Clint Wells - Conversion to Atheism

[Clint Wells]

Welcome to the board, Clint.

Most of us have moved on from secondary school, so feel free to use more advanced rhetoric...maybe something like, "My dad can beat up your dad."

Well, by your own admition it would seem that there are *some* of you who are still in secondary school. In the interest of making my response accessible to *all* of you I had to put some of the cookies on the bottom shelf. However, for more advanced rhetoric, please see the ENTIRE rest of my post!

**Also, I retyped this because of a spelling mistake and because I thought of an additional witticism. Feel free to draw your own conclusions and continue ignoring 99.8% of my original post!

[Quibbles]

Welcome to the board, Clint.

Most of us have moved on from secondary school, so feel free to use more advanced rhetoric...maybe something like, "My dad can beat up your dad."

Well, by your own admition it would seem that there are *some* of you who are still in secondary school. In the interest of making my response accessible to *all* of you I had to put some of the cookies on the bottom shelf. However, for more advanced rhetoric, please see the ENTIRE rest of my post!

**Also, I retyped this because of a spelling mistake and because I thought of an additional witticism. Feel free to draw your own conclusions and continue ignoring 99.8% of my original post!

Clint, you may want to retype this one too. "Admition" isn't a word. I'm starting to wonder about your smarts.

[Clint Wells]

I'm purfectly at hoam wit yer correxion. Thanks!

[vincentdonofrio]

I'm purfectly at hoam wit yer correxion. Thanks!

why, WHY do I not remember this infamous thread?

was I out on a koi search or something?

Constantlyreforming, here.....( I think that was my screen name back then...)

[thisistim]

(assuming that facts actually matter to you).

Please, save the sanctimoniousness. 

. I think it goes without saying that for any of you to invoke my marriage into this discussion is disgustingly reprehensible. You may critique my blog, my moral philosophy, my descent from theism, etc. But please go against the grain of your religious intuitions and show some human decency regarding a very personal and harrowing aspect of my life.

If it is so amazing reprehendsible, I must wonder why you bring this all up now, then.  Why bother signing up to this tiny message board, resurrecting a thread that has been dead for months?  What's the point? 

The original thread at the original board was a unique one; it began discussing your blog, and turned out that a member of the board was a personal friend of your wife's, which was then invoked by a defender using it as evidence of the "fruits of salvations." So, for someone to say that they "feel sorry for your wife as well" is to not pull your former marriage out of thin air as an attack, but merely to reference sorrow on behalf of you and your ex-wife for the pain of divorce. 

4. I am obviously no longer a theist. However, calling this a "conversion" to atheism is a misunderstanding of the term "atheism." Atheism is a non-content starting point. It simply means that one does not believe in god(s). It comes with no discernable worldview, political affiliation, or moral subscription. It is more accurate to say that I deconverted from Christianity, an indubitably explit belief system and worldview set.

No matter the attempt to divorce it from implications, Atheism has just as many core axioms that effect other areas of life than Christianity.  Some atheists, just like adherents to all philosophical viewpoints, are more consistent in working out those implications than others; but to claim that atheism "comes with no discernable is just ignorance.  Philosophies demand consistency in their maturation.  That's not to say that this is always true experientially.  We all know people (or are people) who act in disparity with things we claim we believe.  But our lack of consistency does not then mean that our beliefs do not demand otherwise.

Although it does seem apparent to me that I am smarter than most of you, this actually has nothing to do with smarts.

Agreed.  This actually has nothing to do with smarts, but your apparent narcissim wouldn't allow you to avoid saying that you think you're "smarter" than us. 

5. I was never in a praise band at Red Mountain Church. I was involved with the music in the sense that I occasionally played guitar and bass and they chose to sing hymns I had written.

If you're playing an instrument for and writing songs for a band, I think it is safe to say that you're in a band. 

[faithofjob777]

Ethan,

Yes, it was both an interesting and sad time.  

Hi Clint,

I appreciate the time you have spent to clarify certain things here.  My comment will be on your definition of the word "conversion".  You say,

. I am obviously no longer a theist. However, calling this a "conversion" to atheism is a misunderstanding of the term "atheism." Atheism is a non-content starting point. It simply means that one does not believe in god(s). It comes with no discernable worldview, political affiliation, or moral subscription. It is more accurate to say that I deconverted from Christianity, an indubitably explit belief system and worldview set.

