Support NeoGAF

[Sutton Dagger]

The Christian God is absolute and unchanging. Morals, in my worldview, are a reflection of his character, his very nature, and are therefore absolute by necessity. He doesn't make the rules, he is the rules. That is how they are absolute and that is why we, creatures created in his image, are subject to them.

That's fine that you've chosen a different place from which to derive your morals. I won't argue that morals derived from science are terrible or always wrong or anything like that, but I do think it's quite absurd to claim that they are objective, for the reasons I've stated as well as Kinitari's very well reasoned post.

Also, when you say "may actually objectively (using our acquired knowledge of well being)" you are basically saying, "may actually objectively (using subjective criteria X...)."

Yet you didn't demonstrate 'by what right', Quo warranto (or God's existence, but that's beside the point).

Do you think that it's possible for someone to live in utter misery, plagued by chronic pain and mental anguish? Do you also think its possible for someone to be in peak physical health and cognitive 'bliss'? Do these two ends of the spectrum in anyway relate to physical processes in the brain?

p.s I'm trying to be consise as I'm on a phone and going to bed.

 

[Lafiel]

I believe that objective morality exists in a sense that certain actions like murder, rape, etc are generally wrong in most contexts of society, however one thing to consider is the inner-perception of people who perform those acts, for example I don't believe one who commits murder is inherently evil because there is a rational reason why someone could be pushed to such a state that they'd perform the act, such as mental problems etc, but the act itself is objectively wrong and they should suffer the consequences for the act regardless. It's also one reason why I'm against the death penalty in regards to the legal system and favor rehabilitation instead.

Of course when we go to the subject of personal morality in our day-to-day lives the situation does become more complex, although for most people in my experience it is better to follow "the golden rule" then to not follow it at all, for yourself and others IMO.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Which is something I would agree with completely, but I would never even begin to assume it is in any way that my experiences, or our collective experiences, could lead us to an objective path of 'right and wrong' - that takes a level of consciousness, or more importantly, a lack of consciousness unavailable to use. And I feel this is an important, not just semantic difference.

Philosophical objectivity is usually defined as something being objective separate from the consciousness of the person who has made the claim - but it's impossible for any of us to separate from our consciousness and view the world on that 'plane' - and I mean that in regards to the religious and the non-religious alike.

Instead, borrowing from the scientific method, we never claim to know objective truth, we simply attempt to work with what we know, and leave ourselves always open for the possibility that we are wrong. When you claim absolute objectivity, you can never be wrong, and that is a dangerous idea.

Agree, and that is why I wouldn't claim 'objective truth' in a philosophical sense, but as I explained, in an ever changing scientific sense. The sciences of neurology, evolutionary biology etc have more to say about morals (using 'morals' in a well being sense) than people are giving them credit for (and will obviously improve as science always does). This also doesn't mean that there is one correct answer to a moral issue, as different actions may ultimately produce similar brain states.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

This may simply be a problem of semantics. What does 'moral' actually mean? Is there only one definition? The term may be entirely irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

You may say 'but why does it matter if we promote well being', or 'why do morals need to relate to conscious creatures'? I would say what other criteria would we need to use? Our experiences as conscious beings is all that really matters to us because we are the ones conceiving of such things.

Moral is defined as, "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character."

My number one objection to Sam Harris' proposals, assuming I were an atheist, is that they don't actually give us a reason for why more well being for more people is a good (dealing with morality now) thing. Why isn't it more important for each individual to maximize goodness for themselves and not worry about their effect on others? Why should anyone be concerned about "the greater good"? The answer to that question will never be objective.

Anyway, this will be my lost post for awhile as I'm not going to be near a computer. Thanks for the discussion guys, I think this is by far the best one I've seen in any thread related to religion here on GAF. I appreciate everyone's civility.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Sam Harris begs the question often in that book. I'm reminded of a particular review on Amazon that highlights the difference between what Sam Harris wants to accomplish and what he actually accomplishes:

So, have you actually read the book? It sounds like you are piecing together bits of information from secondary sources.

And, you might benefit from reading this.

The book is formatted in such a manner that much of it seems to be written with uncanny prescience, as though Harris anticipated the tsunami of unfounded criticisms against his thesis before they were even levied.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Moral is defined as, "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character."

