HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!


Are we free because we feel free?
"No one can ever know whether freedom is real or just an illusion" - page 224, Philosophy for Dummies, Martin Cohen, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, 2010
Free will means you can be unpredictable and do something that is totally out of character. Some say that people doing unpredictable things proves we have free will.
Free will means you are free from restraint.
Free will is psychological - you are attracted to doing something and you must decide why you should do it or should not.
Those are the different understandings of free will. Believers in free will say it is all three.
So free will means you freely cause your decisions. They are not caused by your past or your programming. If they are then we are not free. If they are not caused then we are still not free. Then we are not causing our decisions so they are not ours.




Turing shows that it only seems like we have free will, because we are "computationally intractable" and so we cannot know what we are going to do next.  We think we know what we will choose next but the fact remains we are only guessing.  That means free will is not an illusion - the illusion is thinking we have an illusion.  Free will is an error and we have an illusion that the error is not there.


Feeling you are free and feeling you are sure you are making choices and decisions would seem to be an illusion if we are in fact programmed by forces beyond our control such as our genes etc.


Whether it is an illusion depends on what you mean by free.  If you feel that what you do comes from what forces beyond you have made you, you will feel free.  If you mean that you are free in the sense that you are independent of any programming then that is definitely an illusion for you have no reason to think that. The other kind of "freedom" accounts for the feeling.


A steak made of non-meat products will seem like a steak to you when you don't know how it was made.  So it is with "free" will.  It feels a certain way because you cannot detect or see or explain your programming.


How we got the values and inclinations and desires we have does not matter to us.  What matters to us is that they are there.  It does not matter if they are programmed into us or not as long as the programming is not something obvious such as being taken to a brainwasher.


The feeling of being free is important.  That is why the state should only limit what we do when it is really necessary.  Nobody should be sent to jail for five years for stealing a can of beans.  Nobody should be in a religion with all its extra rules.  Nobody should fear a God who will punish sins after death.  If God did not punish but merely just gave no rewards to sinner that is a subtle pressure.  We need to feel the feeling as much as possible for that is the key to happiness.  You may be tied up in rules and still think you are happy but good happiness and better happiness are not the same thing.


The feeling matters.  Being really free does not matter one bit.  And being really free is no good without the feeling anyway.  Religion then is evil for caring about free will as in being able to step outside your programming. Not only that but it is all it cares about for it seeks to blame us for suffering and evil and not God.




Most people do not want to think that blind forces have given us or left us with (if you like) the illusion that we have free will and the duty to do good with it. But even if we do have real free will it could be that the way our brains work, our feelings and our ideas are really just an illusion caused by our genes.   Ideas come to us and we cannot really summon them. Ideas are easily planted in you and pass themselves off as your own when they are not. Our feelings fool us a lot.  Feelings do lie a lot and try to pull you in a direction that has too little regard for truth and reality. Feelings are definitely down to chemistry.  They can be detected by machines. In fact free will means very little if anything if feelings are just or largely chemical reactions.




Why is freedom as in licience not freedom at all? Because you are never really free unless you reconcile feelings and reason. How can it be such an effective illusion? Why is it putting you in bondage though you feel you are free and even freer than you could ever imagine? The answer is that feeling free is not only not the same as being free feelings easily lie. Feeling free is an illusion and illusions tend to breed illusions. Religion by telling you feeling free is proof that you have free will from God is based on a lie and to blame when feeling free becomes freedom as in wanton licience.
What if your decisions are partly caused by things outside of your control? That is no freedom at all. A university that would let people learn anything but not 2=2=4 cannot say it lets its students freely learn. They will not know if what they learned really was learning. They will not know if the university was right about anything. It has proven itself more interested in being arbitrary than in being mathematical.
Free will, if real, is a mystery because it is hard to see how we can self-regulate and be programmed at the same time. In other words the mystery is how we can be sufficiently free though we are not completely free. It is a paradox or a contradiction and we will never know which. It is safe to say it is a contradiction for there is no proof that it really exists. Proof is the only thing that stops a paradox being mistaken for a contradiction or vice versa.
Free will involves the use of reason but it cannot take reason seriously if it is a contradiction or paradox and we don't know which. When you think of it that way you soon lose the feeling of freedom. It is not true that we have to feel free all the time. We don't.


