If you think that is a logical fallacy then you are saying there is no such thing as a Christian hypocrite.

A moral Atheist could not be a practicing Christian.  That indeed, would be an oxymoron.

I commend you for making amends to those you have wronged (Jesus has taught us to do this).

I also relate to your carrying the memory of past wrongs for the purpose of avoiding repetition.I can also relate to your abandonment of Catholic confession as inadequate for the task it presumes to tackle.The one thing I think you are forgetting is our moral offenses against God Himself.  These, too, require making amends with Him.

I’d like to know what “go to god” means.  And how can a thought be less than moral?  Sounds like the usual theist gobbledygook to me.

Than my morals are propably very high already.
Also, you can ask yourself to be more moral. It is a great way to think and change morals.

Two things:

First, if what you actually mean by “practicing atheist” is “a person who acts as if they don’t believe in God” and implying that this makes them behave less morally, then you are saying that nonbelief leads to bad behavior, in which case I would again ask you to provide evidence to back that up.

In addition, even if we throw the “No true Scotsman” fallacy out the window and accept your diferentiation of real and fake Christians, my point still holds because we could still differentiate two groups:

Christians: Composed of “real” Christians and what you call “practicing atheists”

Nonbelievers: Composed entirely of nonbelievers.

If you affirm that “true” belief in God leads to better behavior (which you have not yet, though this is strongly implied) then by neccesity the Christian group, even while having “practicing atheists” in it, would on the whole show better morality than the nonbeliever group. If this is the case, evidence supporting it should be readily available and I’d be happy to hear it.

There’s also the matter of other religions, which presumably you treat as false religions. Can you provide any evidence that belief in nonexistent gods leads to worse moral outcomes than the “true” god? If you don’t think this is the case, why not?

Finally, I will not deny you your experience that a belief (or greater belief) in God made you better, but I would very much like to hear the evidence of how that can be extrapolated to everyone else.

Cheers.

“The one thing I think you are forgetting is our moral offenses against God Himself.”

Here is the crux of the problem, I don’t believe in the existence of god therefore how can I morally offend something nonexistent?

First you have to prove existence or at the very least provide a convincing argument, one that is exclusive to your specific faith which cannot apply equally to Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for god.

Unless you can do this there is nothing to distinguish your assertions, meaning all faiths are equally legitimate, from the Appalachian Snake Handlers to Digambar and everything in between.

Mike, whatever helps you to respect other people and treat them with respect; to be charitable in word, thought and deed; to be trustworthy, honest, courteous, fair and kind; and to apologize to and ask forgiveness from others or from yourself if you don’t do these things — go for it. We all have to be able to get out of bed in the morning.

Just don’t expect that my method will be the same as your method.

You can’t offend something that doesn’t exist

You don’t make sense.

I’m not redefining words.  The M-W definition is perfectly acceptable to me.

Agreed.

The New Testament documents bear witness to Jesus of Nazareth.  It was by focusing on that human life that I was led to trusts in the divine.

The Sermon on the Mount does not contain everything that Jesus taught us about morality, but when you say it “hardly a solid moral treatise” it makes me wonder what you consider a “solid moral treatise.”

And the Harry Potter novels bear witness to Dumbledore

Clocks set to each other don’t run as accurately as clocks set to GMT.

J.K Rowling professes to write fiction.  The apostles professes to writing what they saw and heard.

Do clocks have free will?

The one “normal” priest in the Catholic cult resigns while the pedophiles are relocated. I didn’t use to care about religion much but I’m full on anti-theist now. Fuck religion and all of the snake oil salesmen peddling their superstitions.

I listed several things I disagree with in the sermon. Do you agree with all of them? As far as solid moral treatise, I do not have one to point out, I only point out the areas of the sermon on the mount. That are questionable at best and horrible at worst.

I did not suggest that you are defending anything, simply that you are dividing believers into categories, attempting to legitimize one over the other with the “No True Scotsman” argument. Before you say “No I didn’t” let me remind you of your own post:

“There are many people who profess to believe, but actually don’t. That is, there are many professing Christians who are practicing atheists”

If that is not what you meant, then please correct my interpretation with the actual meaning.