My number one objection to Sam Harris' proposals, assuming I were an atheist, is that they don't actually give us a reason for why more well being for more people is a good (dealing with morality now) thing. Why isn't it more important for each individual to maximize goodness for themselves and not worry about their effect on others? Why should anyone be concerned about "the greater good"? The answer to that question will never be objective.

Anyway, this will be my lost post for awhile as I'm not going to be near a computer. Thanks for the discussion guys, I think this is by far the best one I've seen in any thread related to religion here on GAF. I appreciate everyone's civility.

You are speaking as if we are single entities interacting in a vacuum. Instead, as a highly adapted social primate, our co-operation is paramount to our survival, and thus the 'greater good' also entails the self. Human interactions and relationships are also vital for our cognitive well being, so promoting the well being of others correlates to our own well being.

 

[Conciliator]

You are speaking as if we are single entities interacting in a vacuum. Instead, as a highly adapted social primate, our co-operation is paramount to our survival, and thus the 'greater good' also entails the self. Human interactions and relationships are also vital for our cognitive well being, so promoting the well being of others correlates to our own well being.

Sure, to the extent that cooperating with others benefits us, it makes sense for us to co-operate. That question has an easy answer...but cooperating with others, and especially sacrificing for others, is not always inherently always to our benefit, in fact most of the time it doesn't have any apparent direct effect, like if I send 1000 bucks to starving Cambodian children. So the question is: When in it's that second category, should we still feel compelled to be altruistic? If you believe in a magical universe, again you get an easy answer. If you don't though...what's our reasoning?

 

[Raist]

I fixed for ya. See it's not that hard to ask the question, but in reality most atheists here are gnostic.

You didn't fix anything. Any holy book is self contradicting, and holy books/mythologies have made claims about the natural world which are flat out wrong. Coming from a supposedly omniscient god(s) there can be only one logical and reasonable explanation: if a god exists, no current or past religion got it right.

 

[JGS]

You didn't fix anything. Any holy book is self contradicting, and holy books/mythologies have made claims about the natural world which are flat out wrong. Coming from a supposedly omniscient god(s) there can be only one logical and reasonable explanation: if a god exists, no current or past religion got it right.

I actually still can't see the connection but i guess it depends on which holy books got what wrong.

 

[Raist]

I actually still can't see the connection but i guess it depends on which holy books got what wrong.

List would take a while. Since you're asking, let's take the bible.
The flood? How to cure leprosy? The age of the earth? The fact that it supposedly came before stars? And so on and so forth.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Q to atheist GAF:

What is your single biggest complaint about religion? The doctrines it preaches or the lack of evidence for a deity?

People's willingness to cling onto a belief system based on faith and not reason. The repercussions of this irrational justification for a belief system can at times be horrific.

God is an entirely dismiss-able concept, because there is no evidence to support its existence. There is no pedestal God rests on, there is nothing to justify treating the concept of God any differently to any other mythological construct other than human being's own delusion of grandeur.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Sure, to the extent that cooperating with others benefits us, it makes sense for us to co-operate. That question has an easy answer...but cooperating with others, and especially sacrificing for others, is not always inherently always to our benefit, in fact most of the time it doesn't have any apparent direct effect, like if I send 1000 bucks to starving Cambodian children. So the question is: When in it's that second category, should we still feel compelled to be altruistic? If you believe in a magical universe, again you get an easy answer. If you don't though...what's our reasoning?

How does it make you feel when you send that $1000 to the starving Cambodian children? Do you feel good about yourself, do you feel like you have contributed to the greater good (I'm sure I would)?

 

[Cyan]

But just because one person answers the question one way doesn't mean everyone will answer it that way. It also doesn't actually say anything about whether or not the Utilitarian model for morality is actually the "right" one. It doesn't tell us why we should trust our emotions. It doesn't tell us why our emotions are more valuable than logic at times, and why logic should at other times outweigh emotion. It doesn't account for the extreme variances in emotion that humans exhibit. What is the point in considering logic in a system alongside something as completely unreliable as emotion? Why should emotion be allowed to interfere with logic, or logic with emotion? I see too much conflict and subjectivity for this system to be of any real use.