Thank you for your perspective, BUT the mere fact that you have to define atheism as to what it is and what it is not, is providing CONTENT.  Hence, it can never be a "non-content starting point."  Your explanation is rife with a set of ideas, which chaotic as it obviously is, is still teeming with content.  

I would say that atheism is like a pool that has no water; but it is still a pool.  It just does not have water (ie, GOD) as its major content; yet it still has its space occupied by air, dirt, and other things that can be found in it.  And if a water-filled pool for swimming is likened to life made for loving, then a waterless pool is a loveless life.  You will probably not agree with that analogy because you think you can still truly love without any need for God.  But IF you say that you do, then you are basically saying that your waterless (god-less) pool still has content in it as your starting point so you know how and why you love.

Now if you believe that love is irrelevant to life, then we can approach that a different way.  But before embarking on that, I would ask that you reconsider your stance.  Contrary to what you say, atheism is a starting point filled with content. It starts off with your mind as your own god making your own definitions about right and wrong.  That is a whole lot of content by itself.

It also has its own political affiliation, which is really about ensuring that anything that directs people to God for proper governance of societies is inappropriate.  It has a moral subscription, which you pretty much showed when you said that it was offensive for someone to bring up the situation with your wife: that was your own set of morals speaking its mind.  I pray that you realize that you actually do everything you deny doing in the realm of atheism.

Jaime

[Clint Wells]

If it is so amazing reprehendsible, I must wonder why you bring this all up now, then.  Why bother signing up to this tiny message board, resurrecting a thread that has been dead for months?  What's the point? 

It took about two minutes to sign up for the message board which was more than worth it to address the nearly fifty comments and over a thousand thread views concerning my personal life. I consider it a matter of personal integrity to confront people like yourself who would devote your own time and energy to lambasting a stranger. We obviously diverge on this matter since it is obviously so incredible to you that I would want to respond.

No matter the attempt to divorce it from implications, Atheism has just as many core axioms that effect other areas of life than Christianity.  Some atheists, just like adherents to all philosophical viewpoints, are more consistent in working out those implications than others; but to claim that atheism "comes with no discernable is just ignorance.  Philosophies demand consistency in their maturation.  That's not to say that this is always true experientially.  We all know people (or are people) who act in disparity with things we claim we believe.  But our lack of consistency does not then mean that our beliefs do not demand otherwise.

The word atheist carries the same philosophical connotations as the word atoothfairyist. Which is to say: none. An atheist can choose not to believe in gods and be Kantian or Randian, a republican or democrat, a vegan, a butcher, etc. It implies nothing other than the disbelief in gods.

If you're playing an instrument for and writing songs for a band, I think it is safe to say that you're in a band. 

Here are the facts: I was hired (and payed my standard show rate) as a freelance musician to occasionally play instruments for a church. In my own time I wrote songs for my own professional and personal enjoyment that this church opted to sing corporately sometimes. The group of musicians at that church literally changed every single week. That's quite a different thing that *being* in a band and writing songs *for* a band. One requires a certain philosophical solidarity while the other only requires that you show up on time and do a good job. Most of my peers in Birmingham and Nashville get hired to play instruments for artists who subscribe to explicit belief systems. They don't have to, themselves, subscribe to these belief systems to do their job well or to be philosophically consistant. This is self evident to me and any working musician.

[Quibbles]

The word atheist carries the same philosophical connotations as the word atoothfairyist. Which is to say: none. An atheist can choose not to believe in gods and be Kantian or Randian, a republican or democrat, a vegan, a butcher, etc. It implies nothing other than the disbelief in gods.

So which is it? Does "atheist" carry no connotation or the connotation "disbelief in gods"?

Your thinking is about as good as your spelling.

[faithofjob777]

The word atheist carries the same philosophical connotations as the word atoothfairyist. Which is to say: none. An atheist can choose not to believe in gods and be Kantian or Randian, a republican or democrat, a vegan, a butcher, etc. It implies nothing other than the disbelief in gods.