Who?

T-Rex,

“You’re pretty sure of your claims. I suppose you’ve done or seen/read studies to back up your claims? I’d love to see some evidence of these claims, just like we’d all love to see one shred of evidence for the existance of Jesus Christ and “your” gawd…outside of your Bible of course, that doesn’t count.”

Although the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is attested outside of the New Testament documents, these documents are the primary historical source material we have about Him.  I don’t know why you’d want to reject them.

Sheepnomore,

”
I’m just trying to understand the analogy.  Do clocks aspire to be more accurate? ”

We aspire for them to be more accurate, just as we should aspire for our consciences to be more accurate. 

Jesus Christ.

I can only bear witness to my own experience in this regard.  Nor will you yourself be able to find or even conduct the studies you seek, for only God would be qualified to conduct such a study.  

The good news, however, is that you do not need studies to know that this is true.  For just as you can know that that you will die if you do not eat often enough, drink often enough, and breathe often enough without having any studies on hand to confirm these things, you can also know that to be separated from God removes you from the taproot of all morality.  Your leaves can stay green for a time…but only for a time.

To go back to one of your earlier comments on this thread, setting my watch to GMT isn’t any different than setting my watch to the clock in the next room — it’s still setting one clock to another clock, with the added problem that if I’m not on the prime meridian, with my watch set to GMT, I’ll be either late or early to all my appointments. GMT as a function of the earth’s rotation isn’t terribly accurate either, because the speed of rotation tends to fluctuate. And any clock is only as accurate as its mechanism permits it to be. The atomic clock at NIST that currently serves as a U.S. timekeeper is accurate to one second in 100 million years. (Cool!) NIST has built a better clock; last year, they announced one that is accurate to one second every 3.7 billion years. (Cooler!) But if I set my watch to the NIST clock, it’s still only as accurate as a cheap Timex can be.

You appear to be saying that there can be no measurable evidence for some humans being more moral than other humans. I can’t help but think you are being disingenuous. I’m pretty sure that if you could easily google and bring up statistics that showed that atheists are 10 times more likely to be incarcerated for violent crimes, you’d lower your standards of “who is qualified to do such a study” from the divine rather quickly. The fact you can find no such evidence is only a problem if you have a problem going where the evidence leads, even if that’s not where you want to go.

Oh and the only reason you don’t need studies to show that not eating, not drinking, or not breathing will kill you, is because these are widely observed and tested causes of death. Belief in God causing more moral behavior is harder to observe, but it should be observable, so evidence should be available if its true.

As for my leaves staying green for a time…well they’ve been green all my life, as I’ve always been an atheist. My great-grandmas’ leaves stayed green 100 years. Grandpa 96 I think and abuelo 94. No apparent bouts of depravity from lifelong atheism, it would seem 🙂

I_Claudia,
My point was that measurable evidence for going to God is obviously the province of God.  As for comparing human morality, you are talking about crimes and such which are but a fraction of the morality Jesus Christ expects from us.  God looks on the heart, and He’s expecting a purity there that goes far beyond the avoidance of criminal behavior.
As for being willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads even if it’s not where I want to go, that’s how I ended up at Jesus Christ.  He is the very last conclusion I was interested in reaching.  In fact, the whole reason I took on the evidence was to get Christians off my back because I was positive the evidence would refute them.  Therefore, I return your challenge to you:  are you sure you are willing to follow evidence wherever it leads even if that’s not where you want to go?
If you need studies to convince you that insufficient eating, drinking, and breathing will kill you then…well, I just can’t believe you need such studies.  These truths are more self-evident than the ones Tom Jefferson penned.  Even children know them.  Even animals “know” them.
As for depravity, you are measuring without a standard.  I’m sure the folks in Sodom thought they were as good as the folks in any other city of their day.  Grading on a curve is no way to achieve excellence.

Immense amounts of suffering would have been prevented by “Thou shalt boil all water before drinking”.

