Environmental Indoctrination-Why Should We Believe in YOUR God?

There are people in this world that are willing to die for their religion. There are also quite a few people in this world that are willing to kill for their religion as well.  If you were to ask any one of these people why it is that they feel so strongly about their faith they will not hesitate to cite scripture and personal revelation.  There will be anecdote upon anecdote, quote upon quote, and justification after justification on why they feel the way they do.  Why should they not?   Most people that take a fundamentalist approach to religion have lived with it their entire lives.  If not the religion they currently are a part of then anther sect or another denomination just as fundamental as the one the espouse today.  If we look at this person in their entirety, as a being that grows and learns as all people do, we must look to their environment.  So again we are forced to ask, why should they not believe in the things that they do?

This is an important question we must ask with any belief that is held, but much more important when we look at religious beliefs. In the United States the predominant religion is Christianity, and as any devout Christian will tell you, Christianity, the Bible, Jesus, and all of the other Christian ideals are the one true religion and all of the others are either perversions or flat out wrong. However, as any social anthropologist or sociologist will tell you, this is all almost exclusively dependant on the environment in which such a person grew up in. We are products of our environment.  If we grow up in a family that absolutely hates green beans and thought they were poisonous, the likelihood of you coming to love green beans and trying them on your own are very slim unless provided strong evidence they were in fact not poisonous, and even then you’ll have a hard time choking them down.  Same for differing ideas on religion.

Let us look back at history and see if we can make sense of this idea. Different cultures had different ideas of what it was to be religious.  We see many pantheistic cultures in very early times like the Norse and Roman gods that struck down impious people.  In other parts of the world we see a more spiritual religious view as with the Eastern philosophies and religions.  Spirits were everywhere and honoring them was the best way to be pious.  In the America’s we see animalistic spirituality with shamans taking on aspects of animals in order to increase the bounty during a certain season.  Is it not strange that each region shares certain attributes? How can we put forward that one way of thinking is any better than another way of thinking? If the later theistic religions are right, why didn’t one of the Native Americans sit up and say “Aha! We are doing this wrong! There is only one god and he has this and that attribute”. Is it because they intentionally misinterpret facts and shun opposing religions?  Or is it because their entire culture, their entire way of life is built upon the shamanistic virtues?

So what does any of this have to do with our current struggles with Christianity and Islam and Judaism and Scientology and the like? Well it has simply everything to do with it! How can any one single current religion claim to be the one true religion when we have so much anthropological data pointing to the fact that people only believe a certain way because their community does?  When we look at our beliefs from this perspective we have to second guess why someone would be willing to kill or die for a religious belief.  After all, we only hold certain ideas because they are ingrained in us from the time we are able to talk.  This should be evidence enough to cast doubt on what we hold so dear. This should cause us to question why we believe what we believe and why we can be so sure that the other guys just “got it wrong”.

So the next time you hear someone claim that the Bible has all the right answers and that in order to believe in the one true god, ask them why it is they believe in that. Ask them why they don’t believe in Allah or Zeus.  Others feel sufficiently strong about their gods that they are willing to kill and die for them, or at the very least, feel strongly enough to claim the same for their religion.  Ask them where they first heard of the Bible and where they got the idea of god from.  You can be assured that their counterpart in another part of the world is just as incredulous to their beliefs as they are of theirs.

The only answer to such confusion and obvious environmental indoctrination is to take a step back and look at all views equally from outside the status quo from whence you came.  Weigh each religion not on its value to sway or make someone feel good, but on the actual merit of their claim.  Why is this one better than that one? Why do only people in a desert region believe this, and those in a tropical believe that? This will lead you ultimately to dispose of all superstitions in favor of the one thing that can explain exactly why it is that so many different people have so many different beliefs-science.

Jason K.

Advertisements

42 comments on “Environmental Indoctrination-Why Should We Believe in YOUR God?

  1. Mike says:

    Jason,

    Why do we continue to use the same examples, and reach the same conclusions, when we have discussed this over and over again? You make assertions, but never prove anything.

    I understand your frustration, with trying to make the point that religion is bad and science is good, but why does one have to out weigh the other? BOTH religion AND science are good. One does not negate the other.

