Does God exist? (5 Viewers)

[BradCube]

But the will cannot be properly free if it is constrained by reason.

Maybe I am simply missing you're point over and over but I cannot see how this is true if the will has the ability to carry out any of the choices presented to it. The only sense that I can see in your line of logic is that the will does not control all situations that it is placed in. Hence, situations external to the individual will impose choices upon them which the would have otherwise not have had to make.

The main reason I defend this position is because your logic does not line up with what I experience everyday. I am presented with choices I must make everyday, some where my will is influenced by prior beliefs, values etc. However in each of those situations, despite the fact that I know I have these influences I know that I am clearly able to go with the option which seems less rational to me. Now this doesn't mean that I do. It simply means that I know I have the ability to, and since I have the ability to do either I have made a free willed choice to do one.

Maybe our differences lie in what we regard as "free" in the definition of free will?

We'll have to agree to disagree here. If responsibility depends on free will then that's just the way it is in my mind. It might not be fun when truth offends our moral sentiments but I think it is important to face up to it - vital even.

So what we get down to, is that if free will exists, then moral values (at least to some degree) exist. If free will does not exist, moral values are simply an illusion?

Fair enough I say. However, I would be interested to hear an explanation of how you believe moral values have come to be, even without free will. In particular I am interested in your statement below.

In some cases it may be important to recognise flaws in our moral instincts so that we might avoid their effects.

This seems backwards to me. Prove that free will does not exist and then ignore the inconsistencies in the moral convictions that you feel? How would the flaws in moral instincts develop by natural means only if they are counter productive to our societies survival and well being? It is for this reasoning (where we have moral values that go beyond just survival) that I think this issue still have weight in a debate regarding free will.

Firstly, Ockham's razor is just the prinicple of parsimony (often used in metaphysics and the physical sciences) which states that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. The relevance is that a truly free will is required to be causally isolated in that it is not determined by physical factors. A naturalistic explanation of the will (such as I am offering) identifies the will with neurobiological structures in the brain. Of course, if the will is identified with physical matter then it must be able to causally interact with the world. To have a will which is casually insulated from the will you have to impose something akin to dualism - this is where 'spooky' supernatural substances come in. We thus have two competing explanations of human behavior (1) a naturalistic, constrained will and (2) a supernatural free will. Ockham's razor encourages us to avoid unnecessarily elaborate metaphysics (such as occurs when we introduce dualism when it is not logically entailed) and thus can be used against free will in this instance.

Ockham's razor will hold if your explanation holds perfectly proven under the conditions we are talking about. I don't feel that this is the case at all however. Based on what you are saying above I believe you are saying that all of our consciousness and illusionary free will, is simply based on physical structures of the brain. ie all consciousness is simply based on biological matter.

Now this issue is something that is very debatable. It is also something I am not particular adept in my understanding of. I would, like to see you formulate your reasonings for this belief however. As far as I have read, this issue seems to be still highly controversial based on studies and scientific findings.

 

[KFunk]

You're right regarding consciousness - noone has succeeded in providing a naturalistic explanation for consciousness yet. This means that my case cannot be made in a logically flawless manner, but I'm not really bothered. Bar physics, science is rarely so straight forward, and I am happy enough to rely on deference to the best (/most plausible) available explanation).

Maybe I am simply missing you're point over and over but I cannot see how this is true if the will has the ability to carry out any of the choices presented to it. The only sense that I can see in your line of logic is that the will does not control all situations that it is placed in. Hence, situations external to the individual will impose choices upon them which the would have otherwise not have had to make.

At the end of the day the issue is this: either the will is random, or it is not. If it is random then I am baffled about how our actions manage to acheive their self- and world-relevance. If the will is not random then it is ordered by some constraining factor. This factor may be sensory input, it may be social conditioning, it may be logic and reasoning, and it may be god's will. Whatever the constraining factor might be, if the will is to be non-random (as is necessary to explain how it correlates so well with the world and our individual identities) then it must be constrained in a way which prevents it from being free. That's all there is to it.

So what we get down to, is that if free will exists, then moral values (at least to some degree) exist. If free will does not exist, moral values are simply an illusion?