What are you actually asking here?

Point by point:
-It doesn't matter whether everyone's answer is the same or not. What matters is the aggregate answer.
-I didn't intend to say anything about the "right"ness of Utilitarianism.
-Emotions vs logic stuff is incoherent, please clarify what you mean.
-Emotion is less arbitrary and unreliable than you seem to think.

 

[Pollux]

A question for the atheists. What do you think of the following two passages? Do they describe you at all, or not at all? Just curious...

Pope Benedict XVI has some good thoughts (in my opinion) about atheists being just as unsure as the believers...

Just as we have already recognized that the believer does not live immune to doubt but is always threatened by the plunge into the void, so now we can discern the entangled nature of human destinies and say that the nonbeliever does not lead a sealed-off, self-sufficient life, either. However vigorously he may assert that he is a pure positivist, who has long left behind him supernatural temptations and weaknesses and now accepts only what is immediately certain, he will never be free of the secret uncertainty about whether positivism really has the last word. Just as the believer is choked by the salt water of doubt constantly washed into his mouth by the ocean of uncertainty, so the nonbeliever is troubled by doubts about his unbelief, about the real totality of the world he has made up his mind to explain as a self-contained whole. He can never be absolutely certain of the autonomy of what he has seen and interpreted as a whole; he remains threatened by the question of whether belief is not after all the reality it claims to be. Just as the believer knows himself to be constantly threatened by unbelief, which he must experience as a continual temptation, so for the unbeliever faith remains a temptation and a threat to his apparently permanently closed world. In short, there is no escape from the dilemma of being a man. Anyone who makes up his mind to evade the uncertainty of belief will have to experience the uncertainty of unbelief, which can never finally eliminate for certain the possibility that belief may after all be the truth. It is not until belief is rejected that its unrejectability becomes evident.

An adherent of the Enlightenment [writes Buber], a very learned man, who had heard of the Rabbi of Berditchev, paid a visit to him in order to argue, as was his custom, with him, too, and to shatter his old-fashioned proofs of the truth of his faith. When he entered the Rabbi’s room, he found him walking up and down with a book in his hand, rapt in thought. The Rabbi paid no attention to the new arrival. Suddenly he stopped, looked at him fleetingly, and said, “But perhaps it is true after all.” The scholar tried in vain to collect himself—his knees trembled, so terrible was the Rabbi to behold and so terrible his simple utterance to hear. But Rabbi Levi Yitschak now turned to face him and spoke quite calmly: “My son, the great scholars of the Torah with whom you have argued wasted their words on you; as you departed you laughed at them. They were unable to lay God and his Kingdom on the table before you, and neither can I. But think, my son, perhaps it is true.” The exponent of the Enlightenment opposed him with all his strength; but this terrible “perhaps” that echoed back at him time after time broke his resistance.

 

[Count Dookkake]

A question for the atheists. What do you think of the following two passages? Do they describe you at all, or not at all? Just curious...

Pope Benedict XVI has some good thoughts (in my opinion) about atheists being just as unsure as the believers...

He should have applied the same logic when he first heard reports of his colleagues raping kids.

 

[Pollux]

He should have applied the same logic when he first heard reports of his colleagues raping kids.

He should have excommunicated every single priest who did that.

 

[rdrr gnr]

He should have excommunicated every single priest who did that.

And himself, right? For helping with the cover up.

 

[Pollux]

And himself, right? For helping with the cover up.

Since he didn't actually physically do the act? no.

potentially stepped down from his position as Pope and retreated from being the public face of the Church? yes.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Since he didn't actually physically do the act? no.

potentially stepped down from his position as Pope and retreated from being the public face of the Church? yes.

What about being a responsible human being with principles?

What about him being part of the Hitler youth? Does that bother you?

 

[Pollux]

What about being a responsible human being with principles?

What about him being part of the Hitler youth? Does that bother you?

To your first point, that doesn't mean he should be excommunicated.

To your second, no. In was compulsory after 1939, he joined in 1941. Why should that bother me? millions of other German boys his age joined as well, it was like the boy scouts? They weren't doing anything wrong, it was an indoctrination program, sure, but the children who joined because they were forced are not to blame for that.

