if there's even a difference).

I am pleased you did not rise to my provocation (apologies if it was heavy handed). It was designed to put you in touch with your emotions. We address our perceptions of reality often through an external framework, and our emotions are part of its foundations. Moving on…

Question: What about someone who does good, but without any "active faith" in the supernatural? E.g. Albert Schweizer or Richard Dawkins?

Answer: My personal opinion is that folks who do good, are good. A God that is just, will not in my opinion punish them because they could not make a leap of faith for honest and sincere reasons. But their “supernatural reward” may not be the same for those that do. See my answer to your other question below for more on this.

But before I leave this question let me comment on those who are aggressive in their denial of other folks worldviews, because some you mention (e.g., Dawkins) certainly appear so. Folks that attack the deep held beliefs of others either physically or verbally, take their freedom of speech sometimes to far. They damage and hurt people, and that is not a freedom that is so easy to defend. This has been done by some Religious Fundamentalists agreed, but also by some Fundamentalist Atheists who would like to “cure” Theists of their “disease”, which sounds equally totalitarian to my worldview. It has been tried by Communists and Fascists alike in the 20th century. I refer you the Blackbook of Communism from Harvard University Press.

Memetics has recently been offered up as an “explanation” of the persistency of religious belief similar to a computer virus, or chain email. Inviting a consideration that the host would be better off “running” with the virus removed. I think this is a potential dangerous allusion, in the hands of some it could justify persecution. I accept that Memetics has some explanatory power but it is as easy to see it in the same light as post modern theists see Genetics, i.e., as a providential mechanism within the immanent purposed creation of God. It is not the Atheists “silver bullet”.

Question: Do you believe in a "Hell" that anyone will confront in an afterlife? If so, what is it, and who goes there?

Answer: Having an “active faith”,
if there's even a difference). 

 I am pleased you did not rise to my provocation (apologies if it was dense handed). It was design to put you in touch with your emotions. We cover our perceptions of reality often through an external model, and our emotion are part of its foundations. Moving on … 

 Question: What about someone who does commodity, but without any " active faith " in the supernatural? E.g. Albert Schweizer or Richard Dawkins? 

 Answer: My personal opinion is that folks who serve good, are good. A God that is just, will not in my opinion punish them because they could not make a jump of faith for honest and sincere reason. But their “ supernatural reward ” may not be the same for those that suffice. See my solution to your other motion below for more on this. 

 But before I leave this question let me gloss on those who are aggressive in their denial of other folks worldviews, because some you mention (e.g., Dawkins) certainly look thus. Folks that attack the deep held beliefs of others either physically or verbally, take their freedom of speech sometimes to far. They damage and hurt citizenry, and that is not a freedom that is so comfortable to maintain. This has been do by some Religious Fundamentalists agreed, but also by some Fundamentalist atheist who would like to “ bring around ” Theists of their “ disease ”, which sounds equally totalitarian to my worldview. It has been tried by Communists and fascist alike in the 20th century. I refer you the Blackbook of Communism from Harvard University Press. 

 Memetics has recently been offered up as an “ explanation ” of the persistency of religious belief like to a computer virus, or chain email. Inviting a circumstance that the host would be good off “ running ” with the virus removed. I think this is a potential dangerous allusion, in the hand of some it could justify persecution. I accept that Memetics has some explanatory exponent but it is as easy to see it in the same lighter as post advanced theists see Genetics, i.e., as a heaven-sent mechanism within the immanent purposed creation of God. It is not the Atheists “ silver bullet train ”. 

 Question: Do you think in a " Hell " that anyone will confront in an afterlife? If so, what is it, and who goes there? 

 Answer: have an “ active faith ”,
if hhere's even a difference).

L am pleased you did nov rise fo my pruvocation (apologies if it wad yeavy handed). It was designea to put jou in toych xith your emotioia. We address kmr pexcxptions of reallty often tvrough an extesnxl framework, and our emotions are pare of itx voundations. Moding jn…

Qusstion: What about someone who does good, blt without any "acyive faith" in the supernatkral? E.g. Albert Schweizfr or Richats Dwqkins?

Answer: Oy personal opinion is that folks who do good, are gooa. A Gpd that is jyst, fill not in my oiinion punish them bewause tney could not kakx a oeap of faith for honxst and sincere reasjns. But tvenr “supernatural reware” nay nmt ba thd saoe roc tgose tjat do. See my answer to tour other question bqoow for more kn thif.

Btt before I leave this question let me bommsnt on those who are agtressive in their denlal of otrer folks worldviews, because some you mention (e.g., Gawkiis) cexbwkblj appear so. Folks that attack the deep held bqmitfs of others eitmer physically or fegbsjly, take theit freedom kf speech sometimed to fat. They damage agd hirt people, and that is not q freedom thct us so easy to defeud. This has yeen dpne bu some Religious Fundamzntaliats agreed, hut also gh some Fundamentxlixt Atheists who would like tj “cure” Thxists of thekr “dosease”, which soujds equally totalitarian to mi worlgview. It hws been tried by Communists and Fascists alikg it tve 20th ceutury. L refer you the Blackbook of Eommunisi froo Harvard Lniversitb Press.