Some think that the things that program us are beyond our control but in time we develop more control over them.  Does that make sense?
It is said that our intuition tells us we have free will.
What is intuition? It is said to be the way we know things though we cannot understand how or why we say we know them. It is like the way you know you can talk though you do not exhaustively know how you can do so. This would make it a rational belief even though we have no evidence or proof.
Surely it is better to have evidence and rational justification for saying that free will is probably real. If you want evidence your free will does not respect you if it does not give it to you. If you want evidence and your free will belief has little or no justification then your free will is not really free will.
Intuition is a sense but a very unreliable one.
It is not our intuition that is telling us that we have free will at all. We simply feel free and that is why we think we are free or have free will.
Some argue that if reason says free will is impossible, experience says different. They say, "Experience says free will is real even if it is a miracle. We must listen to experience for reason cannot explain all things anyway". But reason matters more than experience. If reason says there is no pink angel making your breakfast and you see the angel doing just that then you will just have to remember that you can hallucinate and maybe that is what is happening.

People think they have free will because they feel free. But that is self-deception.  Feelings prove nothing. You can feel you can get the best job in the world but the truth is you do not have the freedom to achieve it. If I feel that Jesus is God that does not make me right.
You can be programmed by nature to feel free when you are in fact programmed. And we are programmed for we simply cannot be free. A self-programmer is still not free. A self-programming calculator cannot forecast the weather.
Even free willists know that we can feel free and not be free like when we are mad angry. Another example is when we have a lucid dream that seems very real when we are making decisions in that dream. Even free willists agree that these are not decisions or choices for most of the brain has been closed down. Dreams prove that free will is only an assumption.
Both believers in free will and those who say it is an illusion agree that we feel free. Indeed we could be unfree and still feel free. Yet believers in free will go about lying and telling people, "You feel free so you are free." They know fine well that those who say that unconscious processes and the way life and our genes program our brains make choices not us do not deny that we feel free. They see feeling free as part of the programming. And as those processes look like they make choices they do not. The leaf does not choose to fall off the tree in autumn.
Deniers of free will should be considered more rational and plausible and honest than believers. The more the believer stresses free will the bigger the liar he or she is. For example, believers in God stress free will hugely for they argue that he gave us free will and that we can use it to break his law and deserve punishment. They blame evil on us not on God.
Do you really need proof that you could be programmed to feel free and still not be free? You feel free when you are drunk though you are not. A drug is affecting your mind. The main argument for free will, the reason so many who should know better can't discard it, is that we are led to think that we seem to be told by our experience that we are free. We seem to feel that we have different options and that nothing programs us to choose one of them and not the others.

If feeling free proves you have free will, then it follows that the more you feel it the more free will you have! Free will works best when you have maximum feeling that you are free.
God is said to give us free will so that we might love him or reject him. If feeling free makes you free then if you are free, you will feel free all the time if there is a God. You don't so that proves either that there is no God or that the argument, "I am free for I feel free" is wrong. And if it is wrong, then it follows there is no reason at all to believe in free will.
Free will, if it exists, shall be in your mind and will be a faculty in it. A faculty can no more be changed than pretending you don’t have an arm will make your arm disappear and ease to exist because it is a part of you. Free will then cannot depend on our feeling of freedom for we do not have that feeling always. If it should depend, then there is no free will.
If the more you feel free the more you are free then it follows that you can reduce this feeling and you won't be fully culpable for what you do. Murder in psychological terms will be minor. To believe that you can switch from free to unfree by changing your attitude or suspending the sensation of freedom is dangerous. You could turn unfree and commit murder and still be innocent. It could be abused but only if you believe in free will for you will only be doing that if you believe in it. If you do not, then you will prefer to nurture your good side for it determines your future and blesses it. Luckily, we are unfree all the time.