 

[rdrr gnr]

To your second, no. In was compulsory after 1939, he joined in 1941. Why should that bother me? millions of other German boys his age joined as well, it was like the boy scouts? They weren't doing anything wrong, it was an indoctrination program, sure, but the children who joined because they were forced are not to blame for that.

Millions of other German boys aren't the Pope either. It's just funny how the former Nazi compares non-believers to Hitler.

To your first point, that doesn't mean he should be excommunicated.

Right. He should be in prison.

______

Benedict XVI, isn't he the condom pope as well? I forget how long ago that was.

 

[Cyan]

Man, got a little hostile in here, huh?

 

[Pollux]

Man, got a little hostile in here, huh?

Apparently, that wasn't my intention so I apologize for that.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Man, got a little hostile in here, huh?

How familiar are you with Ratzinger's role in the cover-ups? It's stomach-churning. Excuse me if I get a little angry about some criminal pseudo-intellectual telling me about strength of my convictions.

cyan stirring up shit as usual.

Those damn meta-agnostics.

 

[Ashes]

cyan stirring up shit as usual.

 

[Ashes]

Those damn meta-agnostics.

lol!

 

[Dude Abides]

Man, got a little hostile in here, huh?

They always do. Between the atheists who basically call believers stupid and the believers who argue in apparent bad faith, it's pretty much inevitable.

 

[Cyan]

cyan stirring up shit as usual.

 

[Ashes]

I had something for this week's writing thread, but it needed one of my older stories [something not published, and tbh, half done anyway] cause I was thinking of doing something pulp fiction wise with a number of stories.. is that allowed or not you reckon?

 

[BocoDragon]

A question for the atheists. What do you think of the following two passages? Do they describe you at all, or not at all? Just curious...

Pope Benedict XVI has some good thoughts (in my opinion) about atheists being just as unsure as the believers...

Aren't we all a little uncertain? Without a certificate of the universe saying "By the way, there really is no God", I can never really trot around like I know FOR SURE what this existence is, because I don't.

But I've got to say, as a scholar of religious history, and seeing how and why people believe, and pass on various, diverse beliefs, I feel quite confidant that the religions themselves have no actual sources for their beliefs. They are arbitrary. They contain no proofs of their theologies. They are an oral and written tradition of people making assertions, and people believing those assertions through social reasoning ("they're nice people", "they're my parents", "all my peers think so", etc).

I am far more certain that religions are bunk, and devoid of content that apply to the real world, than I am certain that there is no God. It's possible that God exists... but I am pretty confidant that no humans have actual "knowledge" of this. It's guesses and assertions, nothing more.

But on every issue I am doubtful. As I say, I don't actually have that certificate that "proves" there is no God. Even if there is no God, such a proof of its non-existence will never exist ("can't disprove a negative, blah blah"). And sure, there is a smaller chance that "religion X" is true. I have no certificate of their "non-truth", either!

The thing is, though, it's not a 2 way choice between atheism and Abrahamic religion. Taking religion seriously, there is so much more out there. I have as much doubt about my dismissal of Hindu beliefs as I do of Christian beliefs... and that's not the usual glib atheist snark "why not believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster?"-style response. Here in the non-Abrahamic religious mindset, there really is no good reason to accept the unproveable claims of Abrahamic religions any more than all the others. If I am extending an honest shred of doubt to all the beliefs out there... Jesus, Mohommad and friends are in competition with Krishna, Maitreya, Zoroaster, etc. There's a wide world of beliefs out there that I could doubt my practical dismissal of them. I graciously accept that there is that 0.1% possibility that they are true and I'm a fool... but where to begin?

 

[Cyan]

I had something for this week's writing thread, but it needed one of my older stories [something not published, and tbh, half done anyway] cause I was thinking of doing something pulp fiction wise with a number of stories.. is that allowed or not you reckon?

If it's not even completed, and only part of the whole, it's probably within the spirit of things.

 

[Ashes]

If it's not even completed, and only part of the whole, it's probably within the spirit of things.

A question answered in this thread! woot! hey... wait a sec... what's this 'probably' business?

 

[Cyan]

A question answered in this thread! woot! hey... wait a sec... what's this 'probably' business?

How can we ever really be sure?