But you will still have to have some kind of order.  Atheism is not random; it will insist on performing proper reasoning that it claims it knows to do.  Hence, one order it proclaims is that belief in the one true God is irrelevant.  Another is the corrollary that there is no convincing evidence that God exists; so why waste time believing?  

The atheist will also have other important issues that he would want to address.  If one atheist believes that a child should not be molested, yet another atheist says the child can be molested as long as the child is fed and given shelter, who is to say who is right between the two?  Atheism cannot provide the answer to that, because every atheist is his own god.  

This variety among atheists shows that atheism is filled with content, but the content is irresponsibly chaotic.  It is anarchy, though in all its insistence of being "empty" (nonbelief in god, 'tis all), atheism will still want to insist that there will be a certain brand of atheism that is going to be most truthful.  Some  will make moral judgments that German Christians had been evil for supporting Hitler, while they as atheists have been truly compassionate for helping the poor.  Oher atheists will say that sex without moral limits is the best way to live life, a-la Marquis de Sade.  Then again other atheists would denounce such a perverted philosophy---especially if it would encroach the minds of their own loved ones and children, or if it would lead to them being raped by their more godless counterparts.

No man can survive without having faith in truth; that is the whole point for the existence of true and false religions, and even of atheism.  But if there is truth which cannot be changed, there can only be one true religion that never changes either.  Either that means it is truth based on God who never changes, or truth based on no gods whatsoever.  All false religions including atheism is man wanting truth apart from faith in God.  And without true knowledge of Him, the followers of such faiths would insist that it is the power and wisdom of their own minds that are most compelling and changeless.  

Jaime

[thisistim]

It took about two minutes to sign up for the message board which was more than worth it to address the nearly fifty comments and over a thousand thread views concerning my personal life.

Fair enough.

I consider it a matter of personal integrity to confront people like yourself who would devote your own time and energy to lambasting a stranger.

If you reread the original thread from eternity ago, I was one of your defenders.  I will admit, the original posted thread was out of bounds.  There were other avenues to venture down before a thread of that nature was created.   But when you entered yourself into the discussion as a participant, you were no longer a stranger.  

The newer thread was an update on a past situation that a majority of the folks here remember.   Posting a link to your blog professing atheism (or de-professing Christianity) is hardly lamblasting a stranger.

The word atheist carries the same philosophical connotations as the word atoothfairyist. Which is to say: none. An atheist can choose not to believe in gods and be Kantian or Randian, a republican or democrat, a vegan, a butcher, etc. It implies nothing other than the disbelief in gods.

But it's just that...it conveys the fact that you don't believe in God or gods.  It may take different shades, some of which are more consistent with the philosophical state of disbelief in a deity, but "Atheists" means something...something which carries with implications.

For instance, you stated earlier that you'll probaby write another hymn someday.  That is not in line with your philosophical beliefs.  You, in doing this, would be a self professed atheist acting in cognitive dissonance performing an act incompatible with your stated beliefs.  

Here are the facts: I was hired (and payed my standard show rate) as a freelance musician to occasionally play instruments for a church. In my own time I wrote songs for my own professional and personal enjoyment that this church opted to sing corporately sometimes. The group of musicians at that church literally changed every single week. That's quite a different thing that *being* in a band and writing songs *for* a band

I stll feel that your past statements leads me to believe that your involvement with the church was much deeper than you're stating, but I do appreciate the explanation.  I'm a musician myself and understand how the whole culture works, though here in NC at least, it doesn't spill over to churches as much as it has in your experience.

[faithofjob777]

Advanced Rhetorics

...though it does seem apparent to me that I am smarter than most of you, this actually has nothing to do with smarts. It really comes down to wether or not you believe faith is a good thing. Faith (the belief in things without evidence, as St. Paul puts it) is the operative core tennant of Christianity. That is why a brilliant scientist like Francis Collins, who helped map the human genome (and subsequently believes the human species to be at least 100,000 years old), can predicate his entire professional career on verifiable evidence and yet still believe that a skygod exists who incarnated himself only to sacrifice himself to himself to save humanity from a disease that he, himself, inflicted us with.

Now, I am emphatically not as smart as Francis Collins. But I am not willing to suspend my critical faculties in such a way. I find it insulting to the wonderful human enterprise and a retardation of evolving truth discernibility. I'm sure you will all disagree, having made a virtue of believing in things without evidence. But you and I both know that this dialogue really isn't about consensus, unfortunately. So let's move along.