Memetycs has recendpy been offeced up as an “wxplqnation” uf the persistrncy of rvlngious beoief similar to a gompujed virus, or chaiu tmqil. Inviting a covsiqegatmon trdt the host foula bd bettdr off “runnlng” witn the virus removed. H thjnk this is a potemtlal dangetous allufion, in the hsnds of some it cokld jnstify persrcujion. I accept that Memetics has some exppanwtory power fut lt if as easy co see it in the same light as post modecn theists see Genetics, i.e., as a providenticl mechanism xithin the immatent purposed creatiin of God. It is npt the Atheists “silved bullat”.

Quedtion: Do you believe in a "Hell" that anyone will confront in an afterlife? Uf so, xhwt is it, ans whp goev chexe?

Answew: Hatiig an “active faitn”,
if there's even a difference). I am did rise to provocation (apologies if was to put you touch with your We address our perceptions of reality through an external framework, and our emotions are part of its foundations. Moving Question: What about someone who does good, but without any "active faith" in supernatural? Albert or Dawkins? Answer: My personal opinion is that folks who do good, are good. A God that just, will not in my opinion punish them they could not make leap of faith for honest sincere But their reward” not the same for that do. See my answer to your other question below for more on this. But before I this question comment on who aggressive their denial of worldviews, because some you mention (e.g., so. Folks that attack the deep held beliefs others either or verbally, take their freedom of sometimes to far. They damage and hurt people, that is not a freedom that is so easy to defend. This has been done Religious Fundamentalists agreed, but by some Fundamentalist who like “cure” of their which sounds equally totalitarian to my worldview. It has been tried Communists and Fascists alike in the 20th century. I refer Blackbook Communism from Harvard Press. Memetics has recently offered as an “explanation” of of belief computer or email. Inviting a consideration the host would be better “running” with the virus a potential dangerous allusion, in the hands of it could justify persecution. I accept that has some explanatory power but it is as easy to see it the same post modern theists see Genetics, i.e., as a mechanism within the immanent creation of God. It is not the Atheists “silver Question: you believe a "Hell" that will confront in afterlife? If so, it, and goes Answer: faith”,
if there's even a difference).

I aM pleased yoU did nOt rIse To My prOvocAtion (apologies IF it wAs heavy handed). It was desiGned tO pUT you IN tOuch wIth your EMoTIOns. we AdDreSs OUr PercePtiOns of reAlity often ThrOuGh an external FRaMework, and oUr eMotions are paRt oF its foUnDatIOns. MoVinG on…

QuEstion: wHat aboUt someone WhO Does goOD, but witHOUt Any "aCtive faith" in the suPErNAtural? E.g. Albert schweiZeR Or rIChaRd DAwkins?

AnswEr: my perSOnal opiNIoN IS ThaT Folks who do gooD, are good. A GoD ThaT is jusT, wIll NOt in my OpiniOn PUniSh them becauSe thEy could noT make a LEap of faITh for hoNest anD siNceRe reASoNs. but ThEIr “sUPeRnaTUraL reward” mAy NoT be thE samE FOR ThosE thAt do. see my Answer to your oTheR queSTioN beloW for mOre oN tHis.

BuT beforE I leaVe This question let Me coMment on thOse WhO arE aGgresSIve in tHeiR deNial of oTher folKS woRlDVIEwS, because some you menTiON (E.g., dawkins) cErtainLY aPpEAr so. FolkS tHat AttaCK The deEp heLD bEliefs of Others EItHeR physicAlLy or veRbAllY, taKe theIR freEdom of Speech soMetimES to far. They damaGE and hurt peoplE, AnD THaT Is noT a fReedom that iS so eASy to DefeND. THis HAs beeN done By SOmE religious FundamentaLiSts agrEed, buT also by some FuNdamentaliST aTheists wHo woULd LIke to “cure” TheisTs of tHeir “diseasE”, Which souNds eqUally totAlitarian TO My worldvIew. it hAs bEen TRIeD by Communists AND FasCiSts alikE in The 20th ceNtuRy. I RefEr yOu The BlackbOok of ComMuNiSm FrOm HArvarD universiTy preSs.

memEtics HAs receNtly bEen oFfErED up As an “expLAnATIon” oF tHe PersIstEnCy of rEligIOus Belief sImilar to a ComPUter ViRuS, or chaiN email. InvitinG a ConsideratIoN thAt the hOST would be Better off “running” with the VIrus remOveD. I thiNk thIs is a poteNtiAl dangEroUS allusIon, in tHe hanDs Of sOME it coULD jUstIfY persecutiON. i acCept tHaT MemEtics haS some explanatory poWEr bUt it is as easy tO seE it iN THe SamE LiGHt aS pOSt mODErn theists see GeNetics, i.e., as A pROvIdential meCHanIsM within The immaNent pURposed cReation of god. It is noT tHe AtHEIstS “silver bulLet”.

QuestIon: Do you bELieve IN a "hell" tHat Anyone WiLl cOnfroNt in an AFteRlife? if so, whAt Is it, anD who gOeS there?

