Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Since I'm Far, Far Too Lazy to Offer Original Content...

This. Just this. Go. Read. For me it was 1*,2,3, and to a lesser extent 6. Although I notice BeamStalk has already found an approved, so good on you... ------------- *With the addition of "history."

5 comments:

BeamStalk said...

3 and a lesser extent 1.

I like Ken's blog.

The Woeful Budgie said...

6 led to 3, which in turn led to 1.

It's amazing how quickly it all crumbles.

Fake Al Gore said...

It's almost all number one for me. I just couldn't see a need for any sort of deity when science explains everything pretty well.

Geds said...

So you're saying that science lead you to a sort of inconvenient truth?

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. I'm also available for weddings and bar mitzvahs...

Michael Mock said...

Mine was closest to number three; basically, there are fundamental elements of Christianity that simply don't make sense to me (the idea that Christ's sacrifice can somehow atone for *my* sins, the entire concept of the trinity). Add to that the way the character of G-d appears to develop and grow as the narrative progresses, and the absence of supporting historical evidence, and a very strong impression that the universe acts according to its nature rather than any outside guidance, and...

On the other hand, I wouldn't consider myself a pure rationalist, either; there are several things I believe in (or half believe in) that I'm pretty sure are unprovable, untestable, or just untrue.