Actually, the evidence is not absent.  Your use of the apostle Paul's words, whether it be in the Book of Romans or Hebrews should be understood in another context.  He is not saying that there is really no convincing evidence of God's existence and power, but that God is not readily seen by the physical senses.  Which is VERY logical, because if God is indeed the God above all time and space, then He should readily surpass casual detection by our senses.

But then God has also made Himself known through the creation He has made.  This is also clear in Scripture.  So ONE important evidence are God's clues of Himself from nature.  But we should learn to interpret those clues by using His Word, otherwise we would only come up with idols.

You brought up Francis Collins.  It is not foolish for him to believe in God and Christ, while discovering God's wisdom in creation.  The human genome requires great wisdom to interpret it, and so should we expect it would be in interpreting God's Word.  It is not ridiculous to believe that God became incarnate to die for our sins so that we can live eternally and with joy, just as it is not stupid for winter to come and make all the plants and trees wither, with some of them returning vibrantly for spring.  God's wisdom and power is in everything, such that:

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8  To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;  A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;  A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;  A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

This is true for creation of all things, and the redemption of all things.  Francis Collins is truly wise if he should apply the wisdom from understanding the human genome, to learning more about God's Word.  The evidence is not seen by the one who does not believe that God is our Creator, creating us from mere dust; He has ordained all things both bad and good, including the death and crucifixion of Christ, so that we can praise Him as God our Redeemer.  The seasons of life---summer, fall, winter, and spring have their own cycles of destruction and renewal.  They tell what God has in store for those who believe in His higher wisdom and love. 

There is desolation:

Jeremiah 8:20  The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved.

...followed by hope:

Luke 21:29-31

29 And he told them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees.  30 As soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near. 31 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near.

Jaime

[Jeremy]

Faith (the belief in things without evidence, as St. Paul puts it) is the operative core tennant of Christianity.

Where do you find Paul arguing this way? Where does the Bible define faith as you think it does?

[faithofjob777]

That is why a brilliant scientist like Francis Collins, who helped map the human genome (and subsequently believes the human species to be at least 100,000 years old), can predicate his entire professional career on verifiable evidence and yet still believe that a skygod exists who incarnated himself only to sacrifice himself to himself to save humanity from a disease that he, himself, inflicted us with.

Now, I am emphatically not as smart as Francis Collins. But I am not willing to suspend my critical faculties in such a way. I find it insulting to the wonderful human enterprise and a retardation of evolving truth discernibility. I'm sure you will all disagree, having made a virtue of believing in things without evidence. But you and I both know that this dialogue really isn't about consensus, unfortunately. So let's move along.

Advanced Rhetorics Part 11  BONE

This is not about smarts I know, and just because I have my own medical degrees doesn't make me smart either.  But I believe it is actually very integral to the "wonderful human enterprise" when we can see the power of Christ's incarnation and death in the world God has created too. 

I specialize in arthritis (rheumatology), and I have to learn about how bone is formed, destroyed, and remodelled in the growing human body.  An infant's bones is different from that a child's, while the child's is different from an adult's. There is much destruction that takes place, but it is for all the purpose of building stronger bones that can withstand when the body does more purposeful and challenging things.   Various chemicals, enzymes and cells literally get rid of previous bone structures, which were once built for the purpose of supporting a little baby in his utterly dependent state. 

We can ask: why would God ordain to create and build bone structures that He would eventually destroy?  Because the destruction actually facilitates further growth and power of maturing bone, that's why.  The infant has a different phase in life he must undergo, compared to a child and an adult.  Each phase is punctuated with remodelling of various bones, so that what would be weak and unable to carry out more strenuous activity the body must do, must become nothing.  New bone with much stronger and flexible design should take over, for the improvement in strength of the body over-all.  This is pure wisdom that can only come from an almighty God.

I am inspired by all the destruction and remodelling of bone.  It makes me think of how God does the same with us.  He raises and destroys men, whether they be physically weak or strong, and renews those who should remain.  Each time the remnant get stronger in wisdom and in faith, their knowledge fortified and their ignorance destroyed.  They are better able to serve the purpose as the Body of Christ glorifying God for who He is.  They all grow as One amidst the destruction, and even the destruction of the Incarnate Son of God by death is the source and catalyst of the Body's further empowerment by God.