Fair enough I say. However, I would be interested to hear an explanation of how you believe moral values have come to be, even without free will. In particular I am interested in your statement below.

This seems backwards to me. Prove that free will does not exist and then ignore the inconsistencies in the moral convictions that you feel? How would the flaws in moral instincts develop by natural means only if they are counter productive to our societies survival and well being? It is for this reasoning (where we have moral values that go beyond just survival) that I think this issue still have weight in a debate regarding free will.

My explanation of moral values comes from evolutionary biology. If you have the time I have attached a clear, brief review article from nature which summarises some of the relevant arguments. The general idea is that rough moral principles such as 'do unto others as you would have done unto you' (i.e. the golden rule) possess a high degree of utility, in that they increase one's chances of reproducing when followed, and so are likely to emerge within social settings.

How would flaws in moral instincts develop? The important thing to remember is that evolution always takes place with respect to a certain environment (which takes into account physical, biological and social features). What works in one environment may not work in another. For example, species may evolve a thick coat as a result of falling global temperatures in an ice age. At the end of the ice age the animals with the thickest coats may overheat and find themselves maladapted for the warm environment. Similarly, social environments change. The evolution of pro-social moral faculties would largely have taken place while humans existed in small hunter-gather communities. We are used to dealing with small communities and so there is no garuntee that our moral sense is suited to society on the national or international scale. Consider this extract from a study on medical donations called 'Sympathy and Callousness':

When donating to charitable causes, people do not value lives consistently. Money is often concentrated on a single victim even though more people would be helped, if resources were dispersed or spent protecting future victims. We examine the impact of deliberating about donation decisions on generosity. In a series of field experiments, we show that teaching or priming people to recognize the discrepancy in giving toward identifiable and statistical victims has perverse effects: individuals give less to identifiable victims but do not increase giving to statistical victims, resulting in an overall reduction in caring and giving. Thus, it appears that, when thinking deliberatively, people discount sympathy towards identifiable victims but fail to generate sympathy toward statistical victims.

Such is the state of our moral instincts.

 

[BradCube]

Before I start I just want to say thanks for what was a far more honest and unbiased reply than what I was expecting. It's pretty unusual on the BOS forums and particularly in such an opinionated thread such as this.

1. the christian bible says "seek and you shall find", "draw near to god and he will draw near to you" (3unitz NIVZ). i believe i genuinely sought after god, yet i found nothing to base or build faith onto. the bible promised me i would find something, and i simply didnt. im happy to answer any questions (if you have any) on this further, however id also like to know how you think this "seeking after god" should be done, or how you yourself became christian.

I imagine that the seeking process would not be the same for every individual, since many people believe things on different merits for different reasons. However, personally I find myself drawn to the same form of hard or at least reasonable evidence to support my faith or belief as yourself. This wasn't always the case. Being that I became a Christian at 6 years of age, such evidence wasn't as critical for me to understand - although it did always interest me. However, at this point in my life I find I am heavily drawn toward a need for real evidence rather than just a blind faith. This is not just for my own benefit but also so I can at least feel some confidence in sharing what I believe and why I believe it with others.

Coming here to the BOS forums is part of my seeking process. I have to say though that most opinions on here seem to be anti-god and anti-religion for biased reasons. Either way though, defending my current faith is one way I use to see whether it is valid or not.

Reading on the internet and reading books I have found is also a good way to seek Gods existence.

So for me my seeking process is not over. To be honest I don't know that it ever will be. Currently however, I have seen enough in my life to hold reasonably to the faith in which I currently believe.

2. the more things that dont "add up": to me personally evolution and genesis, every single argument to why someone believes in god (perhaps other then "personal experience") which i see as flawed (makes me wonder if anyone really has a decent reason to believe),

So basically what you have pointed out is that there are many things to which you don't believe any explanation provides suitable reasoning for belief in God.

Not to offend here, but do you realize that the same reasoning could be applied to the belief in atheism? Ie, if one cannot find suitable hard evidence that disproves God, then it is likely that God exists. Both arguments seem a little illogical in my opinion.

