Do atheists believe in heaven?


I see this thread and I fail to understand:

Atheists: Most deserving of Heaven?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44535


Why would an atheist believe in heaven?

Heaven makes sense only if one at the same time believes in God.

No, obviously atheists don't believe in heaven. The point of the thread that you linked to is that an atheist who treats people well is actually better than a Christian who treats people well, because the atheist is doing it without any expectation of eternal reward. That's pretty obvious if you read the thread's first post.

No.

No. Nor hell. Its all rubbish.

Mind you if i'm proved wrong and end up there, i would have a rant at whatever god was there , and complain like mad about there marketing department because they did a crappy job on selling it to me ;)

When my body is used up, that's it. Why should I want more?

No, obviously atheists don't believe in heaven. The point of the thread that you linked to is that an atheist who treats people well is actually better than a Christian who treats people well, because the atheist is doing it without any expectation of eternal reward. That's pretty obvious if you read the thread's first post.

Yes, but why then go on to:

It seems that the selfish people in this equation — the religious — will in fact lose their spot in Heaven, while the true humanitarians — the Atheists — will take their spot.

-- This testifies of a belief in heaven!

Explain then why an atheist who supposedly does not believe in heaven, eventually believes that he will end up in heaven.

I like them as metaphors. I think they always referred to the here and now, but were misinterpreted. The kingdom of heaven is within. Hell is a world of our own making, like the world during WWII. So, heaven means the same sort of thing as utopia, as well as personal revelation. Hell means a distopia, as well as collective delusion.

Damn, we've been rumbled!

Prester John: Damn, we've been rumbled!
*************
M*W: So, are you saying there is no god?

in order rosa, for a atheist, to get a xian to understand, we have to first but it in very simple terms, so they are able to follow it, this in no way means we believe in heaven.
when athelwulf stated this,
"It seems that the selfish people in this equation — the religious — will in fact lose their spot in Heaven, while the true humanitarians — the Atheists — will take their spot".
it was to make it clear that if there was a heaven, we would be more worthy of being there, not that it actually existed.
how you could not see that, surprises me.

I don't "believe" in heaven, but I think atheists are more worthy of it, since they don't (or might not) have any preconcieved notions about it. Our attitude towards God is also more appropriately religious for the same reason, we are pure, innocent, and believe what we see, not what people tell us so we are less corruptable, like a newborn baby.

in order rosa, for a atheist, to get a xian to understand, we have to first but it in very simple terms, so they are able to follow it, this in no way means we believe in heaven.
when athelwulf stated this,
"It seems that the selfish people in this equation — the religious — will in fact lose their spot in Heaven, while the true humanitarians — the Atheists — will take their spot".
it was to make it clear that if there was a heaven, we would be more worthy of being there, not that it actually existed.
how you could not see that, surprises me.

how convenient to call yourselves "more worthy"! I wonder what magically arbitrary stick was whipped out to make that measurement.

southstar:
if you read athelwulfs thread "Atheists: Most deserving of Heaven?".
being more worthy is what the whole premis is about, the measurement can be found on, the opening post of that thread also, I was only trying to get rosa to understand that premis.
please feel free, to try to contradict, this reasoning.

......there is nothing wrong with athiest in my beliefs, they have every right to percieve their surroundings as any other religion does of theirs.
Athiest probably see a more physical evolutionary being instead of the otherwise critically acclaimed spiritual being.

I respect athiests point of views, but if it was to conflict into an negative eventuality, especially within my own, I would have to say I disagree.

Prester John: Damn, we've been rumbled!
*************
M*W: So, are you saying there is no god?

I assume you are refering to the Judeo Christian god, indeed he is mythical, rather like the aztec, egytptian, norse and all the other various gods.

I believe in the God of Forums and he's going to be very angry that another thread got started on practically the same subject as an existing one! We're all doomed to Forum Hell! (http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=92)

......there is nothing wrong with athiest in my beliefs, they have every right to percieve their surroundings as any other religion does of theirs.
Athiest probably see a more physical evolutionary being instead of the otherwise critically acclaimed spiritual being.

As any other religion?
LOL - Since when is Atheism a religion?

My understanding of atheists is that they do not believe in ANY god - whether your critically acclaimed spiritual being or any physical being.