Jaime

[faithofjob777]

FINISHING UP...

This has been a thoroughly interesting read. I find it mildly flattering that my "conversion" to atheism has garnered such a discussion. In fairness, I'd like to take a few moments to respond to some of you and, in some cases, straighten out facts (assuming that facts actually matter to you).

It is not some witch hunt though, in which you have been a person we would enjoy putting down.  Despite my own harshness and egocentricity, a part of me does care about what has happened to you. I had a similar heaviness of heart when I saw another person who has turned to Christ, but continues to feel the pain of rejection (I posted his thoughts in another area of this forum).  Facts do matter, and they most importantly include the reasons for our ideas about God.  If for me He is the only way we can understand true life and true love, then anyone who doubts or rejects Him is one who is walking the road of pure darkness and lovelessness.

1. I'm not nor have I ever been "close" to Derek Webb. I've met the guy a few times. We share many beautiful friends. But we are not close at all. When the unfortunate barrage of character defamation occured on his message board in 2006 I made my feeble attempts to defend myself and ultimately wiped my hands clean of the situation. I wasn't even aware until now that the board had been taken down. So, I think it's quite obvious that I had no direct involvement in the taking away of your precious theology forum.

Having said that, I can see why Derek would choose to take it down based on that situation. It was cruel and ugly and in no way constructive for myself or my detractors.

Fair enough.  But Derek Webb is not the pope who has made a wise and infallible decision. That being said, I do not know him either. I have my own sins and faults I will answer to God about.  Derek has his own.

True, there could have been many things that were uncalled for in that forum and that particular thread.  But the same can be said for Bill Maher and his show, that continues to air on HBO.  He is most ignorant about God and His Word, but that doesn't prevent him from defaming both.  People applaud him.  His show is not cancelled.  Why?  Because what is cruel and ugly is often exalted as great and beautiful by this fallen world.  As a consequence, it is then possible that where there is true wisdom, it is likewise taken down and rejected by the same fallen world.  Including one incredibly tiny forum perhaps...only God knows.

2. It is true that my tenure in Christianity was tumultuous and I tended to subscribe to a fringe reformed theology (some of my critics are practically ecstatic that I have since thrown the whole thing out!).

What is fringe may be either: 1) dangerous for being darkly evil, or 2) truly wise that only very few can understand and rightly teach.  We have to know the wisdom of your critics to discern if they are worthy infallible popes who are rightly ecstatic about your deconversion.  For only the wise can discern what is truly wise.

In contrast, drug addicts like their own kind the most, because of the very prospect of sharing great highs.  People addicted to false philosophies feel they are great gods with great wisdom; they will definitely exalt those who have their own falsehoods giving them further highs.  

And what we may perceive as great wisdom, can very well be one big hallucination.  For the atheists, theism is that hallucination.  For theists, hallucination is all false religion.  The end result is this: real wisdom is received by those who are already wise, and only by mere faith does every person think he possesses that wisdom.

But the suggestion that I was having "ethical" issues is flat out ridiculous. It is one thing to claim that a non-theist is incable of being moral/ethical and quite another to claim that an atheist cannot JUSTIFY morality or ethics. Wrestling through belief did not make me any less "ethical" than any other process of adopting/discarding belief systems.

Good point.  What must be made clear is that you are an atheist with your own ethical principles.  These may differ from another atheist, with his own principles.  

But those principles are useless if they are not verifiably right or wrong.  So the incapacity is not in relation to the ability to possess ethical principles, but the ability to choose the right ones.  Any adult can wear clothes, but there are those who have no clue what they should wear for a specific occasion.  So they wear inappropriate attire---like wearing a swimsuit during a wedding ceremony----and they are totally ignorant about it.

3. I did delete my blog for a season. It was becoming a very unhealthy drain on my emotional energy and I was going through a difficult divorce process. One of you mentioned my ex-wife Liz, and how you felt sad for her. I think it goes without saying that for any of you to invoke my marriage into this discussion is disgustingly reprehensible. You may critique my blog, my moral philosophy, my descent from theism, etc. But please go against the grain of your religious intuitions and show some human decency regarding a very personal and harrowing aspect of my life.