    The problem with your argument, is that it is one sided. Every premise is based upon evolutionary thought. I can’t take the word of anthropological data because it is based upon false evolutionary thought and data. Their data is immediately suspect when it is marred with the prejudice of assuming religion is just a superstition developed by men – an assumption that is not true.

    I agree that no one should ever take the word of another that their religious beliefs are true. We must always search for ourselves to make sure that we are being taught the truth – and that applies to everything in life – including evolution.

    You are aslo correct that our environment plays in important part in how our individual character is molded. But what about a person who is brought up in a home that did not believe in religion, never cracked open a Bible, or attended worship services? Yet one or two members of that family began to search for themselves and discovered that they needed God in their lives? Such has happned just as frequently as what you contend. The same is true of poor families having one member refuse to stay in that condition and works his/her way out of it to acquire a sucessful job, and some wealth.

    It is true that every religious person thinks that they have the one true religion. But again, as you pointed out, in order to know for sure if that person and the group he/she follows does, we must do some research to find out if they might be correct. And should it be discovered that they are incorrect, then we cast that belief aside and look at the next until we find the one that CAN and DOES hold up to the facts, to the truth, to the science.

    If you believe that truth is absolute, then you know that there can only be one true belief system. One true church, etc. Having no religious training myself as a youngster, later in life I grew tired of people saying that they had the right way – follow me. I began researching to prove them wrong and lo and behold I found the truth. It’s easy if you have an open and honest heart. Logic, rational thought, science, are all a part of finding the truth. And it is out there.

    You can throw out the assertion that everything you believe is based on science, and that everything I believe is not, but assertions are not the truth, you must prove it to make it true.

  2. Brandon says:

    Nice article on environmental indoctrination! I reminisce upon a similar thought I had made years back.

    Mike, how is religion good; and, how do science and religion not negate each other? On the contrary, religion is not good and science does not belong in the same room as religion. I could site multiple instances, however I am pressed for time at the moment. Also, please provide evidence for your theory of religion not being a superstition. There have been a number of good studies demonstrating that religion is one of the greatest superstitions created by mankind.

    “Yet one or two members of that family began to search for themselves and discovered that they needed God in their lives?”

    You are implying that there was not some environmental force acting by influencing members of that family to purchase the christian bible, qur’an, ect. Come on, Mike.

    “and lo[w] and behold I found the truth. It’s easy if you have an open and honest heart.”

    There it is, another person claiming they have the “truth.” Evidence please.

    “Logic, rational thought, science…”

    I don’t believe that you employed any of these in your quest to find “truth.”

  3. jastiger says:

    Well for starters, one DOES negate the other. Science is testable and falsifiable. Religion is not. This puts one in the realm of study and logic and the other in the realm of feelings and wishful thinking.

    Further, I am not sure you understand what social anthropology is. You claim that everything with this science is bias upon evolutionary thought. I’m not talking about archaeological anthropology, I’m talking about cultural anthropology, two subsets of the same field. Both study variations between peoples but on different levels. The science involves looking at a group/region/culture and comparing them to another group/region/culture in the most objective way possible. There is no bias in that. We find that different regions have different religions. The point of this is that we can see how one group behaves fervently according to their societal norm and another differently. All things being equal how do we know one is “more right” than the other? We don’t, especially when we get to superstitious aspects of the cultures.

    In light of this, how do we know you have the Truth and they don’t have the Truth?

    You also say I don’t prove anything. What is there to prove? Anthropologists exist. Other religions exist and are tied to certain regions. I mean….Google it or something, its there, I proved it. What else are you looking for?

  4. Mike says:

    I don’t believe that you employed any of these in your quest to find “truth.”

    Brandon

    There it is, another person claiming they have the “truth.” Evidence please

  5. Brandon says:

    @Mike

    Here are a few sources that should get you going.

    Atran, S. (2002). In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc.

    Barrett, D. (2010). Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Boyer, P. (2001). Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic Books.

    Hinde, RA. (1999). Why Gods Exist: A Scientific Approach to Religion. London: Routledge.

    Wright, R. (2009). The Evolution of God. New York: Little, Brown and Company.

  6. Mark says:

    Mike, I have noticed a pattern in this and other posts. You ask for others to provide evidence but you do not provide your own. I am also not available to debate you. Also what better way to convince others that you have the truth than to list it where anyone can see it?