 

[Ashes]

How can we ever really be sure?

nope, I tried, but I got nothing to add to that.

 

[BocoDragon]

nope, I tried, but I got nothing to add to that.

Fucking agnostics. Pick a side!

 

[Lafiel]

Fucking agnostics. Pick a side!

One thing that surprises me about GAF is.. how come no-one has identified themselves as a anti-theist? which is what christopher hitchens (R.I.P) self-identified himself as! and I'd argue richard dawkins and sam harris are fairly close to being one to.

 

[JGS]

List would take a while. Since you're asking, let's take the bible.
The flood? How to cure leprosy? The age of the earth? The fact that it supposedly came before stars? And so on and so forth.

1. What about the flood?
2. The creation account is not a step by step detail telling of the creation. The first verse discusses which came first anyway with no time stamp on any of it. A lot of the problem people have with this account is they seem to find it difficult to read to begin with.
3. Honestly, I can't recall the Bible giving a lesson on the cure for leprosy so you may have a point. Do you know what verse?
4. "And so on and so forth" would be interesting to know considering this is a Q&A thread. It could clear up some confusions.

 

[JGS]

Q for atheists:

We all know how big a deal proof is for you. In many ways it seems to be the ONLY reason why you're not religious, but then that seems to not make sense so it would be nice to clarify.

If you had this proof, would you be a faithful follower of whatever proven deity?

What kind of proof would be required if any? Would meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus be sufficient or would a parting of the Red Sea be sufficient?

If you would be a faithful follower, why would you be one now that proof was presented?

 

[Erigu]

If you had this proof, would you be a faithful follower of whatever proven deity?

I would know the deity exists. That's it. Why even talk about "faithfully following it", there? That would be another issue altogether.

What kind of proof would be required if any?

(... "if any"? dude...)

Would meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus be sufficient or would a parting of the Red Sea be sufficient?

I saw a guy make the Statue of Liberty disappear, once.
Extensive evidence. Seriously. Not that it would be a problem anyway, for a god, right?

 

[Uchip]

Q for atheists:
If you had this proof, would you be a faithful follower of whatever proven deity?

are you asking that if hell existed as a punishment for sinners, would I sin?
Id think twice for sure

Q for atheists:
What kind of proof would be required if any? Would meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus be sufficient or would a parting of the Red Sea be sufficient?

id doubt my own sanity before believing that i really met Jesus or saw the red sea part
it would have to be a worldwide agreement backed up with constant and consistent evidence

Q for atheists:
If you would be a faithful follower, why would you be one now that proof was presented?

im not sure I understand this question

 

[JGS]

Guys, these were not tough questions lol. I have to get ready for work, but I'll try to simplify further if that's needed.

 

[Uchip]

Guys, these were not tough questions lol. I have to get ready for work, but I'll try to simplify further if that's needed.

you're right they arent
the last one doesnt make sense though

 

[Erigu]

Guys, these were not tough questions lol. I have to get ready for work, but I'll try to simplify further if that's needed.

Sorry for being idiots, JGS! Not sure why you're not satisfied, but hey.

I mean, if you really wanted a specific example of miracle that would make me go "hmm, I guess you could call this guy (?) a "god", indeed!", man, there would be a bunch of options... Say, lots of people are currently missing limbs. If they all suddenly got them back at the same time, I'd be quite impressed! For example.

 

[Opiate]

Q for atheists:

We all know how big a deal proof is for you. In many ways it seems to be the ONLY reason why you're not religious, but then that seems to not make sense so it would be nice to clarify.

If you had this proof, would you be a faithful follower of whatever proven deity?

Assuming that's what the deity wanted? And also assuming the deity was clearly more powerful in some spiritual way than I am? Absolutely. However, I can also imagine Gods which do not care that I exist or have no direct power over me despite their position. If we're talking about those Gods, I'd certainly have to think about it.

What kind of proof would be required if any? Would meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus be sufficient or would a parting of the Red Sea be sufficient?

Something repeatable and observable under close scrutiny. A single, miraculous incident (such as the parting of the red sea) is far more simply and easily attributable to cognitive error, even if I happen to be the observer in question.

If you would be a faithful follower, why would you be one now that proof was presented?

