what a pointless existence

if John Baker is to believed is the life of the godless. Because of limited intelligence he is unable to see how others can find fulfillment in a life without gods. Because a person believes that at the grave, all this ends, such a person should not love, laugh, draw or enjoy music. Life is only grand if you will live past the grave. Don’t help others, they will die and that shall be forgotten all this ignoring the other very clear point that helping someone makes their life here bearable and sometimes, just sometimes, dignified. How does the promise of a heaven with gold do to the life of a poor person here apart from filling them with false hopes?

His next qualm is that people are not getting indoctrinated enough. They also don’t get to hate enough gays. He writes

be another reminder to parents to be diligent in training their children to stand uncompromisingly on the Word of God and in equipping them to defend the Christian faith

which in intelligent speak is parents should indoctrinate their children and do it well they never get to reason out of stupidity superstition.

Caroline tells us naturalists are incapable of love. She writes

It would mean the depths of emotion that consume a man’s thoughts of his beloved and drive him to do anything for her, or the lengths a mother will go to care for and protect her child are merely the outworking of chemical reactions in the brain. Nothing more. It would mean that the supreme goodness we attach to the concept of real love doesn’t stick. In the survival of the fittest, why should a quality that seeks another’s good be preferable to selfishness?

At least the naturalist grounds love in the workings of the brain. She on the other hand grounds it in a superstitious, transcendent other. Why is the naturalists idea treated with so much disdain? Is it because it is logical and reasonable?

And it seems to me she hasn’t read much on the subject either, because then she wouldn’t write

I believe we all, consciously or subconsciously, recognize the transcendent nature of love. And I believe this points to the existence of a loving, transcendent God.

because this entry in SEP, would show her statement to be wrong. And no, it doesn’t follow that because a feeling is irrational it points to god. That, my friends, is bad reasoning.

Her conclusion that

Love. We can’t even comprehend it in its fullness. And we can’t reduce it to a material reality. It transcends time, and space, and matter. It is spiritual. It is of God.

unfortunately tells us really nothing.