Hey at least he didn’t use contraception that should count for something to the church.

“And I presumed it would at least be a novel presentation of Christ on a site like this and not the same ole same ole.”

You presumed wrong.  We have had easily dozens of people just like you here before.  You have not said a single thing we have not heard dozens of times before.

“The good news of Jesus Christ has yet to be fully known, much less fully told.”

If he couldn’t get it right in 2000 years I think there is little chance he ever will.

“However, the person who actually goes to God instead of church finds the
strength to live morally – and improvements in behavior are
unavoidable.”

Citation needed.  And no, a sample size of 1 is not sufficient.  And no, we don’t find it self-evident.  In fact many of us don’t consider Jesus to be particularly moral.  That whole Hell thing is a big turn-off.   And his nasty temper, like the fig tree incident and insulting and belittling his followers, doesn’t sit well with many people.

More like Him?  You mining torting anyone who doesn’t believe in me and ordering armies to commit genocide?  I’ll pass, thanks.

“Jesus Christ is the one true standard of morality, to which we do well to be calibrated.”

You need to provide something to back this up other than your own say-so and the Bible. 

Many people here have read the Bible, and don’t consider the things Jesus said all that moral, nor do they consider the moral things he said all that original or even stated particularly well. 

So just throwing out these sorts of baseless assertions will not help your case, we have heard it too many times before.

“I am using what credibility I have as a human being to assure you that
He is alive, and that everything the Bible says about Him is true.”

I hate to break it to you, but some random guy on the internet has close to zero credibility.  You are going to need to provide something more concrete than that.

I think I see what you’re saying. We have a higher moral authority hard wired into our unconscious. We take advantage of our natural tendency to experience our beliefs as having objective reality, to access this sort of hidden moral nexus. You believe that the myth of Jesus is the best vehicle for this.

Well except that the sperm donors don’t get to wet their willies in the patient.

Then you are assuming people can not learn and change.

“J.K Rowling professes to write fiction.  The apostles professes to writing what they saw and heard.”
This is said to be the first test, to see if you realy have faith. Apparantly you don’t.

It is equally self evident that believing a god will forgive you no matter what is a licence for atrocities.

With god, anything is permitted.

scotanthony, surely you don’t deny the historicity of Jesus.  The vast majority of people who deny His divinity and His authority do not deny His historicity.  That position belongs only to a fringe group, probably no larger than those who think the moon landing was faked.

Newavocation, the love of which Ingersoll speaks, unbeknownst to Ingersoll, is God Himself (1 John 4:8, 16).

Piet Puk, I said you didn’t make sense because you said you were already practicing Matthew 5:43-48, which says that we should pray for those who persecute us – but you also said you didn’t believe in God, which leaves you no one to be praying to.

Gordon Duffy, what motive did the apostles have to lie about someone who said that He came to testify to the truth?

TheBlackCat, you have written me many things, mostly repetitive.  According to your standard, however, I should not heed any of them.  I say this because I comment with my real name and real picture which link to my four blogs containing over 2,000 posts and two online books – totaling over 200,000 words explaining my positions and giving evidence for my views, while you use a pseudonym which links to nothing.  If I am “some random guy on the internet who has close to zero credibility,” you are far more so. 

God can put something in your heart to do for them that you wouldn’t have thought of yourself.

Do you realize you’re claiming omniscience?

You implied that God could not think of an idea that you could not think of on your own.  Thus, God could not have knowledge that you don’t have.  Since God is, by definition, omniscient, you are claiming omniscience.

Nope, I said that thinking about things makes me come up with ideas. Why is that so hard to understand for you?

I am not the one asking everyone to change their entire worldview based nothing on my say-so.  I never staked anything on my credibility, you did.  If you are actually willing to lay out your position, I would be happy to look at it, but I am not going to just take your word for it that you are right.  You are the only one here asking people to do that.

One of these wave lengths is called ‘Reality’. You should try it some  time.

“If you are actually
willing to lay out your position, I would be happy to look at it”

It’s all there, just as I described.

Being honest, at this point, is more important than being polite.