You mentioned evolution in their also, which I realize from our discussion you are far more knowledgeable than I am. However based on our discussions, I felt that evolution had provided no hard evidence of how or why things happened the way they did. In fact I felt that much of it was speculation since we are still learning and discovering more about our past. My point is that, basing your disproofs of God on what is largely still being discovered and learned about through science seems to be a bit rash. At least it would be a little worrying to me.

speaking in tongues (i personally see that as crackpot, sorry if i offend, but knowing christians which do the SHUNDI RAMUNDI's doesnt help me thinking theyre sane lol)

Ha ha, I loved this response. Speaking in tongues is a pretty interesting topic (in fact it's pretty debated about within different churches). I can understand your reasoning here, but I would encourage you to see if what you regard as insanity in this case lines up with how they carry out the majority of their lives when they are not speaking in tongues etc. Do they act like sane people in everyday life. Are they generally coherent? In my experience, people that can speak in tongues appear just as normal to me as those that don't (apart from when they are speaking in tongues however )

Another thing which kinda didnt "add up" personally for me (and you might not get this, none of my christian friends did either, at least to not the extent i wanted them to) why did satan chose to disobey god? why is he a complete idiot? is there something wrong with his head? whys he such a jerk?

That's amazing, I was only just thinking about this the other day! Doesn't it seem ridiculously implausible that there would be someone who is only bad and evil? And conversely that that they would hate the person who is only good and righteous?

To be honest with you, I don't have a definitive answer for this - I will be the first to admit that. The best I can guess is that he hates God for the very same reason that many people do today. That being that they don't want to be told what to do. They want to be in control of their own lives and do the things that they want to do and when someone in authority tells them they can't do that, they're not all that appreciative.

It's an issue that is probably worth me investigating further and I thank you for bringing it up

----------

Everyone's questions and responses seem to be getting away from me at the moment. There are too many to answer! I will try and en devour to get through them all but it may take a while + I'm off for a while to play some games with friends

 

[KFunk]

Not to offend here, but do you realize that the same reasoning could be applied to the belief in atheism? Ie, if one cannot find suitable hard evidence that disproves God, then it is likely that God exists. Both arguments seem a little illogical in my opinion.

This is why I am agnostic.

 

[HalcyonSky]

get some sleep sam, why take ur comment back?

[quote="BradCube]Not to offend here, but do you realize that the same reasoning could be applied to the belief in atheism? Ie, if one cannot find suitable hard evidence that disproves God, then it is likely that God exists. Both arguments seem a little illogical in my opinion.[/quote]

this reasoning is flawed, and has already been discussed in this thread or a similar one: I can't prove that there isnt an invisible dragon floating behind me, but does make believing in the entity any more credible? no, it does not, its completely ridiculous to believe that azuregos escaped from the data in my wow folder and is now watching me type this post.

 

[BradCube]

this reasoning is flawed, and has already been discussed in this thread or a similar one: I can't prove that there isnt an invisible dragon floating behind me, but does make believing in the entity any more credible? no, it does not, its completely ridiculous to believe that azuregos escaped from the data in my wow folder and is now watching me type this post.

I think you need to re-read what I have posted HalcyonSky. You are arguing what I have already agreed with. In fact the very section that you quoted has me stating that I believe this to be illogical reasoning. This is why 3unitz said that he retracted what he previously stated.

 

[HalcyonSky]

If you agree with what i said, then are you not admitting to the illogicality of your theistic beliefs?

 

[BradCube]

If you agree with what i said, then are you not admitting to the illogicality of your theistic beliefs?

No, because I never stated that that is why I believe what I do.

 

[BradCube]

What reason do you have for emulating the Christian god? Because it is the right thing to do? Seems rather circular, I can't get my head around it.

How can doing something "simply because it is the right thing to do" possibly be a strong foundation for ethics?

So essentially you are asking me why I would rather do good rather than wrong? As a christian it would be because I am commanded to. It would also be because the feeling of guilt from doing wrong is hard for me to deal with. This answer seems pretty obvious though so I assume that you must be getting at something else here.

I would not claim this reasoning here to be foundation for ethics. Rather this is a response to ethics. The foundation of ethics is based in what I believe to be Gods character as I said before. Ie it is him that defines what is good and evil simply on the bases of who he is.

You are assuming a god is necessary for morality (see bottom of post).