    In addition it appears that here you asked for evidence and then completely disregarded it?

  7. Brandon says:

    Mike, you haven’t made an intelligent reply on this blog post yet.

    My point is that your hypothesis on religion and it not being a product of superstition does not stand up. You claim that Jason’s reasoning is biased and then make an attempt to insert a claim that is known to be made up of bias. By the way, “evolutionary thought” is widely understood to be fact. Additionally you do not cite any sources. Where are your assumptions coming from? From further reading, they appear to be made from personal experience, which does not have any bearing.

  8. MOM says:

    OK, lets suppose for a minute, that the prophets that wrote the suppossed bible were to come back to life today. How would they view our religious world? Would they stand in open disgust at pedophile priests? Look at the pope in horror as he enjoys the finest accomidations, while his worshipers starve in the streets? I believe they would view the perversions to Jesus’ instruction of worship with saddness. Catholics have gathered so much wealth to waste on gilded churches, when Jesus instructed that faith is in the heart and soul, not in a building no matter how beautiful. What true evidence do we have that Jesus’ existed at all? A bible that was written by imperfect humans? How do we know that they have not altered what really happened to what they WANTED to happen? Religous history is full of manipulation and murder, all because someone KNEW God was on their side!If God does exsist how arrogant and insulting to insinuate that we can know his mind. Indivduals who claim only their way is the right way are blind and close minded, and are responsible for a good share of misery that has been rained down on humanity in the name of GOD. Yes how we believe is influenced by our environment, but we all have minds, and can think and learn. Each of us is responsible in how we act and reason. There is no one true and right religion! I think the basic word of God is kindness to each other. Try to live a good life! This constant debate on who is right is tiresome!

  9. Mike says:

    MOM, if it’s tiresome, then stop reading and commenting.

    Mark and Brandon, I have tried on various posts to give evidence, but it is constantly ignored, so I figure whats the point.

    The FACT of the matter is that the debate comes down to whether or not we have two plausible models for our existence. The Creation Model or the Evolution model. When you turn to science, logic and honesty, you will find that the Creation Model is the ONLY model that fits and that the Evolutionary Model is not even a theory, but “Anti-theory,” “Anti-fact” and “Anti-Science.”

    Once that is proved, then God, the Bible, Jesus Christ, Christianity is proved. I understand that it is not for those who wish to cling to their precious theories, but as I have said before, so say I again, that honesty is necessary in science – true science.

    And Yes, all education biased toward evolutionary thought, no matter what major one might pursue. And it is the basis for Communism, Socialism, etc. as Stalin, Marx, Hilter and others will contend in their writings. So you tell me how great a thing evolution is for society.

  10. Mark says:

    Mike, taking a defeatist attitude never solves a problem. Now it is definitely possible that I have not noticed your evidence, could you please list link to posts where you gave it?

    I do not see how if you prove evolution to be wrong that Christianity is proved. I could say that the flying spaghetti monster created life, creationism does not imply one religion or another? Or to be a bit more relevant to current issues, how does it prove Christianity and not Islam or Judaism? The only thing that creationism would prove is that something created life, not a specific god.

    The first line of your last paragraph is seriously flawed. Evolution has nothing to do with business, chemistry, engineering (excluding bioengineering), accounting, or any one of a large number of fields. The fields where evolution has the most relevance are biology and all of its disciplines, astronomy, more specifically astrobiology, and anthropology. If any experts know of others please forgive me but those were the two that first came to mind.

    That also brings up another point. You have said that you believe in science but here you say every science is influenced by evolutionary thought. Does this mean that your “science” excludes anything anyone other than you or the few who share your beliefs has done?

    You blame the atrocities committed in the name of communism on atheism. This is an ignorant statement. The ONLY belief that unites atheists is a disbelief in a god, hence the name. Nowhere does it say to do these horrible things. I doubt it had much to do with these atrocities, they were simply evil men. Need I mention all the atrocities done in the name of Christianity? Or do you claim that everything bad done by atheists is because of their atheism and everything bad done by Christians is because they are not real Christians? Surely there have been bad Christians too.

    Regarding Hitler, your way off the mark. Hitler in fact did believe in some God and listed Martin Luther as one of his heroes. Hitler followed Luther’s beliefs on Jews very closely actually.