Hmm.

Well, then the only expression one can get is that you are insane

Stev84,

Tacitus certainly mentioned Jesus and his execution by Pilate.  Pliny the Younger and his writings are consistent with an historical Jesus.  And you cannot dismiss Josephus with a “probably.”  You fully betray your bias there, for had you been fair-minded you would have acknowledged the dispute about Josephus earlier when you wrote that there was no attestation outside the New Testament.  Say it is questionable if you believe it so, but you led readers to believe no evidence existed.  You are obviously someone who is more committed to his conclusions than to the process of sifting evidence and letting it speak.

TheBlackCat,

Go to this Introduction-Overview, which indexes 17 one-page posts.  If any of them interest you, there will be links to more information at the end of each post.  Given how upset some Christians have been with me for writing these things, I’m confident you’ll read some things there you haven’t heard from them.

Did you miss this bit?

“We are having the discussion here, if you have the evidence you should post it here so it can be discussed.”‘

You aren’t even courteous enough to tell me which ones actually contain the evidence you claim to have.  I read through the first 4 and none are at all original and none have anything close to being evidence.  They are all composed pretty much entirely of the unfounded assertions you have made here. 

The closest you come is your argument about the apostles, which has so many flaws I don’t even know where to begin (for instance lots of religious people are willing to die for their beliefs without killing, lots of cult leaders sound very sane and convincing, and ignores the fact that we have lots of evidence that the apostles did not write the gospels so we don’t actually know what the apostles sounded like).  It is also one of the more common arguments for Christianity I have seen, having turned up easily 2 dozen times so far.

So through 4 of the documents you are most proud of there is exactly one thing that comes close to being an argument or evidence, and it is an extremely common one that is easily debunked in at least a half-dozen ways. 

If this is the best you have to offer than I don’t see any point reading your website further.  I ask again, please don’t linking to something else from your website.  If you have anything to add, add it here.  I am not going to keep doing your work for you by hunting down your own arguments.

No, he’s claiming mind control  does not qualify as good moral behavior.

This is my first time on the atheist website.  It was a revelation for me.  I know many people who claim that they do not believe in any god and that is completely up to them but to finad a group that speaks from ignorance 100% of the is something else.  You are wandering aimlessly in the darkness and it is an embarrasment to the human race that you would ignore God’s gift to you and risk your eternal salvation in this life and the next by your pride.  I pray daily for you.      

How is it “mind control” if you are praying to Him for ideas and He gives you one?

If word count and footnotes were the measuring stick for arguments, Lowder looks good.  However, closer examination reveals that besides being verbose, he moves the goalposts as it were.  That is, the charge here was that there was no attestation of the historicity of Jesus outside of the New Testament.  Even if this were true, it would not in and of itself discredit the NT records.  Nonetheless, it is not true and the Roman historian Tacitus was offered as a case in point.  Lowder’s argument is about the sources Tacitus uses, not about Tacitus’ attestation.  Lowder cannot say that Tacitus didn’t cite Jesus so he tries to say Tacitus didn’t have good reason to cite Jesus.  Whether Lowder was trying to move the goalposts, I cannot say – but it’s obvious you are.

Well, no, neither is at all obvious, nor is it obvious that God even exists to begin with. 

But that doesn’t really solve the underlying problem, which is that you claim God won’t tell you how to forgive your enemies unless you beg him to.

TheBlackCat,

The Biblical Case for Everyone Going to Heaven is a book of approximately 55,000 words.  It has a table of contents outlining its contents and the sequence of its logic.  Moreover, one-page summaries of the book can be found at Everyone Is Going to Heaven and Summary of the Book.

Whatever Became of Jesus Christ? is a book of approximately 25,000 words.  It also has a table of contents which outlines the contents and their logical sequence.  A one-page summary of it can be found at Jesus Christ Has Already Come Again.

In addition, there is a series of 21 essays (each averaging about 1,500 words for a total of about 30,000 words) called Essays on the Implications of Everyone Going to Heaven.  This link provides a listing of the essays.  They can be read individually or in sequence.