The feeling of freedom comes from the fact that our brains have not decided yet what to do. It is not coming from a sense of real freedom. Many philosophers hold to this (page 8, GOD A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED Keith Ward, OneWorld, Oxford, 2003).
Even if we do have free will we cannot know it. Believing something and being right does not constitute knowledge but luck.
You can feel you have chosen when you actually haven't chosen at all. So you can feel free and not be free.
The more powerful you are the more free you are - if free will is indeed a fact. You can feel powerful though you are anything but so why can't you feel free when you are not?
People say, "You cannot be free if others are not free for being free and enjoying it means you and others can be free together. You cannot feel free if you think you are among machines or biological computers. "

But you can be free without having free beings around you!
You might not feel happy about it but it has nothing do with your freedom.
A lot of the time the decisions we make seem to come from nothing at all. It looks like that we are observing what we are doing and thinking as opposed to really doing and thinking ourselves. It is like something else is doing things through us. The mind is tricking us.
The decisions do not magically come out of nowhere. But that is how it feels. It is a proof that we cannot rely on our feelings to determine if we are creatures with free will or not.

A brain experiment apparently showed that the motor cortex is active 300 milliseconds before we think we have decided to move. In other words, what we call a decision is made before we think we make it. An objection to this experiment is that the motor cortex may simply be going on standby because a decision is about to be made. The cortex is active and ready for a decision but it does not follow that it knows what the decision is going to be. Sam Harris cited the experiment in his book Free Will as indicating that we are assuming we have free will when we don't and what we mistake for our decisions is simply pre-coded preferences. We could not have decided any different and so our decisions are only seeming decisions - they are not real.
Some argue that evolution is based on what experiments say. Some believers in free will say that if free will is an illusion, then its hard to explain what evolution has inflicted the illusion on us for. Evolution is not perfect. Its not an intelligence. Talk of evolution's purposes is really more poetic than anything else. An apple does not have a purpose when it falls off the tree. Is free will an illusion? It may not be most of the time. We mostly get on with doing things without thinking about free will or even about feeling free. It is an illusion when we look inside to check that we are free.
It seems to most of us that we cannot choose our feelings. Our feelings and emotions are below the level of conscious awareness and control. Pulling strings in ourselves to help us feel a certain way at times is possible. But pulling strings means it is not guaranteed to work. And manipulating ourselves to feel a certain way simply proves we are not in control. It may feel it but we are not. This feeling is an illusion and so is feeling free. That feeling is part of the reason we feel free. People say we can choose our thoughts. Again we can try to think something and fail. We do not bring up the thought. We open ourselves up to it and it may come and it may not.
What about the view that feelings are like waves - we do not create the waves but we choose which one to surf? We can have several different feelings but we can choose one and still not feel what we want. Our feelings care little about what we choose. They often do not care at all.
If you have free will, you did whatever you did in the past using it. You were responsible then but not now. You are not responsible for the past now. You are only responsible for the present and the future. You are not responsible for what anybody else does unless you force them to do it. So we are not as free as we feel.
We feel free because we are not aware of the subliminal thoughts and feelings and all the mental processes that are working behind the scenes when we make a choice. Its just like when you wave to somebody. You just do it but are not even thinking of what causes you to do it. Simon Blackburn says that we are not aware of those processes. But he denies that it means we are aware of there being no such processes. (That is to say, just because you are not conscious of the processes that produce your actions does not mean there are no processes. A computer can still carry out tasks despite its not knowing what processes are behind these tasks. For example, a computer has a hard drive but doesn't know its there - its only a machine.) What he is saying is that there are processes which produce our actions but we are not aware of them completely and sometimes we are not aware of them at all. He says there is no such thing as being conscious of your freedom. The feeling of freedom is just a feeling and so has nothing do with whether we have free will or not.
Thoughts can convey intentions - or we can think what we think on purpose. We can choose what we think so thoughts and intention can work together.
We only have one thought at a time and this thought is caused by what we think or what happens in the previous moment. In fact, when you understand the argument that we can’t be free because we only have one thought at a time you see that the feeling free stops. Then you feel that you are not free. Feeling free happens only when you forget that your decision is caused by one thought and you recall the thought and the process of thoughts and the motions of the will that led to the thought that caused the decision. If you assume for a time that you are not free and become aware of each moment your will moves as an individual moment and wave your arms about you will experience the sensation that everything you are doing is mechanical and is just happening according to some program and the feeling of freedom disappears.
When the sensation is so changeable how can you be free? You will feel free and some times and not at others. If you have free will, you will find that there are times you are free but don't feel free.
Experience seems to show that we are free until you see through it and then you start to see past the feeling of freedom. You can sense that you have no free will. 
A chain of unconscious and mechanical processes cause my consciousness and make me see what options I have. I do not really choose what I choose. A choice that appears in a backdrop of non-choice is not a choice. Ultimate control is necessary to choose and I do not have that.
We are not really the owners and masters of our thoughts. Free will requires forethought. It is more important for your thoughts to be free than your will for you cannot freely choose anything unless you can freely think. Free will over our thoughts cannot exist so free will over anything else cannot exist either. See this and feeling free will no longer seem to make a case for free will.