Close, but not quite. I am claiming that God is necessary for objective morality of any significance to exist. I would accept that morality can exist without a God, but none that bears any real meaning since there is essential no right or wrong.

I would like to quote Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist here. He sums up my thoughts on the issue pretty succinctly:

The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things are war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true and significant. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion.₁

He concludes:

Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.₂

₁Richard Taylor, Ethics, Faith, and Reason (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1985), pp. 2-3.
₂ Ibid., p. 7.

I'll go out on a limb here and say: I agree that there are no black and white moral truths. Each situation must take everything into consideration: e.g. a moral truth might be "killing is utterly unacceptable" but some would argue that if it was to save 1000 innocents it would be acceptable to kill 1 person.

This is where I would disagree with you. Lets say that "killing is utterly unacceptable" (pretty broad description, but we will leave it at that for now). Using your example I would argue that it is wrong for that one man to kill 1000 people just as it is wrong for 1 person to kill that man. Now the terminology is getting quite confusing here because you are using terms such as "acceptable" rather than right or wrong. "Acceptable" is a personally subjective term rather than the objective morality that we are discussing.

Also, even with a god, we're still decaying organic matter. What's wrong with that?

I think you probably understand my point with the explanations above, but I will reiterate. While, yes, we are still decaying matter currently, without God, there is no purpose and no reason to think that what happens with that matter is anything other than coincidence. Without God there is no law-giver, or something that dictates what morally right and wrong is. Any forms of morality that are created without a God are simply that - created. Right or wrong created by the agent to which right and wrong applies holds no significant value whatsoever.

So this raises a bigger problem. Namely that which Kfunk brought up underneath your post - Euthyphro's Dilemma

Basically this dilemma poses this morality question directly at God. ie, did God create right and wrong (hence it having no meaning since it was created) or did he abide to what was already established as right or wrong - which raises the question, where did this objective morality arise from?

My opinion is that there is a third option, that being that God himself is the very definition of what right and wrong is. He did not create it since it is a by-product of his character and essentially who he is. This concept took my mind quite a while to wrap itself around. In the context of an omnipotent and omnipresent God such as that of christian belief it makes perfect sense to me since that God is the absolute definition and reason for everything. There is nothing for him to abide to and there is nothing for him to create to abide to - he simply is.

Think about it for a while, I know it messed with me for a long time.

I certainly do believe evolution has a large impact on our "gut feelings" (for lack of a better phrase). I recall a study was taken of a group of atheists and a group of theists and both were asked what they would do in certain basic situations (along the lines of murder and sacrifice) and the answers were always the same. This indicates we have a common basic groundwork, but I'll be honest and say this is not enough.

Objective morality would expect that both atheists and theists have the same underlying moral beliefs.

These actions (rape, adultery) that have a possible positive benefit must be taken into consideration with other things. I cannot possibly answer with such little information.

Objective morality would assert that these seemingly universal moral convictions are due to more than simply evolutionary factors - hence why they still persist despite have negative effects on the survival of humans.

To try and thin down all these quotes, I think we've boiled down to these questions, which I will elaborate on:


Is an acceptable system of ethics possible without a god? Why/why not?
Yes, because a god is not necessary for ethics in the first place.

How do you arrive at this system of ethics?
Each person's morality is influenced by a huge range of personal beliefs and experiences. Personally, it comes down to utilitarianism (moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome) and am influenced by philosophies such as secular humanism. Many people will subscribe to a similar position, whether or not they conciously apply a label to it.

1. Is an acceptable system of ethics possible without a god? Why/why not?
This very much depends on what you regard as acceptable. I would argue that yes, a system of ethics is certainly possible without God. However such as system would have no real significant meaning or purpose other than keeping it's species alive.

2. How do you arrive at this system of ethics?
If we are looking at only a naturalistic explanation (that without a God) then this system would be arrived at based on evolutionary factors of the species. Things regarded as "good" would be things that promote survivability. Things regarded as "bad" would those that hinder the survivability of the population.

With a God I would think that each person would have Gods system of ethics laid or programmed into their conscience. At least originally. This area gets tricky because we can subdue our conscience by repeatedly doing wrong to the point that we learn how to effectively ignore our conscience. I know that I can attest to this anyway.

