COGwriterAt the Christianity Today website, an author (Shawn Graves) asked and provided some answers to the question, Why are there still atheists?
Poster's Note: Still? In this age of blossoming scientific inquiry and because "knowledge will be increased" , which to religionists is probably one of the most threatening disasters to their narrow minds they can imagine, there will be more an more people waking up, losing their literalist religion and coming to their senses.
"Spiegel asserts that for many atheists, it’s not “cool, rational inquiry” that led to their atheism. Rather, in many cases it’s complex moral and psychological factors that produce atheism. For example, Spiegel points to research suggesting that some prominent atheists had broken, defective relationships with their fathers. Others live in perpetual disobedience and rebellion—resisting lifestyle changes required upon adopting theism. And still others confess that they just don’t want there to be a God. Spiegel contends that immorality has cognitive consequences—it impedes one’s ability to recognize that theism is true.No doubt he’s right. Surely some people accept atheism due in part to such powerful motivational factors."
Poster's Note: The idea that those who have come to other conclusions about the origins, inerrancy, and historical reality of the Bible do so so they can break God's laws, be immoral and do what they want is one of the oldest and most stupid and mistaken notions about why many grow older and wiser about all things Biblical. Bob Thiel shrinks in knowledge as far as I can tell. Good science, good investigation of history, good archaeology, good cosmology, good paleontology and good theology done well is THE REASON. The Hebrew Concept of God becomes the ever shrinking one in light of our growing understanding of the realities of where everything in the Universe comes from and how it may have arrived without the need for magic. Science informs religion and corrects it's mistaken notions about how the world and life works and where it came from. Men don't really come from mud and women don't really come from spare ribs. Evolution is a fact and only those who either cannot read or have the kind of faith that not only is based on what they don't know, but also what they won't know cling to creationism and the ridiculous notion that real humans are contained in some meager "6000 year plan of God." Humans have roamed America for at least 12,000 years and Europe and the Middle East and Africa for over 200,000 years.
A good long sit down with "Foundational Falsehoods of Christianity" by Aron Ra, who you'll dismiss because he has long hair and probably likes football, could be enlightening. However since your method of searching out a matters is 1. Assume your conclusion and 2. Assert your conviction (then repeat) you will never grow in either the grace or knowledge you claim to understand.
Religion does not inform science and never has or will. Good science done well has NEVER had to apologize to the church and go backwards into the Biblical explanations of things.
Dr. Bob asserts....
Now, actually one of the reasons that there are evolutionary atheists is, believe it or not, in the 19th century various male “intellectual” were looking for excuses to not have to abide by biblical standards of sexual morality. And back then, some of them even admitted that is why they embraced the concept that life randomly evolved without a creator God.
Posters Note: Bullshit Bob. No one is looking for excuses, they are searching out a matter, which even the Bible says "it is the glory of a king" to do so, even if it was not encouraged among the rabble, and this kind of apologetic is a pathetic attempt to skirt real issues.
The various 19th century "intellectuals" were looking for answers to the questions the growing fields of science were bringing to the table to be explained and understood in reality. Many of the early critical thinkers were ministers and deeply religious with a love of science and a mind open to the fact the Bible may not need to be taken too literally in it's mythologies about creation, floods and the grand exploits of a rather insignificant cultic people writing up for themselves an amazing pedigree, while in captivity.
"I would also add hypocrisy to the list. The fact that evangelicals, for one example, are more likely to be involved with fornication than the general public, despite biblical admonitions against it, turns people off."
Poster's Note: Your shallow and childish judgments and explanations from the Bible also turn people off. Majoring in the minors does as well and you are good at it. I would also add delusional thinking to the list of reasons some men feel the need to mind everyone else's business and pretend to know more than they actually do. Claiming your double portion of the spirit and thus claiming to be a genuine prophet in the Biblical mode, being anointed for a cold, also turns people of faith off and would turn anyone into a scoffer.
"There are also scholars, for example, like Bart Ehrman, who started out as Protestant but when they learned more about church history, realized that Protestantism simply did not fit with much of the Bible...."
Poster's Note: Bart did not just come to feel Protestantism simply did not fit with the Bible. You are misrepresenting his journey and his conclusions. You obviously have never read one book Bart Ehrman wrote in full. I'd start with "Misquoting Jesus" before you get too sure you have the sure word of anything.