Prester John: I assume you are refering to the Judeo Christian god, indeed he is mythical, rather like the aztec, egytptian, norse and all the other various gods.
*************
M*W: Whatever made me think you were xian?

I like them as metaphors. I think they always referred to the here and now, but were misinterpreted. The kingdom of heaven is within. Hell is a world of our own making, like the world during WWII. So, heaven means the same sort of thing as utopia, as well as personal revelation. Hell means a distopia, as well as collective delusion.

I can see very well what you mean. But if we go for the "it's all a metaphor" approach, then we also relativize the meaning of heaven. How can one take such a relativized heaven seriously?


* * *

in order rosa, for a atheist, to get a xian to understand, we have to first but it in very simple terms, so they are able to follow it, this in no way means we believe in heaven.
when athelwulf stated this,
"It seems that the selfish people in this equation — the religious — will in fact lose their spot in Heaven, while the true humanitarians — the Atheists — will take their spot".
it was to make it clear that if there was a heaven, we would be more worthy of being there, not that it actually existed.
how you could not see that, surprises me.

No, Athelwulf's post does not operate with an "if", it says *will*.


* * *

I don't "believe" in heaven, but I think atheists are more worthy of it, since they don't (or might not) have any preconcieved notions about it. Our attitude towards God is also more appropriately religious for the same reason, we are pure, innocent, and believe what we see, not what people tell us so we are less corruptable, like a newborn baby.

I disagree.
As far as I can tell, you are arguing for an, how should I put it, "absolute and universal God" -- but even that is just an inductive abstraction made from what we know about the notions of God from individual religions. As such, that "absolute and universal God" is yet another preconceived notion.

"and believe what we see, not what people tell us " -- this is just a cop out. We cannot but believe what someone told us, in some way. Atheists believe what atheists before them told them.

"we are pure, innocent" -- you are angels, or what?

"and believe what we see, not what people tell us " -- this is just a cop out. We cannot but believe what someone told us, in some way. Atheists believe what atheists before them told them.

That's not true. I was an atheist the very day I was born, having no belief in a god of any kind. As I got older I realised some things were real, (based upon observation and learning), whereas some things remain non-existant- not because anyone else says so, but because I see nothing to suggest it's real.

No, Athelwulf's post does not operate with an "if", it says *will*.
athelwulf is forgiven for putting the wrong word in, as her first language is not english.

so its just a question of semantics anyway.

IF
Used to introduce an exclamatory clause, indicating a wish or desire:

WILL
A desire, purpose, or determination:
Deliberate intention or wish:

Atheists believe what atheists before them told them.
rubbish, atheist or born atheist, as we grow we are bombarded by religious doctrine, until we see the light, it's purly a solo thing, during our movement in life we come across people with like minds, but we dont seek them out. we are never told god does'nt exist, quite the opposite.
it'a our own sense, reason and intellect, that helps us see the light, no mentors are needed.

That's not true. I was an atheist the very day I was born, having no belief in a god of any kind. As I got older I realised some things were real, (based upon observation and learning), whereas some things remain non-existant- not because anyone else says so, but because I see nothing to suggest it's real.

And you grew up all by yourself. In a vacuum. As if you feel from the moon. Pure and innocent ...


* * *



athelwulf is forgiven for putting the wrong word in, as her first language is not english.

Athewulf is a he and you know it.


so its just a question of semantics anyway.

Oh. And this argument, like, always works, when you use it for -- seemingly -- your benefit?


IF
Used to introduce an exclamatory clause, indicating a wish or desire:

WILL
A desire, purpose, or determination:
Deliberate intention or wish:

Your brightness is blinding.


rubbish, atheist or born atheist, as we grow we are bombarded by religious doctrine, until we see the light, it's purly a solo thing, during our movement in life we come across people with like minds, but we dont seek them out. we are never told god does'nt exist, quite the opposite.
it'a our own sense, reason and intellect, that helps us see the light, no mentors are needed.

Yup, you see the light.
And you have fallen from the moon.

I suppose an atheist could believe in heaven, it's not the same thing as a supreme being.

But if we go for the "it's all a metaphor" approach, then we also relativize the meaning of heaven. How can one take such a relativized heaven seriously?
I'm not sure what you mean by relativized. I think all language is a metaphor when talking about these issues. We can't communicate our experiences directly, so we compare it to something else that we have experienced, and apply some imagination to come up with a general, but imprecise meaning.