We do not have complete control over our feelings. Suppose I know that sitting on the shore makes me happy. If I go to the shore on a sunny day and the feeling comes to me it does not follow that I caused the feeling. If I know the sun will shine on the beach and go to enjoy it, it does not follow that I caused the sun to come out. Same with my feelings. I could be wrong to think that the beach will make me feel happy - maybe I will feel nothing or maybe I will even feel sad. If I feel happy, I cannot make myself feel even better simply by willing it.
We do not have complete control over our thoughts. Try visualising a teabag for a minute. Soon other images will take over.
You cannot then be fully responsible for anything you do.

Thinking and feeling form the process from which the decision is made but all these things have the one motive: gratification of the self. We know that we can't possibly be in bliss all the time and sometimes we want to suffer so that we can later enjoy life better. If you are in pain and get better, you end up in euphoria with the relief. Until we get the relief we can get the gratification that comes from fulfilling our desire to suffer. Gratification accompanies all that we consciously do. It is the reason we think we feel free or that we do what we want. It is not evidence that we are free because it has to do with pleasure not with the will though it drives the will. It is not the will. We like to feel as if we are in control even if we are not. The thinking and feeling do not prove that we produce the decision but they are just the way the programming that will result in the decision works.
Everything we do consciously and unconsciously, is accompanied by a sense of gratification. It satisfies our will. This feeling is the reason we think we feel free or that we do what we want. It is not evidence that we are free because it has to do with pleasure not with the will though it drives the will. It is not the will. We do not care about good and evil but only about self-gratification so that does away with free will in any meaningful sense though religion lies saying God made us free to decide if we would be evil or good.  

We know that we can see and we cannot deny that. We can sense the will but its freeness is not something that can be sensed so the freeness can be denied. We have no mechanism for sensing it apart from feelings and feelings can be wrong. Religion says that free will is a certain fact. It is forced to say that because if it is just an assumption then it cannot claim that there is any evidence for God for that hypothesis requires that free will exists. So it has to be positing some psychic sixth sense that tells you that the will is free. It has to fall back on psychic powers, a concept it frequently regards as abominable and satanic.



Feeling that something is true means you strongly sense that it is a fact. That will make it seem more convincing to you than cold hard logic and evidence and proof.  But do not forget that whether the "fact" is true or not, you have created the illusion that it is true.  Feeling something true is true is embracing the truth for the wrong reason.  You put yourself under the bondage of feeling.  So feeling free does not mean you are free but that you are not.


