Prayer request

On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 5:34:46 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2020 6:05 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 9:58:05 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 8:35:20 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2020 8:34 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain in alienable rights."?

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia?

"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772?

"God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the battle." - George Washington

"In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783)

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties - being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775

Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day.


Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson, your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and state and was even called an infidel.

Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed.. You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time.

I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either.

I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern mores. They were no less complex back then.

Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa.

OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects.

But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone murder. Some oppose even capital punishment.

So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another?

We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling, child marriage, homosexual acts and more.

Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views?

Yes, but that's not establishing religion or dictating how we worship -- or what we worship, at least not in the First Amendment sense. ... Most criminal laws fit with secular moral/ethical codes.

I think you're sidestepping the question. What's the source of the
secular moral/ethical codes?


--
- Frank Krygowski

Sidestepping even further, what's the source of religion -- and what is the source of religious prohibitions?

In large part, religion is just the executive branch -- the enforcement mechanism for a lot of social norms, or even worse, the whims of those in power. Do you think Yahweh really gave hygiene tips to Moses? Yahweh had a thing about bodily discharges: http://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bi...till%20evening

You know, if I were Yahweh, I'd be more of a big picture guy and maybe delegate the whole hygiene thing to one of my subordinates.

Worshiping another god will get you the death penalty (Exodus/Deuteronomy). That, I think, would present a constitutional problem. Imagine getting pulled over and hauled off for worshiping another god. Sales for Black Sabbath t-shirts would go down the toilet.

Anyway, secular laws may track religious prohibitions, but that doesn't make them religious. They represent a consensus opinion that existed long before any modern religion.

According to the wonderful world of WIKI, "One of the oldest-known prohibitions against murder appears in the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu written sometime between 2100 and 2050 BC. The code states, "If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder...e%20killed.%22

-- Jay Beattie.

I think that the Jews had something like 622 religious laws. Jesus reduced these to just two - Remember thy lord thy God and Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That should be simple enough for even a lawyer to understand.



Loopholes. There are always loopholes.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I'm Catholic though perhaps lapsed, but MAN are there loopholes. I'm thinking that my wife is going to be doing God's dishes for at least half of an eternity in purgatory until she learns to clean something. In her Church of England style she thinks that all you have to do is say, "I'm sorry" and all is forgiven.

On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 5:52:51 PM UTC-7, Steve Weeks wrote:
On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 12:46:04 PM UTC-5, Radey Shouman wrote:

What's the source of any human behavior? Either it's God or it's not --
there is no reason to separate moral/ethical codes from anything else.

Simple: it's not. Morality is an evolved trait, and it is observed in some non-human species (primates, for one).

Tribalism in animals is more or less universal and has nothing in common with morality. Some guy sent me a video of a lioness and her cub trying to make it across the savannah in a semidrought. An African elephant picked up the cub who was collapsed and carried it to the river. This while surprising was certainly not morality as we would know it.

As we've seen black lives matter is more like a pack of hyenas.

On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 6:01:04 PM UTC-7, Steve Weeks wrote:
On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-5, wrote:

The First Amendment "Establishment" and "Free Exercise" clauses mean that the government cannot advance one religion over another religion, or religion over non-religion. That's what a *secular* government is.


If I am a member of the government I have every right to exercise my religion and to openly tout it should I prefer. What other people think of that is another thing altogether.

You certainly have the right to exercise your religion, and even to tout it. But you may not do so while in the uniform of your government office or during government functions, because that gives the appearance of advancing ("establishing") your religion with the backing of the government.

Who wears a government "uniform"? If I'm a uniform cop are you saying that I do not have the right to express my religious beliefs? A Congressman representing his own area? You are mistaking the actions of the executive and him alone.

On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 7:48:44 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain in alienable rights."?

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia?

"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772?

"God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the battle." - George Washington

"In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783)

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties - being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775

Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day.


Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson, your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and state and was even called an infidel.

Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed. You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time.

I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either.

I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern mores. They were no less complex back then.

Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa.

OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects.

But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone murder. Some oppose even capital punishment.

So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another?

We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling, child marriage, homosexual acts and more.

Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that is pretty much the definition of atheist.

As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken.

Bull**** Frank, you have made it far more than clear that you do not even have an understanding of what principles, morals and ethics are. Your continued comments about my not hitting my head underscores that with a marker the size of New York. There is something so wrong in your head that you probably don't even have snails in your garden that haven't noticed.

On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 7:53:57 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 6:55 PM, wrote:

... Some black telling me that I invented slavery is going to get a fist in his nose.

Hmm. That's not very Christian.


--
- Frank Krygowski



Tell that to the Knights Templar.

On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 8:42:50 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with
certain in alienable rights."?

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation
be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are
the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that
God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas
Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia?

"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in
the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a
slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772?