I disagree.
As far as I can tell, you are arguing for an, how should I put it, "absolute and universal God" -- but even that is just an inductive abstraction made from what we know about the notions of God from individual religions. As such, that "absolute and universal God" is yet another preconceived notion.
I'm saying that no language or thought can capture what God is, so even people that believe in God believe in something other than God. I think that's the reason behind the traditional Jewish taboo on the name of God, as well as the graven images/idols thing. That means that an atheist can existentially more truthfull in not believing, even if there is a God. God is by definition, incomprehensible.


"we are pure, innocent" -- you are angels, or what?Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and innocent as doves.

Athewulf is a he and you know it.
I do now, and he's not foreign either, did i have it wrong. my apologies athelwulf and water.
Your brightness is blinding.
I'm glad you think so.
Yup, you see the light.
yes.
And you have fallen from the moon.
no, I have no believe in fantasys.

And you grew up all by yourself. In a vacuum. As if you feel from the moon. Pure and innocent ...

How do you arrive at that statement?

It seems you want me to say I had regular knocks on the door from the church of atheism, telling me to not believe in god or I'd go to hell.

That just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

You've argued yourself into a corner. You know aswell as the rest of us, that people are not preached at to be atheists, but in fact people are preached at to be theists.

Some of us need to analyze and question things that are shown/suggested to us. It's typically what one does in school to achieve good grades. If you came up to me and said Odin existed, I would question it - without anyone saying "no, it's fake, don't believe it!", and regardless to how many people claim it's true. The same goes for everything.

You know that already. You know that your argument has no weight to it.

I suppose an atheist could believe in heaven, it's not the same thing as a supreme being.

But heaven only makes sense in the domain of the ideology that contains the idea of heaven. And those ideologies -- esp. Christianity and Islam -- make sense of heaven in that they relate it to God, and what it takes to get to heaven.

Otherwise, "heaven" can be Bali or the Seychelles, or the backseat of your cadillac -- but then this is a downscaling in comparison to the religious idea of heaven, and it is a misnomer to use the word heaven in such contexts as Bali etc.


But if we go for the "it's all a metaphor" approach, then we also relativize the meaning of heaven. How can one take such a relativized heaven seriously?

I'm not sure what you mean by relativized.

Relativized in the sense that it is not clear what value and position heaven is to have in one's belief system, what value and position in a society's belief system.
If it is "all a metaphor", then it can't be taken seriously, and it will also be of little consequence.

Had the old Germanic tribe, for example, believed, that Thor and Odin and all others were "just metaphors", they wouldn't fight in their names, would they?


I think all language is a metaphor when talking about these issues. We can't communicate our experiences directly, so we compare it to something else that we have experienced, and apply some imagination to come up with a general, but imprecise meaning.
/.../
I'm saying that no language or thought can capture what God is, so even people that believe in God believe in something other than God. I think that's the reason behind the traditional Jewish taboo on the name of God, as well as the graven images/idols thing. That means that an atheist can existentially more truthfull in not believing, even if there is a God. God is by definition, incomprehensible.

This completely depends on the theory of meaning you choose.

If you think like an atomist and consequentially anayltically, then surely, God is necessarily unknowable and incomprehensible.

Think, on the other hand, like a holist, in prototypes, and the problem with the inherent imprecision (as it is with the analytical approach to meaning) of meaning doesn't emerge.


Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and innocent as doves.

Ah, choosy. Believe one line, reject another.


* * *


And you grew up all by yourself. In a vacuum. As if you feel from the moon. Pure and innocent ...

How do you arrive at that statement?

You said:
I was an atheist the very day I was born, having no belief in a god of any kind.

.. and the day you were born you also spoke no language, knew no math, no history and many other things. You learned them, and you learned them in a certain environment that gave you a certain influence. You also learned your atheism.
You didn't grow up in a vacuum.


It seems you want me to say I had regular knocks on the door from the church of atheism, telling me to not believe in god or I'd go to hell.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

Just as there are ideas of theism present in our society, ideas of atheism are present in our society. An individual does not invent theism or atheism all for himself, from scratch, without any other external influence.
You like to quote Mark Twain, for example. Einstein as a rule. Ayn Rand.