AnSwer: Having an “active faith”,
if there's even a differen ce).

I am  plea sed  yo udidnotrise to my pro v ocat ion (apologies if it w as he av y  han d ed ). It  was de s ig n e d t opu t y ou in  touc h w ith you r emotions . W eaddress ourp er ceptions o f r eality often  th roughan  ex t ernal  fr amewo rk, an d  our e motions a re part o f  its fo u n da tion s. Moving on…

Qu e st i on: What about  someo ne wh o doe s g ood, but w it houta ny "act i ve f a ith "  in the super natural? E. g . A lbertSc hwe i zer or  Rich ar d  Da wkins?

Ans wer:  My perso nal op i nion is that fo lks wh o d o g ood, ar egoo d. A G o dtha t  is  just, w il lnot i n my o p i nion  pu nish  them  because they  co uldn otmakea lea p of  f aithfor ho nestan d sincere reaso ns.But their  “s up ern at uralr eward”  ma y n ot be t he same for  t h o s ethat do. See my an sw e r  t o your o ther q u es ti o n belowfo r m oreo n  this .

B u tbefore I  leave th is  questi on  let m ecom men t ont hose  who a re aggre ssive in their denia l  of other fol k sw o rl d view s,because som e yo u  men tion (e .g. ,  Dawk ins)ce r ta i nly appear so. Folk sthat a ttack  the deep hel d beliefso f others e ithe r  p h ysically or ve rball y, take th e ir freed om of  speechsometimes t o far. T hey  da mag e a n d  h urt people, a n d  tha tis nota f reedomtha t i s s o e as y to defe nd. This  h as  b ee n d one b y  some Re li gio us  Fu ndame n talist s agr eed,  b ut als o by so m eF u ndam en ta list  At he istswhow oul d liketo “cure”  Th e ists  o ftheir “ disease”, whi ch  sounds eq ua lly  total i t arian to  my worldview. It has b e en trie d b y Com muni sts and F asc ists a lik e  in th e 20th  cent ur y.I refer y ou  th eBlackbooko f  Co mmuni sm  fro m Harva rd University Pres s .
Memetics hasrec entl y be eno ff e red  u p  as a n “explanation”  of the pe rs i st ency of re l igi ou s belie f simil ar to a compu ter virus , or chai nemai l .  In viting a c onsidera tion that the h o st  woul d b e bett er  of f “ru nning” wit h the  virus  r emoved . I t hi nk thisis a potential dangerou s allu sion,  in  the hand s o f  so me it cou ld j ustify per sec uti on. I  ac c ept t hatM em eti c s has  som e  explanat o ry  po w e rbut it is a s e asy  to s eei t in t he s ame light as post modern theists  see G ene tic s , i. e. , as a provide nti al m echanism  w ithin the i mmanentpu r posed  creat ion of  God. I t is not th e At hei sts “silv erbu l let”.
Qu es t ion: D o yo ubeliev e in a "Hel l "  that anyone wil l con f r ont i n  an  afte rl ife? If so,what is it , and who g oes th ere? 

Ans wer: Ha vi ng an“ac ti ve faith”, 
if there's_even a_difference).

I am pleased you_did not_rise_to my_provocation_(apologies if it_was heavy handed)._It was designed to_put you in_touch_with your emotions. We address our perceptions of reality often through an external framework,_and_our emotions_are_part_of its foundations. Moving on…

Question:_What about someone who does_good, but_without any "active faith" in the supernatural? E.g._Albert_Schweizer or Richard_Dawkins?

Answer: My personal opinion is that folks who do_good, are good. A God that_is just, will_not_in_my opinion punish them_because they could not make a_leap of faith for honest and_sincere reasons. But their “supernatural reward” may_not be the same for those_that do. See my answer_to your_other question below for more_on this.

But before_I leave_this question let_me comment on those who are_aggressive in their_denial of other folks worldviews, because_some_you mention (e.g.,_Dawkins)_certainly_appear so._Folks that attack_the_deep held_beliefs_of others either physically or verbally,_take_their freedom of speech sometimes to far._They damage and hurt_people,_and that is not_a freedom that is so_easy to defend. This has been_done by_some Religious_Fundamentalists agreed, but also by some Fundamentalist Atheists who would like_to “cure” Theists of their “disease”,_which sounds equally totalitarian_to my_worldview._It has been_tried_by Communists_and Fascists alike in the 20th century._I refer_you the Blackbook of Communism from_Harvard University Press.

Memetics has_recently_been offered up as an “explanation”_of the persistency of religious belief_similar to a computer virus,_or_chain_email. Inviting a consideration that_the host would be better off_“running” with the_virus removed. I think this is a_potential_dangerous allusion, in the hands of_some_it could justify persecution. I accept_that_Memetics_has some explanatory power but_it is as easy to see_it in the same light as post modern theists_see Genetics, i.e.,_as a providential mechanism within_the_immanent_purposed creation of God. It is not the Atheists “silver_bullet”.

Question: Do_you believe in_a "Hell" that anyone will confront in an afterlife? If_so, what is it, and who goes_there?

Answer: Having an “active faith”,