And also for you;

How does believing in a god allow you to judge individual situations correctly?

Okay, before I start on this I would like to firstly state that I don't mind if you simply disregard what I am saying here, because I realize that most of these things may seem foreign or absurd.

How do I judge situations correctly in regard to objective morality?
Well I firstly examine my conscience for what my "gut" feeling or conviction is on the issue. Often times this will simply be enough in order to tell if what I am doing is right or wrong - as I imagine it is for the majority of situations for you to.

Although this rarely proves ineffective, If I am still concerned about the issue then I would consult someone which I feel has had excellent moral judgment in the past, pray about it and read the bible on any similar issues - particularly that of how Jesus would have decided when placed in the same situation.

Now although this next point may seem ridiculous I am sure that it is worth mentioning. Christians believe that when they accept Christ they also receive what is called the "Holy Spirit" (also known as the holy ghost). The Holy spirit is said to help guide Christians in their faith just as Christ would have done if he was still around. The Holy spirit also has other purpose (which you can read about through the link if you wish) but my point is that this is essentially another way to know if what I am doing is right or wrong.

Btw, thanks for replying before and I hope you can make sense of the rather piece-meal post above.

No problem at all. Although it does always take a while for me to reply to a post, I do enjoy doing it because it enables me to actually think out what I believe and why. For that my thanks goes to you

 

[BradCube]

Also, as an addendum to the above:

You claim that "without God there are no moral truths whatsoever", but what about logic/reason? If logic/reason are able to exist independent of god AND it is also the case that god given morality is justified by logic/reason (as suggested above) then it seems to follow that moral truths must exist independent of god's existence.

It seems to me that our definition of moral seems to be different. I took a quick extract from dictionary.com to help explain the issue.

Moral:
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

I actually find this definition to be fairly non-descriptive in this issue although I do find it to lean slightly toward my own definition. When I refer to moral objective truths, I am not referring to logic or reasoning in the sense that you seem to be putting forward. Ie 1+1=3 is not the same "wrong" as implied with rape or some act which we regard to be morally wrong.

I also find one part in your argument here which doesn't seem to make much sense. That being "If logic/reason are able to exist independent of god". I don't know that you could possibly show this, for you would need to first be able to prove that God does not exist and that logic can then still exist.

 

[HalcyonSky]

using logic and reason i can refrain from killing children. I am moral without god.

David Berkowitz killed because god told him to. Anything that obstructs logical and reasonable thought in our brains such as mental illness diminishes our ability to act 'morally'. So to me, morality is just an inbuilt system of logic developed through our evolution and our upbringing, not some ethereal constant controlled by an entity only 1/3 of the world believes in.

And also, what about muslims? their system of morality is completely different to that of a christian and contradicts many christian values. What'd god do with their morality when he was handing it out? Not to mention the vastly different moral values we have today compared to that of the time of roman emperors. I spose god altered his brilliant implementation over the years? 14 billion years musnt have been long enough for him to get it right

 

[BradCube]

using logic and reason i can refrain from killing children. I am moral without god.

So why is not killing children logical? If you are moral without God then surely that means what you regard as moral has no real significance at all.

David Berkowitz killed because "god told him to". Anything that obstructs logical and reasonable thought in our brains such as mental illness diminishes our ability to act 'morally'.

I would change that to "Anything that obstructs logical and reasonable thought in our conscience (since it is what deals with what we regard as morally right or wrong) such as mental illness diminishes our ability to act 'morally'.

So to me, morality is just an inbuilt system of logic developed through our evolution and our upbringing, not some ethereal constant controlled by an entity only 1/3 of the world believes in.

This conclusion does not follow from your previous point. How did your previous point have anything to do with with evolution and upbringing? All your previous point dealt with was the inability for some people to act as what most regard to be morally right or wrong.

And also, what about muslims? their system of morality is completely different to that of a christian and contradicts many christian values. What'd god do with their morality when he was handing it out?

Which values in particular do you feel are different? It's probably worth highlighting that first before making such a bold claim about large groups of people.

 

[HalcyonSky]

So why is not killing children logical? If you are moral without God then surely that means what you regard as moral has no real significance at all.

because it is needlessly ending their life. I look at how i would feel in the same situation, and decide i dont want to inflict that upon them.