Certain ideas, explanations, suited you, and you learned more about them, internalized them. But you haven't come to them living in a vacuum, in seclusion, all by yourself, completely cut off from all human civilisation.

Atheism wasn't preached to you, but you haven't invented it from scratch either.

And to say you were born an atheist is simply nonsensical. Then we could also say that you were born languageless, without skills, without knowledge. You take pride in your atheism, being something you were born with. But why then not take pride in being languageless -- it is after all something you were born with.


You've argued yourself into a corner. You know aswell as the rest of us, that people are not preached at to be atheists, but in fact people are preached at to be theists.

How you turn it.
I've never said what you are saying above.


You know that already. You know that your argument has no weight to it.

You are not listening to me at all.

But heaven only makes sense in the domain of the ideology that contains the idea of heaven. And those ideologies -- esp. Christianity and Islam -- make sense of heaven in that they relate it to God, and what it takes to get to heaven.
Does incarceration only make sense in the context of government, or can it be considered separately, even though they are usually found together? Does freedom make sense only in a context of democracy? The Catholic church believed the sun revolved around the Earth, does that mean there can be no other theory that involves orbits without the earth at it's center? If heaven is more like a place or plane of existence, I happen to think that makes more sense than a being. A place doesn't have to be as complex as a being. Alternate dimensions are seriously considered as implications of quantum theory. Historical ideologies don't have a monopoly on the ideas they incorporate. My idea about it is more general, I'm not talking about a meeting at the pearly gates where you get your wings if you're good, and spend your time on a cloud singing hymns. What if other beings exist in a parallel universe, and during certain extreme human experiences like death, for some reason we are able to percieve it?

Relativized in the sense that it is not clear what value and position heaven is to have in one's belief system, what value and position in a society's belief system.
I agree, it's not clear. So what? That's why spiritual subjects are somewhat mystical in nature- they are speculative.

Ah, choosy. Believe one line, reject another.
That's right. Since the people responsible for writing the bible were choosy themselves, I believe it's my responsibility to pick out what intuitively seems valuable. I'm not alone in this, Thomas Jefferson expressed the same thing, even to the extent of cutting and pasting up his own version of the bible, which was published by congress. I think the ideas Jesus expressed were too subtle for the political movers and shakers of first century Rome to comprehend.

.. and the day you were born you also spoke no language, knew no math, no history and many other things. You learned them, and you learned them in a certain environment that gave you a certain influence. You also learned your atheism.
You didn't grow up in a vacuum.

Ok let's use 'language' as an example here. I was born without knowing language. Over the years I was taught language. The default position however is that of no language. Without someone to teach that language, I would remain language-less my whole life.

The same principle applies. I, like everyone else, was born with no belief in gods. That is the default position. In my life I simply did not have people teaching me gods and so retained my default position. By the time someone did actually mention it, I was old enough to be able to analyze and question and found the default position to be the more appropriate one - and not because someone had taught me not to believe in gods.

Non belief is the default position, and while I will agree someone else first used the word "atheist" to describe me, I have always been in the exact same position I am now.

I've always liked bananas, ever since I was a child. People didn't teach me to like bananas, I just do. While people can encourage you to eat certain things, it's not generally how it works. As a parent, I give my daughter a variety of food. The stuff she doesn't like, I don't give her again - whereas the stuff she does like, I give her often. I haven't told her what to like or what not to like, her taste buds are to blame I guess.

You were not born with god belief - that was taught to you somewhere along the line. When you were born - you had no belief at all. Now imagine how you would be if nobody taught you to believe, or you found no reason to.

That's me.

Just as there are ideas of theism present in our society, ideas of atheism are present in our society.

Like what?

An individual does not invent theism or atheism all for himself, from scratch, without any other external influence.

Every single one of us is born, (from scratch), with no belief in gods. Atheism is right there at the start of everything.

You like to quote Mark Twain, for example. Einstein as a rule. Ayn Rand.

Mark Twain yes, I love his work, (thanks to the riverworld stories). Einstein I don't quote, and I've never even heard of Ayn Rand aside from some vague quotes I've seen on this here forum.