"But I would like to add that it is illogical to be an atheist. While there may be many reasons that people may doubt the existence of a personal God, such as the one that the Bible teaches about, the reality is that any that conclude that there cannot be a creator/god are being foolish:
1 The fool has said in his heart,”There is no God.” (Psalms 14:1, NKJV)
Poster's Note: Rather you should say Bob, "In my opinion it is illogical to be an atheist" To those who have done the hard work of inquiry for their lifetimes as opposed to sitting in their living room chairs pontificating over things they know next to nothing about, it is completely logical to question the Sunday School version of life. No Bob, the fool has said in his heart, "there is only Bob Thiel's rendition of God and Bob knows the mind of this god better than they all."
Ignore-ance is clinging to not only what you don't know, it's clinging to what you won't know.
Bob continues...
"One of the reasons that it is foolish to conclude that there is no God is because humans should realize that we are finite beings. No human has been to ever place in the universe, no human has lived forever, no human has been to every possible dimension that may exist in the universe. Since no human has done that, for any human to conclude that there cannot be a god or any type is illogical. Why? Because no human has enough possible proof that God cannot exist. Doing so with limited “evidence” is foolish."
Poster's Note: This is the completely invalid argument that you can't know anything unless you know everything. That is, in order to have any knowledge at all, you have to have infinite knowledge of all and only God has that. So before you can really know anything for sure, you either you have to be God himself or you have to have that very special relationship with God that reveals to you real and complete knowledge above all other knowing. This, of course, is exactly what religion claims to provide. It is also bogus and pure apologetic for pretending to know what don't know in fact.
"But, despite the fact that some claim to be atheists, God’s existence is logical."
Poster's Note: To YOU Bob...to you.....
In Non-Compliant Love
Dennis
"Apostate Former Minister and Scoffer Falsely So Called"
45 comments:
Dennis,
It's easy to prove that there's no Abrahamic Biblegod who cares whether you eat pork or worship Him on a particular day of the week.
It's easy to prove that if there's a God who has a preference as to how She/He/It is worshipped, She/He/It is either horribly incompetent, possibly evil, and definitely not revealing Herself/Himself/Itself to the vast majority of human beings, if at all.
However, it's also easy to prove that if God were an invisible "blind watchmaker" deliberately hiding and watching us from afar, He could very easily accomplish this and leave us fully unaware of His existence.
As such, isn't agnosticism a much more sound philosophical stance than atheism? Or maybe "non-theism" as the existence of a God is quite irrelevant to the daily conduct of one's life?
Do the bacteria in your stomach, or the ants outside your window, "believe" in you? Can they even distinguish you from the environment around you? Not at all. Yet the ants' and bacterias' failure to recognize you doesn't mean you don't exist. If there is a God, then it would be the height of arrogance for human beings to assume that they could even recognize Him. Yet, if God is trying to reveal Himself, He's quite the failure.
Even the ACOG dodge, that God is only revealing Himself to a chosen few in this age, yields a problem, as the "rotten fruit" of that revelation suggests either that the "chosen" are deceived or that their "God" is an evil being based on how He influences His followers to behave.
What if there is a God, and He has a unique and individual personal relationship with every living entity? Why should I assume that God's relationship with you is or should be the same as His relationship with me? That's a position every bit as logical, and every bit as unfalsifiable, as any sectarian religious claim. What is NOT logical is the firm assertion that there is no God, just as it is illogical to make a firm assertion that there IS a God.
Non-theism is a rational way to live one's life, but dogmatic atheism may be just as irrational as any dogmatic theism.
COGBob writes:
"But I would like to add that it is illogical to be an atheist. While there may be many reasons that people may doubt the existence of a personal God, such as the one that the Bible teaches about, the reality is that any that conclude that there cannot be a creator/god are being foolish:
1 The fool has said in his heart,'There is no God.' (Psalms 14:1, NKJV)
"One of the reasons that it is foolish to conclude that there is no God is because humans should realize that we are finite beings. No human has been to ever place in the universe, no human has lived forever, no human has been to every possible dimension that may exist in the universe. Since no human has done that, for any human to conclude that there cannot be a god or any type is illogical. Why? Because no human has enough possible proof that God cannot exist. Doing so with limited 'evidence' is foolish."