I pray for your continued healing from the pain of divorce.  You are a man made in God's image, and you feel pain from the loss of a relationship.  The religious intuition by the one who mentioned your ex-wife's name is probably sympathy for the pain and sorrow that both of you have likely gone through.  Knowing him, I do not think he did it out of malice or derision.  You say it is "disgustingly reprehensible"; that would be your perception you can freely express here.  But consider that it can very well be sincere mourning from certain Christians who talk or hear about it, for they do want this world and all relationships be redeemed by the love of Christ.

Jaime

[Scallywag]

Clint,

I’ve tried to thoughtfully consider your post, so I would appreciate the same courtesy if you have time (and are still around?).   I’d like to raise a few points to consider and maybe ask a few questions (I’m also going to follow FoJ’s  example and split this post because it’s rather lengthy).

You say:

1. I'm not nor have I ever been "close" to Derek Webb. I've met the guy a few times. We share many beautiful friends. But we are not close at all. When the unfortunate barrage of character defamation occured on his message board in 2006 I made my feeble attempts to defend myself and ultimately wiped my hands clean of the situation. I wasn't even aware until now that the board had been taken down. So, I think it's quite obvious that I had no direct involvement in the taking away of your precious theology forum.

Having said that, I can see why Derek would choose to take it down based on that situation. It was cruel and ugly and in no way constructive for myself or my detractors.

While I can certainly understand the ugliness of the discussion, and I can especially sympathize with you being on the receiving end (as it were) of that particular thread, I think if you can remove yourself from the equation, then – objectively speaking --  the thread’s originator raised some good points and made some (apparently!) astute observations.   He was troubled by certain behaviors and attitudes he was seeing and tried to bring attention to the inconsistency he was seeing w/r/t apparent claims to faith.   People were aghast that he called your beliefs and lifestyle into question, but, looking back, as shocking as that was, I think the objective mind has to acknowledge that he may have been on to something.  As a post-Christian atheist, do you at least agree with his diagnosis that your behavior struck him as evidence of a rebellious Christian heading head-long into the throes of unbelief? 

If so, than what seemed cruel and ugly may have actually been an attempt to steer you (and others) onto a more consistent path.  You may disagree with the idea that Christianity is worthwhile, but would you agree that under Christian principals, the thread’s author was actually acting in kindness (and I dare say a difficult version of it at that, for it’s not easy to point out people’s faults and confront them about them) by trying to address attitudes of doubt and rebellion?   Would you agree that all that’s ugly is not necessarily cruel? 

2. It is true that my tenure in Christianity was tumultuous and I tended to subscribe to a fringe reformed theology (some of my critics are practically ecstatic that I have since thrown the whole thing out!). But the suggestion that I was having "ethical" issues is flat out ridiculous. It is one thing to claim that a non-theist is incable of being moral/ethical and quite another to claim that an atheist cannot JUSTIFY morality or ethics. Wrestling through belief did not make me any less "ethical" than any other process of adopting/discarding belief systems.

You’re kind of all over the place with this point, so I’m not quite sure I understand the issue, but would you agree that there are certain ethical precepts associated with Christianity?   You may reject those now, but if one is claiming a title of Christian and acting contrary to those ethics, then one has ethical issues.   Furthermore, if we assume that Christian morality springs from the ultimate Sovereign that is God, and one acts contrary to God’s decrees (whether he agrees with them or not), then that person has ethical (or maybe I’m conflating “moral”) issues; so the Christian is right (per his beliefs) and within his right to address these issues as he sees them (esp. within the sphere of Church membership).   If we assume the atheist is right, then he, too, is within his rights to simply ignore the Christian.

As to the other point, I would challenge you continue to ponder the question of the justification of morality.  Maybe you disagree with the argument you mention, but I would contend that the atheist cannot justify morality, so I think you should follow that to its logical conclusion and either reject morality all-together (as a nonsensical social construct that is inconsistently applied from culture to culture) or continue to pursue a logical justification for our innate desire for some sort of morality; if you’re honest in that pursuit, then I think it will lead you back to Christianity.

cont...