But wouldn't you have to agree with them first? Sure, you can study certain things.. Let's say you studied uhh.. communism. Unless there was something inside you that agreed with it, what are the chances you would just turn communist? I agree that if it was all you were taught you'd have little choice in the matter - and would end up that way - but here, where I live, we have a lot of freedom and right to agree or disagree with whatever we choose to.

My neighbourhood is majorly christian. The schools are christian, the majority of the people are christian, and there's a church on every street near enough. There are no people or places around that teach atheism. To get to where we are, we need to actually agree with something in the first place. As I said, I was forced into nothing as a child, but just allowed to find my own way whatever that might be. As a result I kept the default position of a non believer.

Certain ideas, explanations, suited you, and you learned more about them, internalized them. But you haven't come to them living in a vacuum, in seclusion, all by yourself, completely cut off from all human civilisation.

Sure, they 'suited me'. Did someone teach me what would 'suit me' and what wouldn't?

Your statement that I replied to was that "we cannot but believe what someone told us", and that "atheists were told what to believe by atheists before them". As I replied, this is not true. Someone can say something of course - there can be books on a subject, and people talking about a subject, but unless we happen to agree with it, (and no, we're not taught that we must agree), we weren't told what to believe or not believe, but just given the opportunity to experience others that believe the same as we already do.

Atheism wasn't preached to you, but you haven't invented it from scratch either.

I didn't "invent" atheism, people long before me have also used their brains and decided what to believe or not believe. While some are forced into that belief, I was just born that way.

And to say you were born an atheist is simply nonsensical. Then we could also say that you were born languageless, without skills, without knowledge.

I was born without language, skills, (aside from the basics we share with most animals) and knowledge.

You take pride in your atheism, being something you were born with.

Pride? Not exactly. I am who I am. I like The Eagles, I enjoy rum and raisin ice cream, I don't believe in a god. Nobody forced me into any of these or taught me that these are good or bad things. It is just who I am.

But why then not take pride in being languageless -- it is after all something you were born with.

Why would that be valid? I notice religious people often confuse things with "pride", when pride has nothing to do with it.

I've never said what you are saying above.

Well, you did say that we cannot but believe what someone has told us, and that atheists were told what to believe by atheists before them - which is ludicrous. That amounts to some atheist dood coming round the house saying "don't believe in god", and me having no choice but to believe what he said. A daft notion if ever there was one.

Do you have to believe in heaven to be deserving of it?

Does a feral child, or an isolated human culture unable to hear of God or heaven always go to hell when they die? ...or are they spared?

If you think like an atomist and consequentially anayltically, then surely, God is necessarily unknowable and incomprehensible.

Think, on the other hand, like a holist, in prototypes, and the problem with the inherent imprecision (as it is with the analytical approach to meaning) of meaning doesn't emerge.

Holism may be useful for assuming absurdities and shoring up ad hocs but.

I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able.

- 1 Corinthians

Basics first. Drink your milk.

Does incarceration only make sense in the context of government, or can it be considered separately, even though they are usually found together? Does freedom make sense only in a context of democracy? The Catholic church believed the sun revolved around the Earth, does that mean there can be no other theory that involves orbits without the earth at it's center? If heaven is more like a place or plane of existence, I happen to think that makes more sense than a being. A place doesn't have to be as complex as a being. Alternate dimensions are seriously considered as implications of quantum theory. Historical ideologies don't have a monopoly on the ideas they incorporate. My idea about it is more general, I'm not talking about a meeting at the pearly gates where you get your wings if you're good, and spend your time on a cloud singing hymns. What if other beings exist in a parallel universe, and during certain extreme human experiences like death, for some reason we are able to percieve it?

Sure, but then what you call "heaven" is something vastly different from what a Christian or a Muslim calls "heaven" -- so why use the same word then?

Unless, of course, we settle for the explanation that Christianity and atheism are using two *different* languages, whereby the surface forms, the words, may be the same, but their meanings are not. But in that case, no communication is posible between the two, as they can inherently not understand eachother (and each thinks that the other is using the words wrongly), and a translator is needed.


I agree, it's not clear. So what? That's why spiritual subjects are somewhat mystical in nature- they are speculative.

Mystical ... as in the opposition some thigns are real, and some are mystical? It's a can of worms, thank you.


Ah, choosy. Believe one line, reject another.

That's right. Since the people responsible for writing the bible were choosy themselves, I believe it's my responsibility to pick out what intuitively seems valuable.