1. Straw Man. While there are a few "hard atheists" out there who will claim, as Bob asserts, "there cannot be a god," these are few and far between. The rest, the vast majority of unbelievers, conclude instead, that there's no evidence or proof that any god does exist—a vastly different claim. Well then, why do they call themselves "atheists" rather than "agnostics"? It isn't because they're certain that there are no gods, but simply because they they don't think the probability that there are is particularly high. If someone figures the probability is low, while they might technically be an agnostic, their position is in fact approaching that of an atheist, so many will go ahead and call themselves atheists.
2. Reversal of the Burden of Proof. Bob carelessly assumes that believing in the following positive claims represent the default, the null hypothesis: that A) there exists a class of 'supernatural' beings, and B) the 'supernatural' beings I believe in exist. Bob wrongly assumes that in the absence of any evidence or proof one way or the other, everyone ought to dogmatically accept these claims, when in fact, the only rational position is to fail to accept them. Failing to accept does not entail certainty that the claims are false, it just entails uncertainty as to whether the claims are true.
3. Special Pleading. Going beyond careless assumption (B), Bob goes on to also carelessly assume C) only the 'supernatural' beings I believe exist, while ones I don't believe in do not exist. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. "Faith," which is to say, carelessly and dogmatically accepting unevidenced claims, does not make such claims true. Christian's belief in the christian god does not make that god any more "real" than muslim's belief in the islamic god makes that one "real." Adherents to every religion simply plead for a special exception to the rules they apply to everything else, including other gods, without having any reason why such an exception should be granted for only the god they have a favorable bias toward.
While it might be foolish to say dogmatically that there is no god, it's equally foolish to dogmatically say that there is one. The wise man says in his heart that he can't be certain one way or another whether there is a god or not.
"There are also scholars, for example, like Bart Ehrman, who started out as Protestant but when they learned more about church history, realized that Protestantism simply did not fit with much of the Bible,
Beginning with Misquoting Jesus, I've read a number of Prof. Ehrman's books and listened to a number of his lectures. Until recently, I had the same misunderstanding as Bob, which ain't necessarily so.
"Now, actually one of the reasons that there are evolutionary atheists is, believe it or not, in the 19th century various male “intellectual” were looking for excuses to not have to abide by biblical standards of sexual morality."
Keep it up Bob. You sound like a judgmental idiot in which you are. Did you live a hundred years ago? No, but if you did you could have gotten away with what Herbie did.
Surprising that Dr. Bob hasn't been turned into a meme yet....he's begging for it...
Thank you, Bob, for once again for utterly making a fool of yourself. Keep it up Bro! Now all of the COG sees you as the moron you are.
I'm trying to imagine how I would even be able to function in my area as a businessman and as a human being if I saw half the type of reviews we regularly give Bob Thiel here and in other places, on let's say "Yelp!", or some other constructive site, about my businss or level of service. Most of what I have accomplished over the years has been based on positive reviews and referrals, plus support from the manufacturers that I represent. It is the positive feedback that keeps me going, as well as the positive things that I've been able to bring into my customers' lives on a level that nobody else can. If I or my product continually failed, and everybody whom I valued knew about it, and publically discussed it, I'd be on to the next thing where I could actually succeed and did get positive feedback in a hot minute, if for no other reason for my own mental health. That is, of course, unless I no longer had my mental health.
BB
what I have seen to contribute to atheistic belief has very often been agonizingly painful loss of loved ones, someone or many saying 'I love you' when their actions say the complete opposite and many things of similar nature. When someone is trying to understand how a loving God could allow the things that occur in this world and call it 'his will' and seem to blame the sufferer...well, the resulting cognitive dissonance cannot be endured indefinitely and I feel many 'pull the plug' on God. My observational opinion only.
Personally, yes, there is a God. It has been a huge struggle and I argue with, and have doubts, not about the existence of, but of the love part. Still, I hope.
My personal observation is that generally speaking, the better a persons character, the more likely that person will believe in God, and visa-versa.
In my experience, I have known atheist through the years who always bring up religion in a conversation and they are VERY hostile about it. The ones I've known always fall under the following categories: unemployed or has a minimum-wage paying job, high school drop out, still lives at home with their parents, and dope heads. This has been my personal experience with the atheist I have known over the years.
I'd Rather Die Believing In Something Than Live And Believing In Nothing.
That has also been my experience and also I have noticed with the few atheists I've known they have a criminal record/continually in trouble with the law.
Oregon said...