"God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the
battle." - George Washington

"In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783)

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most
solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost
energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously
bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to
assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness
and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties -
being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live
SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775

Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in
a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my
father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is
still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in
which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your
creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day.


Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the
founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson,
your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the
son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and
state and was even called an infidel.

Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed.
You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently
implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to
account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time.

I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either.

I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on
there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern
mores. They were no less complex back then.

Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa.

OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the
government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand
it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least
killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self
defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least
some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects.

But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone
murder. Some oppose even capital punishment.

So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that
adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another?

We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores
opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling,
child marriage, homosexual acts and more.

Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would
be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my
religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments
you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that
is pretty much the definition of atheist.

As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken.



And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly
developed moral code than religious people. They just have to develop it
from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in
the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your
fellow man.

Yeah, we've watched Black Lives Matter showing their exceptional moral code throughout the US for the last 3 months.

On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 11:34:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 7:38:25 AM UTC+2, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 03:42:48 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with
certain in alienable rights."?

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation
be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are
the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that
God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas
Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia?

"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in
the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a
slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772?

"God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the
battle." - George Washington

"In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783)

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most
solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost
energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously
bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to
assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness
and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties -
being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live
SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775

Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in
a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my
father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is
still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in
which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your
creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day.


Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the
founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson,
your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the
son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and
state and was even called an infidel.

Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed.
You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently
implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to
account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time.

I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either.

I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on
there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern
mores. They were no less complex back then.

Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa.

OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the
government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand
it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least
killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self
defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least
some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects.

But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone
murder. Some oppose even capital punishment.

So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that
adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another?

We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores
opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling,
child marriage, homosexual acts and more.

Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would
be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my
religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments
you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that
is pretty much the definition of atheist.

As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken.

Am 19.06.2020 um 15:51 schrieb :

Certainly, atheists are happy to say that because it isn't possible
in the length of time this universe has existed for the human genome
to develop that magic must have happened to speed it up. And they
object to most religions saying that God created the heaven and Earth
as a retreat to magic.

There were times when human scientists said "according to science,
Bumblebees can't fly" Obviously, bumblebees can fly, and they don't
need magic for it. Human scientists were just not sufficiently advanced
in understanding insect flight.

Similarly, "it isn't possible in the length of time of this universe" is
clearly not true. The human genome has developed in the time of this
universe, and if we're too stupid to understand how, that's only a sign
of our stupidity and not a sign the magic would be needed to create
human beings.

On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 7:18:50 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 19.06.2020 um 15:51 schrieb :

Certainly, atheists are happy to say that because it isn't possible
in the length of time this universe has existed for the human genome
to develop that magic must have happened to speed it up. And they
object to most religions saying that God created the heaven and Earth
as a retreat to magic.

There were times when human scientists said "according to science,
Bumblebees can't fly" Obviously, bumblebees can fly, and they don't
need magic for it. Human scientists were just not sufficiently advanced
in understanding insect flight.

Similarly, "it isn't possible in the length of time of this universe" is
clearly not true. The human genome has developed in the time of this
universe, and if we're too stupid to understand how, that's only a sign
of our stupidity and not a sign the magic would be needed to create
human beings.

Not understanding aerodynamics is one thing. We have a complete understanding of the rates of mutation and change in DNA structures. Try as we might we have NEVER found a single example of a new species appearing from "evolution". Darwin's Finches are only an example of evolution improving a species to operate better inside its environment.

We can find NOWHERE in the fossil records ANY intermediate steps between species. You are doing nothing more than waving your hands and saying that it really isn't magic, we just can't see behind the curtain. Well we have looked behind the curtain and there's nothing there.

On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with
certain in alienable rights."?

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation
be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are
the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that
God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas
Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia?

"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in
the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a
slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772?

"God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the
battle." - George Washington

"In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783)

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most
solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost
energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously
bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to
assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness
and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties -
being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live
SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775

Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in
a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my
father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is
still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in
which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your
creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day.


Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the
founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson,
your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the
son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and
state and was even called an infidel.

Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed.
You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently
implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to
account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time.

I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either.

I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on
there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern
mores. They were no less complex back then.

Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa.

OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the
government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand
it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least
killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self
defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least
some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects.

But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone
murder. Some oppose even capital punishment.

So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that
adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another?

We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores
opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling,
child marriage, homosexual acts and more.

Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would
be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my
religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments
you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that
is pretty much the definition of atheist.

As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken.



And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly
developed moral code than religious people.

On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most
"Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a
wonderful moral code.

On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid
people with no apparent moral standards at all.

So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of
uselessness.

If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a
large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or
"believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group.
Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes,
which is a tough job in itself.

They just have to develop it
from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in
the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your
fellow man.

I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious
people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person
who literally believes in that cartoon figure.

So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument.


--
- Frank Krygowski