    You also didn’t answer my last question about disregarding the evidence.

    http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerFaithGod.htm
    http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm
    http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm
    http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm
    http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/

  11. Brandon says:

    Mike,

    The debate does not come down to two models: the only model based upon fact is the model of evolution.

    Secondly, education is not biased towards the evolutionary way of thinking, as evolution is accepted as fact. You missed something in elementary science. Additionally, evolution is not the basis for communism and ect. Stop blaming that on evolutionary thought. I will add more about this in a later post.

    You are as a puppet: a person who is controlled by others, and mouthing what is told to you without any rational thought.

  12. Brandon says:

    Sure, Hitler and Stalin were not the nicest of people, however it was not evolutionary theory that influenced their actions; and, there is no evidence that it did. By the way, Hitler was Catholic as evidenced by his speeches, which he had given before and during WWII. This, however is irrelevant. I digress.

    These men committed these terrible actions in the name of dogmatic Marxism and, in Hitler’s case, an unscientific, perverted eugenics theory. The very fact that you believe the Holocaust occurred strictly due to evolutionary theory is outrageous, and trivializes the intricate factors that led to one of history’s largest mass exterminations, which in my opinion, was almost certainly motivated by religion. I have no proof for religion being the dominating factor, and I doubt that anyone would due to Hitler’s extreme insincerity; and, thus his real motives.

    • Mike says:

      Brandon,

      I gave my proof what I said, just as you gave your proof. If you want to know, then go find it, just like you expected me to do.

      It is clearly found in the writings of Hitler, Stalin, Marx and others that communism is based upon evolutionary thought.

      It appears that YOU my friend are the puppet.

  13. jastiger says:

    Mike you pose some pretty big things in your posts but do nothing to show exactly why it is the case. For example you say “once it is proven that evolution is false..etc” but you do nothing to show why that is.

    Also, why do you reject the plain idea that different regions believe in different religions based on region? If you were born in Iraq you would be a devout Muslim most likely, not because Islam is any more “true” but because you would be indoctrinated to think so. In light of that evidence how can you argue that your own point of view is absolutely correct when it can be shown that a different geographic location would change your entire outlook?

  14. Mike says:

    Jason,

    I have done just everyone else on these posts, I have given you the sources, now it is up to you go and read them. If you expect me to go searching through your sources, then you should expect to do the same. But if you want to start providing proof, then I’m willing to go that route as well.

    The problem with your argument for different regions having differing religious views, is that you are trying to prove something that proves nothing.

    I will agree that different regions, cultures, nations have differing views on religion, dress, standards of living, etc. etc., but what’s your point? that does not negate the truth. If truth is absolute (and it is), then all 6 billion plus people in the earth can each hold a different view on what 2 + 2 =, but there is still only one right answer. We are of course speaking of truth, not the liberty to have opinions on some things. There are some things in life that just do not matter one whit, whether you believe ‘A’ and I believe ‘B.’
    but then there are some things that do matter, because there is only one correct answer. In mathematics, various laws of science, and religion, there is only one correct answer – and society, culture or environment cannot alter that truth.

  15. Mark says:

    I don’t see any contact the webmaster links so I will put this here. Why are some comments immediately posted while others “await moderation”. My last comment has been in this state for the last three days. It has also happened once before.

  16. Brandon says:

    Mike,

    What proof did you give supporting communist and fascist thought as a product of evolution? Also, it is not clear in their writings, as I already mentioned.

    “The problem with your argument for different regions having differing religious views, is that you are trying to prove something that proves nothing.”

    How is environmental indoctrination not a dominating factor in all of this? Surely, given the insurmountable evidence, you must comprehend this. Regardless, you have yet to give an answer to this here.

    “…but there is still only one right answer.”

    Possibly, but how does this have any relevance here? I use the word, possibly, because perhaps we are both wrong. Are you trying to point out that Christianity is the correct answer? How do you know this? What factual evidence is there of this? I have yet to find any evidence supporting this claim.

    “In mathematics, various laws of science, and religion, there is only one correct answer…”

    I will agree with you in that this does apply to religion. However, this is not true in advanced mathematics including nonlinear dynamics and chaos.

    “…and society, culture or environment cannot alter that truth.”

    First we must agree that we had the correct knowledge to begin with. Christians thought the Earth to be flat, when in reality it is a geoid.