In all my writings I make truth claims which I then support with logical and biblical evidence.  I organize the material in such a way that a person can quickly tell by a title the truth that is being claimed, and then, if interested, read the support for that particular claim.  Further, I have prepared this Introduction-Overview to identify the most important truths claimed so that person does not have to wade through the entire site to try and figure out what’s crucial.  In other words, my conclusions are not buried in the details – they are evident in the headlines.  I do all these things out of respect for readers and their time.

If you don’t want take advantage of these courtesies, that is your prerogative.  But falsely accusing me of discourtesy to readers is not.

I am not a scientist.  If one has to be a scientist to know God then that’s bad news for a lot of us.

We are currently situated on the side of a ball that is spinning around 1,000 mph at its widest point, while it circles another larger ball at 66,000 mph, while said balls are together flying at 432, 000 mph through their galaxy, and so on.  Yet none of us are falling off or sliding off the ball, nor is any of the water sloshing out of the oceans, rivers, and lakes in which it sits, nor are any of us even getting chapped lips.  Science can tell us that these things are happening and how they happen because science is an exploration of material things.  When it comes to immaterial things, however, science has no tools with which to explore.  

Science is good, but when people try to make it into a religion or make it the means by which to explore God and decide about Him, it fails miserably.

How is what the ID people doing different from what you are doing in that regard?

“Immaterial” means that which cannot be measured by material means.

The material and immaterial world meet most obviously in a human being.  You can use science to explore the body but the spirit, being immaterial, is a different realm.  Psychology tries to get beyond the body but, as I’ve said, there are places science just cannot go.

Although I am not a scientist, I have all the scientific evidence I need to conclude that this material world did not arise from nowhere.  Nothing cannot create something.

Piet Puk,

“The ID people fail miserably by pretending to be scientific.”

I don’t get where the “pretend” comes in.  They accept and follow the principles of science (observation, experimentation, etc.).  Does one have to be an atheist to be a legitimate scientist?

“Please define ‘the spirit’.”

The human spirit is the unseen (i.e. immaterial) part of a person.  Death is the separation of the spirit and the body.  The body remains (and decays) while the spirit departs.  This is why dead humans are lifeless corpses.

“Please share your scientific evidence.”

Share my scientific evidence for what?

“‘Immaterial’ means that which cannot be measured by material means.’   Non existence can also not be measured by material means. How can we know the difference?”

You have to have a reason to think that something immaterial exists.  My scientific facts about 1,000 mph and no chapped lips etc. give me reason to believe that a Creator exists.   There are other reasons also, but those scientific facts strong on their own.

Jesus Christ is true.  However, if you limit yourself to science, and particularly if you limit yourself to science-as-a-religion, you will never get a really good look at Him during this life.

“..if you limit yourself to science, and particularly if you limit yourself to science-as-a-religion..”
Lucky for me I do neither.
If you limit yourself to religion, you will never experience reality. It is not too late to open your eyes and see the world as it is.
Good luck!

Parse,

You’re too focused on the trees to see the forest.  Sure, there are ways to scientifically explain the combined phenomena, but the irony of it all is being lost on you.  It’s as if you have no sense of humor at all.    

I’ll leave it to you and the ID’s to sort out your differences.  As I’ve said, I’m not a scientist.  I do, however, know how to read an encyclopedia.  All that I find there makes me grow in my wonder and appreciation of God.  I’m sure a couple of physics classes would do the same.  

I’ve experienced more than enough reality to realize that Someone is holding it all together.  God bless you!

Parse, what “inaccurate scientific claims” have I made?  The only science I’ve spoken is mph’s for the earth and its solar system.  Are you saying my numbers are off?

Indistinguishable by science, but not by other means.

There are many important things science cannot distinguish: honor, shame, logic, love, and so on.  But just because science cannot distinguish between these things does not mean you can’t.

That’s only measuring the physical reactions we associate with honor, shame, logic, and love.  It would be measuring those realities which drove the reactions.

Same thing.  You’re measuring things we associate with honor – but not honor.