I'd Rather Die Believing In Something Than Live And Believing In Nothing.
One of the reasons humans make up and hold comforting beliefs is precisely because we fear death and what will happen to us then. However, really, really believing in something is not the same as knowing what is actually so.
"An assertion of unwavering conviction that is not based on factual evidence is irrational by definition and illogical as well." Aron Ra
What F**king Difference Does It Make What A Person Personally Believes? If You Are An Atheist Or A Christian, WE ALL DIE!!!
4:12
I never question anyones personal experiences shared.
Do you perhaps live in the countryside and not anywhere even remotely close to a place with Ivy league establishments.
Not that they have any monopoly on the truth. I am just surprised with your personal experience.
Nck
Dennis,
But 'factual evidence' is purely defined as eg, dancing angels in front of people. Higher level concepts are conveniently ignored. For instance, the worst winter in 130 years kept the Nazis out of Moscow, and speeded up the Russian advance. Something like 20 assassination attempts against Hitler failed. This slowed down the American, Canadian, English advance. The result? Europe divided right through Germany. The long term effect? The discrediting of communism to any reasonable person. This defies random probability. It's the hand of God. But this type of proof is always ignored, even though people use such reasoning in everyday life.
So of course Gods existence can't be proved since the rule riggers rig the rules to their advantage. Observe these rule riggers, they are the type of person that lives in their parents basement.
Atheists are not monolithic as a group. Non-belief has as many personalized reasons supporting it as does belief. In fact, in each case, there are probably as many reasons as there are people. A high percentage of atheists will keep the fact that they are non-believers to themselves, and you would not detect by their behavior and treatment of others whether they were a believer or non-believer.
Having said that, and as a former atheist myself, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that people who arrived at atheism through or because of Armstrongism are vastly different from the people who were atheist either from birth or who draw their absence of belief from processes of science. Science-atheists did not get burned and exploited by a false religion, are therefore not generally angry, and do not evangelize or testify as to their non-belief as the solution they found in recovery. Some ACOG-atheists eventually do manage to mask these specific shibboleths by adapting the demeanor and reasoning of a science-based atheist, but if you dig deeply enough, you will still find a great deal of residual anger. There are also believers, however, who remain solid in their belief, but are frequently pissed off at God whom they hold responsible for everything that happens to themselves and their loved ones, since He is in control. This phenomenon is even portrayed in the book of Revelation, where we see people who are vexed and suffering during the apocalypse described as cursing God.
One thing we could all do without is the generalizing of intelligence based upon an individual's polarity. People are not stupid or intelligent based on whether they are Democrats or Republican, believer or non-believer, wearing various skin colors, male or female, straight or gay, or any other seeming opposites. Intelligence or the lack thereof is a completely separate factor which affects the entire cross-section of humanity.
BB
It would be awfully great if people who comment would please refrain from profanity. Just a suggestion.
Ooh, ooh, my turn to play the demonizing game!
Where I live, I mainly encounter Southern Baptists or modern megachurch attenders. The Southern Baptists are usually professional cowards that are afraid of EVERYTHING and hide in their houses all day complaining about others doing anything remotely entertaining. The boredom gets to them after a while and they're mostly meth and pill addicts. The megachurch attendees tend to be promiscuous, drunken little hoez who give themselves serious mental issurs by occasionally worrying if their God is looking over their shoulder. I'm not sure which group is unhappier.
The Burden Of Proof Lies On Atheistards To Prove Scientifically That Jehovah Does Not Exist. It Can't Be Done!
People are hopelessly dumb, whether they are believers or not.
8.34 AM
A Christian is qualifying or has qualified for eternal life. The atheist hasn't. That's a big difference. So be sure to study your bible, say your prayers and be good to your mother. Err, and no loose women.
Anon@1:23AM wrote:
"My personal observation is that generally speaking, the better a persons character, the more likely that person will believe in God, and visa-versa."
Colin Baker (The 6TH Doctor) wrote:
"That has also been my experience and also I have noticed with the few atheists I've known they have a criminal record/continually in trouble with the law."
That is the exact opposite of my experience. At best, I see no correlation between beliefs that a person will publicly espouse and the things they'll do when they think no human being will find out about it. If a religious person thinks they can get away with something without human beings finding out, they behave without an ounce of fear that any supernatural being is watching. This applies in spades to those who have set themselves up as ministers or religious leaders.
nck wrote:
"I never question anyones personal experiences shared."