A determinist, a person who thinks the causes of our choices do not involve any real free will but fixed causes, will never live all the time as if he thinks determinism is true.  What about his choice to believe that determinism is true?  Surely he contradicts himself?  No. In fact if determinism is right then there is no choice to recognise that or believe it! But what he thinks or feels has nothing to do with determinism being true or not.  A computer may swear it is free and be wrong. 
Religion is Reasonable says that the reason free will cannot be an illusion is because it would be impossible for all of us to be under the illusion all the time (page 25). But it is not a serious illusion in a sense. It is not like seeing visions of pink elephants all the time. It is only a feeling and most of us have feelings that could mislead us. Don’t we live under the illusion that many evil things are good all the time? Don’t all agree that evil doing is a symptom of delusive thinking? Don't we feel and act as if we will never die? If we took our own death seriously we would be horribly depressed every time we heard somebody has died. The arguments of religion against determinism are wafer thin and serve only to show the weakness of their position.

We know that we do not know how we are free and how we are able to do it if we have this freedom. Therefore no matter how free we might think we feel, we could be wrong.
The feeling of freedom is necessary to prevent fear. It would be scary if we felt compelled. The feeling is a good thing for to feel that fate controls you by pulling you one direction and another is a scary thing so you have to feel as if you can do what you want. But we can have the feeling and deny free will. Denying it then is not a sickness nor is it hypocritical.
Some determinists say the simplest way to respond to people who tell us we feel free and are free is, “What do you expect when we always do what we want?” The determinists are indicating that the feeling is necessary for us to have a will but it does not make that will free or unfree.
Yes from moment to moment we do feel we do what we want.
The wants are perceived to be mechanical and unfree when you look over the several thoughts and acts of will that led to the acts. So the feeling of being is actually accompanied by the feeling that you are not free though you do what you want. It is almost an ambivalent situation. For some they can stop feeling free altogether when they consider how the thoughts and feelings and motivations work.
If you notice that if you cannot do what is evil just because it is evil it follows that no part of your evil actions intended to be other than good under the circumstances. But you were wrong so you were insane when your mind became distorted to assume evil was good.

It is as certain as 2+2=4 that nothing can prove we have free will or even that we might have it. If religion denies that then it denies that 2+2=4. In denying that, they implicitly dissent from free will for if reason makes no sense then free will is impossible to use for there is a connection between it and reason. Free will is following reason as you see it.

If you feel free, if you feel you have free will, the feeling will vanish or at least diminish if you start listing the things you cannot choose. You are unable to choose that your child should get a terrible disease and die horribly.
Our desire for people to have free will is part of the reason why we are conditioned to feel free and believe we are free. But it is the present moment that matters. We like to believe people could have avoided doing the evil they did - that they did it freely and were not programmed. It consoles us to think they might have done differently of their own free will. It makes us less afraid of what our programming might have us doing next. But surely if we should fear the unknown we should fear it the same whether we are programmed or whether we have free will?
Free will or not, the evil that is done in the past cannot be changed. If we are comforted by the notion that evil people could have done good instead of evilly abusing their free will, that makes no sense as far as the past is concerned. Belief in free will should only be comforting if you are doing something to help as many as possible use their free will better. So why do many do nothing and still like the doctrine? The liking and comforting is an illusion. We delude ourselves to relish the notion that we have free will.
Feeling free is a necessary evil. How? Because if you feel free and reason that means you are free that does not give you the right to assume that others are free as well. It does not give you the right to judge them. But in fact you don’t really care much about feeling free just for yourself but because you want to accuse others of having free will so that if they do bad they will suffer pangs of conscience or retribution. The evil of feeling free is a necessary evil and is not something to be celebrated. Just because you have to use something bad does not make it right to revel.
The worship of God is inseparable from this necessary evil of feeling free. Believers want to consecrate their feeling of freedom to God and give God free worship. The worship of God then is gravely misguided and bad.
If I see others as another me and think they should think what I think or feel what I feel then if I treat them as knowing they have free will then I am forcing my values on them and bullying them. So I cannot pretend to love the person I punish. When a person is good, I am looking at them as needing rewarding or punishing. I still see them as something I must impose my values on. I imply they are thought criminals if they doubt or deny free will. There is a big difference between telling a person to stand up for a policy and telling them what to think. The latter is bigoted and oppressive and that is how the free will believer is being to other people. 
Inability to prove that free will exists, proves that the idea of sin, using free will to defy the will of God, is nonsense. It proves God cannot exist and is loathsome if he does. To honour God is to honour what is loathsome. It is a loathsome thing to do. Indeed the idea of God has made many people loathsome.  When we reward a criminal with retribution, this is hatred for we cannot prove free will. We are punishing him not because we believe he has to pay with suffering for abusing his free will the way he has but because we feel he is free. To hurt a person because you feel like it, is hatred even if the person deserves it. God religion stakes everything on a feeling, namely that people have free will as a gift from God. It is totally absurd when based on such a pathetic insulting foundation.
Why does anybody want to defend belief in free will? Well it starts with feeling we are free.