I agree, but I wonder at what point this turns into reductionism.


I'm not alone in this, Thomas Jefferson expressed the same thing, even to the extent of cutting and pasting up his own version of the bible, which was published by congress.

Really? That's nifty. I have something similar.


* * *


The same principle applies. I, like everyone else, was born with no belief in gods. That is the default position.

I think it is pointless to argue whether a newborn is atheistic or not. It is beyond a newborn's ability to discern between a belief in God and not having a belief in God, and as such, whether newborns are atheistic or not is a non-issue.


You were not born with god belief - that was taught to you somewhere along the line. When you were born - you had no belief at all. Now imagine how you would be if nobody taught you to believe, or you found no reason to.

That's me.

And you think you are so much better than believers, and eventually, you will even claim to take credit for growing up where you did, and to be the way you are.


Just as there are ideas of theism present in our society, ideas of atheism are present in our society.

Like what?

In books, other people you speak to.
You said:
"I didn't "invent" atheism, people long before me have also used their brains and decided what to believe or not believe."
You read about it, heard about it, this is how you learned the concept of atheism -- until you actually saw the word "atheism" written somewhere or heard it, you didn't know it existed.


Every single one of us is born, (from scratch), with no belief in gods. Atheism is right there at the start of everything.

I think it is nonsensical to debate whether newborns are atheistic or not.

Atheism is after all a conscious stance, that is supported by a certain kind of inquiry and thought processes -- and to claim newborns are capable of that conscious stance is just nonsensical.


Sure, they 'suited me'. Did someone teach me what would 'suit me' and what wouldn't?

Hard to say. When we are born, our predispositions are most likely very general, more in terms of character rather than actual thought contents. It is then up to the complex interplay of a great number of factors that values and preferences are developed. Surely, with the benefit of hindishgt, it all looks as a matter of our choice, but it wasn't a matter of our choice as it began to happen -- to be born is not an individual's choice.


Your statement that I replied to was that "we cannot but believe what someone told us", and that "atheists were told what to believe by atheists before them". As I replied, this is not true. Someone can say something of course - there can be books on a subject, and people talking about a subject, but unless we happen to agree with it, (and no, we're not taught that we must agree), we weren't told what to believe or not believe, but just given the opportunity to experience others that believe the same as we already do.

I used "told" in the sense of 'spoken to, heard, read', you understand it in the sense of 'commanded, ordered'.


You take pride in your atheism, being something you were born with.

Pride? Not exactly. I am who I am. I like The Eagles, I enjoy rum and raisin ice cream, I don't believe in a god. Nobody forced me into any of these or taught me that these are good or bad things. It is just who I am.

This is how you justify your atheism: You were "born that way".


Well, you did say that we cannot but believe what someone has told us, and that atheists were told what to believe by atheists before them - which is ludicrous. That amounts to some atheist dood coming round the house saying "don't believe in god", and me having no choice but to believe what he said. A daft notion if ever there was one.

Again: I used "told" in the sense of 'spoken to, heard, read', you understand it in the sense of 'commanded, ordered'.
Tells me something about your attitude.

You have no idea what cage *you* are living in.


* * *

Do you have to believe in heaven to be deserving of it?

Does a feral child, or an isolated human culture unable to hear of God or heaven always go to hell when they die? ...or are they spared?

It is often argued that those who are ignorant will go to hell.
It takes a lot more to be "ignorant" that some seem to realize.

If those feral children or isolated cultures didn't hear of God, then they also have no guilt to feel as far as heaven and judgement are concerned. They can still go to heaven, so to speak.

But if someone knows right from wrong -- and by this I don't mean some "objective" right and wrong --, if one has *internal* standards and feels bad or guilty for not living up to them: then this tells about his morality. His guilt is real, he has a sense of justice. Avoiding this justice, this guilt, negating it, ignoring it as if it doesn't matter (and thereby relativizing one's *own* morality, one's *own* standards) -- this is what makes a person ignorant, wilfully rebelling. People cheat on themselves, and this is a sin that can make one undeserving of heaven.


* * *

Basics first. Drink your milk.

So. What do Ayn Rand's hemorrhoids taste like?

So. What do Ayn Rand's hemorrhoids taste like?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/Ayn_Rand.jpg

Sacre bleu!