Christians get upset if their experience is questioned, but when they question the personal experiences of others, they act surprised if we don't like it. They think the golden rule applies to everyone except for themselves.
Nearly all the atheists I know work or study at a university, and all of them lead respectable lives. In fact, typically they abide by the law better than the average citizen. One of them is an observant Jew who finds the rituals satisfying in their own right, without believing they were truly mandated by a deity.
The conclusion, in case you have trouble connecting the dots, is that the charge theists level against the motivation of atheists is unfounded. People do not necessarily abandon a belief in gods for the purpose of throwing off all moral constraints so that they can live a life of crime and debauchery. Some of them even adopt or retain ritual practices they find satisfying.
Dennis said, "One of the reasons humans make up and hold comforting beliefs is precisely because we fear death and what will happen to us then. However, really, really believing in something is not the same as knowing what is actually so."
Yes, believing in the afterlife is a comfort for some. But so is atheism a comfort. Take for instance Pol Pot, the leader of the "Killing Fields" of Cambodia. He killed about one fifth of his population, lived to an old age, never had to face justice. If he was an atheist, I am sure that it gave him comfort knowing that he "got away with it." Whether or not a belief system provides comfort is not proof as to whether or not the belief is true or false, reasonable or irrational.
blah, blah, blah, blah......... There are no atheists in foxholes.
Anonymous 6:12, you are wrong about there being no atheists in foxholes. That saying must have been from a time when society was more religious. If you have been brought up believing in God and religion you very well might call to God when facing death, but if you have grown up atheist or agnostic there is no reason for deathbed mind changing. Most people I have known facing terminal illness did not change their beliefs at the end. The atheists tend to remain atheists even on their deathbed. I have also almost died and really did not change my beliefs, I still felt like an agnostic. It seemed hypocritical to have a sudden repentance, plus I still felt no conviction.
Except we have no foxhole study indicating that.
Move beyond the cliches, 6:12. The holocaust was far more extreme than a foxhole, and it is oft cited as the primary stimulus for Jewish agnosticism.
BB
"In my experience, I have known atheist through the years who always bring up religion in a conversation and they are VERY hostile about it. The ones I've known always fall under the following categories: unemployed or has a minimum-wage paying job, high school drop out, still lives at home with their parents, and dope heads. This has been my personal experience with the atheist I have known over the years."
All I can say is that you're selectively sorting out your atheists to fit your paradigm. It's only in the last couple of decades that I've embraced total atheism. Before that, I was a dedicated Armstrongist actually working for the organization. That was followed by a few decades of searching and agnosticism. I don't have all that much regard for my Ambassador degree and study towared a master's, but my education has never ended and won't until I'm dead. Do I think I know everything. Absolutely not. However, I know that any crreator would have to be vastly superior to anything in this creation and as such, would be impossible not to be apparent and knowable. We don't yet fathom how this creation came about, but we're going to keep on searching and experimenting and it's absolutely certain that if we don't destroy ourselves first, we're going to have vastly more knowledge a generation from now than at present. So far, no evidence of any antropormorphised god anywhere, just a lot of desperate desire and fluff fluff woo woo.
Oh, and as for unemployed, I never was for very long and ran my own business in flooring for over forty years. I persevered through divorce and never abandoned my responsibilities as a father and my children love and respect me to this day. At least three of them share my views. The fourth is bi-polar and has real problems.
Dope head? I've never even smoked a cigarette. Drink rarely and very moderately because I have a horror of anything controlling me. Will suffer most pains without resorting to pain pills, but I will take a few in extreme cases.
As an aside, where would you place someone like Bart Erhman or Neile DeGrasse Tyson? Doesn't fit your chauvinistic and biased steriotype, does it?
Allen C. Dexter
Hey, you know, its just like people thinking all us black folk have George Soros in our phone contacts or something.
Mr. Dexter, My comment is based on my PERSONAL experience. I am not nor have I ever been a religious person and the only reason I know a tiny bit about Armstrong is that I had a best friend who grew up in that crap. So you are VERY WRONG in your false assumption about me being chauvinistic and biased or even steriopype someone based on my on personal experience.
As someone who gets up every morning around 4 to go to work and be home by 6 in the afternoon and do the same thing for 5 days a week every week the same mundane thing I have been doing for the past 30 years, how the hell does believing in a god or not have any thing to do with my humdrum life. ALL people, atheist or christian, need to get with the program.