Howsabout the fact that you expect us to be falling or sliding off the ball, water sloshing out of the oceans, rivers and lakes, or people getting chapped lips, if not for your god’s existence?  
In any case, I really have no interest in arguing any further with you.  I feel it’s a waste of my time to go trawling through your web pages to find evidence you claim is there, or to try to shoot down arguments you make which you then claim you can’t support.  I have no intention of doing your research for you, about intelligent design (or science in general), or appropriate sample sizes, or logical fallacies, or how to convert atheists.  

Well, correction on that last point.  I’d recommend you read Ebon Muse’s Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists.  At the very least, it’ll help you realize the mistakes you aren’t even aware that you’re making.

You might as well be saying “God us what keeps is from falling off the Earth and not gravity”. Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously?

Just consider that the air moves with the same as we do relative to the center of the planet and that the relative speed between the air and us is zero and your nonsensical claims disappear

Parse,

“Howsabout the fact that you expect us to be falling or sliding off the ball, water sloshing out of the oceans, rivers and lakes, or people getting chapped lips, if not for your god’s existence?”  

That wasn’t a scientific claim; rather, I was pointing out ironies in creation.  Objects normally fall or slide off a ball, but we don’t fall or slide off the earth.  Water resident in moving objects without a cover normally sloshes out, but water does not slosh out of the oceans, rivers, and lakes of the earth even though it’s moving at a high rate of speed.  Constant high winds usually causes our lips to chap, but we do not routinely get chapped lips even though we’re moving at a high rate of speed on the earth.  These are all simple and undeniable observations and I juxtaposed them in a way that revealed irony, or even humor in the universe.  If you can’t smile at them, then maybe your sense of humor was indeed excised some time back.  But to continue with the humor nonetheless, I find it ludicrous to think that such ironic realities came from out of nowhere.  Not only must we have a Creator, we must have one with an exquisite sense of humor.

“In any case, I really have no interest in arguing any further with you.”

Okay.

“I feel it’s a waste of my time to go trawling through your web pages to find evidence you claim is there, or to try to shoot down arguments you make which you then claim you can’t support.”

I’ve explained the organization of my links relative to the truths I’ve claimed here.  I’ve shown how they’re organized.  Once you get there, the material is organized in such a way that  you can challenge me or ask questions on specific points or sub-points.  There is no need for you or anyone to “trawl through my web pages.”  And as to support, I support all my arguments but I don’t do so with scientific evidence.  I do so with logic.  Not every person is a scientist.  Not even a majority of people are scientists.  But everyone can be logical.

“I have no intention of doing your research for you, about intelligent design (or science in general), or appropriate sample sizes, or logical fallacies, or how to convert atheists.”  

I wasn’t the one who brought up Intelligent Design so I’m not looking for you or anyone to do that research for me.

“Well, correction on that last point.  I’d recommend you read Ebon Muse’s Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists.  At the very least, it’ll help you realize the mistakes you aren’t even aware that you’re making.”

I looked up your source and he shot himself in the foot in the first paragraph.  Among other things, he says, “Ask any believer what would convince him he was mistaken and persuade him to leave his religion and become an atheist, and if you get a response, it will almost invariably be, ‘Nothing – I have faith in my god’.”  Meanwhile, I, for example, have written I Invite You to Challenge Me at My Most Vulnerable Point.

Thanks for engaging with me.

Science can measure feelings to a degree, but they can’t measure what the feelings are feeling.  That is, you can construct a test to measure heart rate, perspiration, brain activity, etc. that we associate with honor or shame or logic or love, but you cannot construct a test that measure honor or shame or logic or love.

I don’t need scientific proof that my spouse exists either but neither can I imagine why I would ever want it.  What does science have to do with our relationship?  Especially since we met in Spanish class.

So now you’re trying to pretend that you were joking. Right….

Yes, and in response I pointed out the superfluity of science in that regard.

I wasn’t joking.  The juxtaposition of those facts is ironic, even funny when you stop and think about them.  But they’re no joke.

Why don’t we take a break?