I am happy to follow a leader if that leader actually exists and is apparent. I am not happy to follow a leader whose existence is simply implied to me by other people, with no direct evidence.

 

[Conciliator]

Q for atheists:

We all know how big a deal proof is for you. In many ways it seems to be the ONLY reason why you're not religious, but then that seems to not make sense so it would be nice to clarify.

If you had this proof, would you be a faithful follower of whatever proven deity?

What kind of proof would be required if any? Would meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus be sufficient or would a parting of the Red Sea be sufficient?

If you would be a faithful follower, why would you be one now that proof was presented?

Not sure what you're getting at but I'll bite.

1. Not necessarily, because I don't find deities, or any entities real or not, for that matter, inherently worthy of worship. I would believe in his/her/its existence, but that definitely doesn't mean I would be a follower. In general, in any scenario I can imagine this deity would have to answer the question of suffering in a way I found convincing or I would likely be a dissident.

2. A dude on the road who says he's divine is not near enough proof, even if he's super nice. Like so many other religious conclusions, bizarre natural phenomena doesn't necessarily equal God. If a dude or voice came to me, claimed to be God, and was able to predict future events with exacting detail and with 100% accuracy over and over, that would probably be satisfactory evidence that this entity is, at the very least, omniscient. As ever, God has my absolute undivided attention any time he would like to prove his existence to me in non-metaphorical terms.

3. Redundant at this point, but if the above proof was presented I would believe the entity communicating with me is omniscient and probably omnipotent, yes.

EDIT: I want to add, for you and for everyone else, again not really knowing what you're setting us up for, that rather or not atheists or religious people are dumb, obnoxious, annoying, mean, or wrong about other things is not related to the truth value of atheism or any particular religious doctrine. If Chrisitianity is correct, it is correct for only one reason: Because it is true. Likewise for atheism. Likewise for everything else in the universe that is quantifiably correct or incorrect.

 

[Erigu]

I am happy to follow a leader if that leader actually exists and is apparent.

Hey, we already have lots of existing / apparent leaders, at the moment! What if that deity is an asshole? Don't sign up right away like that, man! ^^

 

[V_Arnold]

JGS, how can you have faith in something that is proven? That is a paradox.

 

[JGS]

Sorry for being idiots, JGS! Not sure why you're not satisfied, but hey.

I mean, if you really wanted a specific example of miracle that would make me go "hmm, I guess you could call this guy (?) a "god", indeed!", man, there would be a bunch of options... Say, lots of people are currently missing limbs. If they all suddenly got them back at the same time, I'd be quite impressed! For example.

Sorry, I didn't mean for that to sound insulting. I in no way think that you are idiots for not understanding the question.

 

[Zaptruder]

Q for atheists:

We all know how big a deal proof is for you. In many ways it seems to be the ONLY reason why you're not religious, but then that seems to not make sense so it would be nice to clarify.

If you had this proof, would you be a faithful follower of whatever proven deity?

What kind of proof would be required if any? Would meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus be sufficient or would a parting of the Red Sea be sufficient?

If you would be a faithful follower, why would you be one now that proof was presented?

By the time I got all the proof I needed, I'd no longer be a 'faithful' follower... although I'd begrudgingly follow - even though I find much of the philosophies and guidance in religion of questionable efficacy and value.

 

[Raist]

1. What about the flood?

It never happened? At least not how it's described in the Bible. It was more likely 1/10000000000000 of that in scale and restricted to a tiny area.

2. The creation account is not a step by step detail telling of the creation. The first verse discusses which came first anyway with no time stamp on any of it. A lot of the problem people have with this account is they seem to find it difficult to read to begin with.

So huh, all the stuff about what god made during that week, each day being described, is not a step-by-step description of the creation? What is it then? A metaphor?

3. Honestly, I can't recall the Bible giving a lesson on the cure for leprosy so you may have a point. Do you know what verse?

Can't remember exactly. Somewhere in Leviticus. Stuff involving killing a bird and bathing another bird in the first's blood. Some kind of voodoo.

4. "And so on and so forth" would be interesting to know considering this is a Q&A thread. It could clear up some confusions.

You do realize that every single claim about the natural world and most of the historical accounts are dead wrong? do you want me to copy and paste half of the bible? :/