That wasn't clear from your comment. It appeared you were a biased god defender. I guess you don't have much contact with intellectual, educated and thoroughly grounded atheists.
Allen C. Dexter
Anonymous 8:54, I appreciate your life is typical of many working people. Of course HWA found a way out of the humdrum work world by peddling religion and being very successful at it too. You could add to your long work week, by spending all day on Saturday going back and forth to services to listen to the old old story and maybe catch up on a little sleep. I hope you are paid well for your efforts because after tithing and offerings there might not be much left (for those in the HWA world).
It is sad that the pinnacle of our civilization has resulted in so many people spending their whole lives working away and finally collapsing into retirement too old to really do much but look forward to the promised afterlife.
"It is sad that the pinnacle of our civilization has resulted in so many people spending their whole lives working away and finally collapsing into retirement too old to really do much but look forward to the promised afterlife."
Also, usually too broke and/or too sick to do anything else. This society increasingly uses people up, then wants them to quietly crawl off somewhere and have the decency to die and get out of the way. Meanwhile, the larcenous 1% live it up.
Thank you Mr. Dexter for commenting back. Most people I know here in Indiana are intellectual and educated but most people I know prefer not to talk religion or even politics for that matter. Most of us talk sports(especially NASCAR), fishing & hunting. It is what it is.
Sadly, most people avoid controversial subjects because of the hostility and career dampening effects it can have. As a retiree, I don't have to worry about that. If somebody feels hostile toward me, big deal. I couldn't care less. It won't stop my SS check, at least not yet. Give Pence or McConnell a chance, and it might.
Allen C. Dexter
With due respect to Allen, based on DeGrasse Tyson's attribution challenges, Neil DeGrasse Tyson would make a good fundamentalist quasi-COGer in some elements. From the Washington Post (commenting on the validated content of a Federalist.com story about Tyson fabricating "quotes" from certain public figures): "What is really so 'mysterious' is why Tyson finds it so difficult to confess error and pretends that [George] Bush’s 2003 remarks were only just-now discovered. As noted above, Sean Davis [the Federalist author] had pointed to this quote as a potential source from the beginning. Yet if this is the source of the quote, then nearly everything else Tyson claimed about it and its significance is false (as is his initial account of the source of the quote).
"Tyson claims to be a man of science who follows the evidence where it leads. The evidence here clearly shows Tyson screwed up. Whether knowingly or not, he regularly repeated a false account in order to cast aspersions on another public figure. The only proper thing to do is recant and apologize." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/22/does-neil-degrasse-tyson-make-up-stories/? Here's a link to the Federalist column: http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/another-day-another-quote-fabricated-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/
Further, when Degrasse Tyson makes a highly quotable but silly comment like "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it," he puts himself right up there with our favorite evangelists. What broad-brushed "science" is he talking about? The "science" that brought us thalidomide and cold fusion? Good grief.
Who the hell is Bart Erhman and DeGrasse Tyson ?
In his latest sermon (Gospel of Mark part 4) Bob took issue with this article, but did not refer to Banned by name. He disagreed with a post that he says put the onus on him to prove to the atheist that God exists. He seems to have flipped around between statements like prove all things and it's logical, to show that it's the atheist's responsibility to prove God's existence.
Puppies and Kittens:
Bart Erhman is professor of religious studies at the University of NC, Chapel Hill, author of a number of books on the NT, early church history, etc, as well as having gone from an enthusiastic evangelist to an agnostic and atheist.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist and probably best known for his sequel to Carl Sagan's Cosmos series.
Are you the new person Bob Thiel has hired to assist in his CCoG offices?
BB
No, that's still a dream job. But sometimes I think of Bob as one of my hobbies...
Sorry, Hoss. In the mobile version of the blog, it's possible to insert a comment between comments, and that's where it remains in the sequence. Adding a little humor because Puppies and Kittens didn't know who Bart Ehrmann was, or even Neil deGrasse Tyson's full name, I thought it appropriate to ask if she was Bob Thiel's new assistant. I forgot that on the desktop version of the blog, my comment would simply appear as the last comment made, appearing as if I sent it in your direction. Glad you took it good naturedly, though, and as a joke. I always enjoy your comments!
BB
BB, not a problem, and thanks!
Yes, it would be better if comments could be inserted.
Post a Comment