I would change that to "Anything that obstructs logical and reasonable thought in our conscience (since it is what deals with what we regard as morally right or wrong) such as mental illness diminishes our ability to act 'morally'.

no, i meant in our brains, many mental illnesses like schizophrenia cause physical changes in our actual brains which then alters our consciousness.

This conclusion does not follow from your previous point. How did your previous point have anything to do with with evolution and upbringing? All your previous point dealt with was the inability for some people to act as what most regard to be morally right or wrong.

yes it does. I am saying i use logic and reason to guide most of my actions. Logic and reason are traits gained through our evolution. Therefore, my 'morality' is due to evolution.

Which values in particular do you feel are different? It's probably worth highlighting that first before making such a bold claim about large groups of people.

do you really need me to point this out? im not even going to bother.

 

[HalcyonSky]

On a side note, im much more of a prick than i would be if i believed in a god.

 

[BradCube]

because it is needlessly ending their life. I look at how i would feel in the same situation, and decide i dont want to inflict that upon them.

So you're a vegetarian then?

no, i meant in our brains, many mental illnesses like schizophrenia cause physical changes in our actual brains which then alters our consciousness.

Okay, so I will agree that it is a mental illness that affects the brains ability to deal with morality in what would be seen to be normal. Either way, this is what the conscience describes.

yes it does. I am saying i use logic and reason to guide most of my actions. Logic and reason are traits gained through our evolution. Therefore, my 'morality' is due to evolution.

So you are part way there now. However, you still have to explain how reason and logic are gained through evolution.

do you really need me to point this out? im not even going to bother.

If you don't want to discuss it then that is fine. The only reason I asked you to highlight the issues is because I don't know that I am completely aware of them all.

 

[BradCube]

On a side note, im much more of a prick than i would be if i believed in a god.

Ha ha. It's okay I kind of expect to be made fun of to be perfectly honest with you

 

[HalcyonSky]

So you're a vegetarian then?

killing animals benefits me though. They are tasty.

Okay, so I will agree that it is a mental illness that affects the brains ability to deal with morality in what would be seen to be normal. Either way, this is what the conscience describes.
So you are part way there now. However, you still have to explain how reason and logic are gained through evolution.
If you don't want to discuss it than that is fine. The only reason I asked you to highlight the issues is because I don't know that I am completely aware of them all.

i dont think the mechanism of how our morality developed has been identified yet. The emergence of mental cognition and logic definately came before morality because lower animals use logic all the time, but i dont treat morality as a seperate entity to logic, just an extension of it.

Even though the mechanism hasnt been fully explained (to my knowledge), im not going to take the easy way out and say god did it. Research is forever advancing, and the answers will be found eventually.

 

[BradCube]

killing animals benefits me though. They are tasty.

Lol - as I am sure children are. The point is that despite what you believe about how morality has come to exist, you still maintain that there is something innately wrong about killing a child rather than a cow. If you believe there is something actually wrong about murdering a child, yet subscribe to the thought the thought that your own evolution has formed this belief then surely there is nothing innately wrong with it at all.

Even though the mechanism hasnt been fully explained (to my knowledge), im not going to take the easy way out and say god did it. Research is forever advancing, and the answers will be found eventually.

I seem to be seeing this over and over again. That is, I won't believe that God did it (even if it does make sense), I choose to believe that nature did it and science will one day be able to show it (despite having no current evidence). The "science did it" explanation is just as implausible on the same merits as the "God did it" argument. At least the "God did it" argument can be tested and proved wrong. The "science did it" argument will continue to exist forever - regardless of whether an explanation is eventually found or not.

 

[HalcyonSky]

no current evidence? come on now, science is always advancing and always explaining things we once attributed to god like the sun rising, and disproving things like the earth being the center of the universe. There IS evidence for evolution, and its only common sense to think that human reason stems from evolution as well.

If humans were exceptionally tasty, and it wasnt illegal to kill, then maybe i would slay the odd child for a special feast

 

[chicky_pie]

Where's the poll for this thread? Mods, please make a poll for this thread. I'm sure god will be happy too