The person who makes errors of logic and thinks free will exists to the degree that we are fully to blame for our part in the terrible things we get up to is a slanderer. Just because you think you have free will because you feel free does not give you the right to say that if somebody does something terrible that it is their own fault. You are condemning a person because of how you feel free! It is cruel to think that feeling free is enough for you to accuse harm doers of being wilfully evil. Even if we have free will, that does not mean that the evil we do consciously is mainly or only our fault.
The person who accuses you of having free will because he feels he has it is far worse. It is like accusing somebody of murder just because you feel they did it. Do you really have the right to assume that other people feel as free as you do? What if many people feel free but also feel this feeling does not prove they are free?
Free will is thought to support the notion that we can love. It does not. It supports the view that we are only kidding ourselves when we love for we don't really.
To be an atheist and believe in free will is bad enough. But to say free will is a gift from God is hypocrisy and blasphemy and demeaning and no scale can ever measure how hideous it is.
Free will is a mere assumption. It is a guess not a belief. Thus belief in free will cannot entitle us to believe in rewarding and punishing. Yet that is what believers want the belief for. Belief can only entitle us to give what might be a reward or punishment depending on whether the person is free or not. But you can only guess not believe. Here is a consequence. If you reward a good person you will do it with the following sentiment, "If you are not free then this is a gift not a reward. It is only conditionally intended to be a reward. In other words - if you are free then we reward you." You might as well not even bother assuming free will exists.
An animal has no free will yet when you take your dog’s bowl off the floor in order to put his food in it the dog will know that his dinner is coming and he will follow you around and watch you and beg for his food and lick his lips in anticipation. The animal intends to have the food and acts this way because he has a goal in mind – his dinner. When the animal can behave like that it is madness to say that the fact that we think and decide what we feel before we do something means we are free and have free choice. There is no difference.


I saved a child's life last week who was running across the road.  Religion and free will believers claim that if I could rewind I could have done something different and maybe walked on by and let the child get run over.  Is that judgemental?  Yes - until somebody can rewind nobody can say that I would have done other the good deed I did.  Innocent until proven guilty.  Risky until proven risky.


Not every philosopher and thinker thinks you are the you you were when you were born or even ten years ago. They think each person gradually turns into another person. Christians invent the idea of spiritual soul to avoid that thought. The soul is supposed to be the same no matter what else changes so you are the same person all the time. The soul is an excuse for denying that John at 10 is the same person as John ten years later and ten years after that. It is an excuse because there is no evidence.

Personal identity and personal responsibility is the foundation of everything. But even if we have free will we have no right to reward and punish somebody who has changed a lot. Some people seem to turn into new persons faster than others.
Free will does not give believers what they mostly want. Thus the doctrine is only fit for discarding.

Many of us see that we do not feel that it was us that did the terrible deed whatever it was ten or whatever years ago.  Feeling free is only important if you feel you are the same person who say went to America ten years ago.  But you cannot feel that when you let yourself see how much you have changed. 

The more you use a person for your own ends the more you treat that person as a thing. The more you value what you want them for and not them. If I see my universe as a thing and the people around me as things then I see everything as non-personal and cold. I see everything and everyone else as a thing that acts on me and my life. I will lose the feeling of freedom. I will make myself a slave.

We could be programmed though we may feel free for we could be set to feel that way and to act free though we are not really free at all. Nobody is able to explain how free will works, meaning all have to at least admit it is possible that the feeling of freedom is misleading. Also the feeling of freedom is easily taken away. Feeling free cannot prove free will when sometimes we do not feel free.
Belief in free will is based on errors. People are told to believe that they are free because they feel free or terrible things will happen. For example, God will be offended and blamed for evil. Also, you will go off the rails morally because you don't believe you are accountable for anything you do. They are blackmailed to believe.
People are conditioned to believe in free will because they think they experience themselves as free agents. The dog feels free to eat his dinner and nobody seriously suggests a dog has free will. We must know subconsciously that the doctrine is rubbish. Basing free will on feeling, is basing morality and life and religion and God on a feeling! Any reasoning built on that is not motivated by a concern for truth but is based on feeling. It is horrible to think that atheists who depend on reason are often insulted by those who make a god of their feelings like that! If your faith in free will is based on a feeling then what right have you to condemn people who harm others? It is malicious to base such a big thing on so little! You are really no better than those whom you point the finger at.
If we are misled by feeling free, that is a necessary evil. Life would be awful if we did not feel free. A necessary evil is something that is regretfully needed. People using God to feel more free than they need to is disgraceful.  There are other ways to feel more free without implying a perfect God put a lie in your constitution and at the core of your being.


It is evil to use your feeling free as an important or even worse the only reason for accepting the idea that humankind has free will for that means the good will end up being loved conditionally on the basis that they use their free will well and will be punished or hated for doing bad.  A feeling is not a reason for hurting another even if they do deserve it.
The Amplified Bible
A CONCISE INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY, William H Halverson, Random House, N.Y. 1967
BASIC PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS, Charles C Reid, Dickenson, CA, 1971
BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, Friedrich Nietzsche, Penguin, London, 1990
CONTROVERSY: THE HUMANIST CHRISTIAN ENCOUNTER Hector Hawton, Pemberton Books, London, 1971
DOING AWAY WITH GOD? Russell Stannard, Marshall Pickering, London, 1993
ETHICS, KEY CONCEPTS IN PHILOSOPHY, Dwight Furrow, Continuum, New York, 2005 chapter 7
FREE TO DO RIGHT, David Field IVP London, 1973
GOD A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED Keith Ward, OneWorld, Oxford, 2003
GOD AND THE NEW PHYSICS, Paul Davies, Penguin Books, London, 1990
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Monarch, East Sussex, 1995
MORAL PHILOSOPHY Joseph Rickaby SJ, Stonyhurst Philosophy Series, Longmans, Green and Co, London, 1912
MORTAL QUESTIONS, Thomas Nagel, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979
ON THE TRUTH OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH, BOOK ONE, GOD, St Thomas Aquinas, Image Doubleday and Co, New York, 1961
PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS AND ARGUMENTS, James W. Cornman and Keith Lehrer, 2nd Edition, Macmillan Network, 1974
PHILOSOPHY – THE PURSUIT OF WISDOM, Louis P Pojman, Wadsworth, California, 1994
RADIO REPLIES VOL 1, Frs Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1938
RADIO REPLIES VOL 2, Frs Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1940
RADIO REPLIES VOL 3, Frs Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1942
REASON AND RELIGION, Anthony Kenny, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford, 1987
RELIGION IS REASONABLE, Thomas Corbishley SJ, Burns & Oates Ltd, London, 1960
THE BIG QUESTIONS, Simon Blackburn, Quercus Books, London, 2009
THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY, AC Ewing, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1985
THE REALITY OF GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL, Brian Davies, Continuum, London-New York, 2006
THE SATANIC BIBLE, Anton Szandor LaVey, Avon Books, New York, 1969