  17. jastiger says:

    Mark, they go to me, but it doesn’t notify me that it is waiting. I click them in as soon as I see them. As to why certain ones require approval and others don’t, I don’t know.

  18. jastiger says:

    What sources Mike? I don’t see why I need to cite sources on this issue simply because it is considered common information. Hell, travel around different parts of this STATE and you’ll find different religious beliefs. The fact that you are denouncing the idea that people are products of their environment is a ridiculous denunciation of the world as it is.

    You also forget, that even IF you are right, even IF Christianity is true, that does nothing to explain why several different religions exist in different regions. Explain that?

  19. Katie says:

    Hi Jason,

    Very good article. One of the things I was always looking for when I tried to believe in Christianity was a common thread in religions of the world. I would think, “Surely there has to be something linking them all together if God does exist. He wouldn’t leave billions of people to suffer with out knowledge of him.” But evidence of a common god through out the world is lacking.

    That was one of the (many) reasons I can’t logically believe in any type of paranormal beings. I also think it’s worth noting that although there is not evidence of a common belief system the world over, there is evidence of disbelief is every region. Now I haven’t done extensive research on this, but I did read a very interesting and informative book called, Doubt: A History by Jennifer Hecht.

  20. Mike says:

    Jason,

    Let me understand you correctly. Are you saying that there is no such thing as a human will?

  21. Mike says:

    Marx – “Darwin’s book is very important, and serves as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history (Hofstadter, 1955, p. 115).

    Engel’s – “Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history” (Himmelfarb, 1959, p. 348)

    Stalin made it plain that the Communist philosophy was based upon the concept of evolution (Leninism., p. 386-87).

  22. Brandon says:

    The premise for social evolution favors the idea that natural selection benefits a larger group over an individual, contradictory to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Further Marx and Lenin (Stalin to follow Lenin) were influenced by the work of Herbert Spencer and Lewis Morgan, who believed modern society was a result of social evolution. Spencer and Morgan did not have a good understanding of evolution and only wished to insert their own ridiculous assumptions.

    Dawkins, R. (2008). The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

    McGee, R. & R. Warms. (2007). Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  23. Mike says:

    Brandon,

    I appreciate what you said, and you are correct, but the fact remains, that “anti-science” evolution produces the types of thinking of Marx, Stalin, Hitler, etc. because it is all godless.
    I can’t believe that you would say that Humanistic though contains ridiculous assumptions, when there are no absolutes, no right or wrong, no ethics, accept those that are made up by each individual.

    • zntneo says:

      Welly clearly you have NEVER rad a damn book by any humanist. Furthermore like i said before your divine command theory is ethics based on an individual eg god.

  24. jastiger says:

    Humanism works if you accept that the end goal of morality is to increase what I’d call the Human Condition. No one wants to be killed, starve, be raped, be stolen from, be cold, be wet, etc. Any moral choice that does not increase these effects on people can be said to be at worst morally neutral, at best moral.

    As far as no human will, that is not true at all. We are products of our environment, its simply a fact of life. We can change our beliefs, however, how does that happen in an insular society? If an entire region believes that Black people are bad, and never see any Black people other than on TV as criminals, they are going to move to Ames, see a Black person and assume they are bad. His opinions may change, sure, but that doesn’t mean his previous one is “right” simply because his group believed it. It’s all about environment and enforcement. The same can be said of religious beliefs. You are only an evangelical Christian and not evangelical Muslim simply because you were born and raised in the United States.

    • Mike says:

      Jason,

      FYI – I am not an evangelical Christian any more than I would be an evangelical Muslim. In fact, there is no such thing as an evangelical Muslim. “Evangelical” is a doctrinal stance that is not taught in the Bible.

  25. Mark says:

    Mike,

    Since your arguments are based on the evilness of evolution what hard evidence would you show someone you were trying to convince of creationism?

    Oh and if someone who professed belief in God (Hitler) and whose first or second greatest enemy were the godless Soviets is influenced by evolution then surely every person in the world is and their every (bad) action could be blamed on it. Doesn’t make much sense does it? I quote Hitler: “…we have taken upon ourselves the struggle against the decomposition of our religion. We have therefore taken up the struggle against the Godless movement…”

    http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/a/NaziChristian.htm?nl=1
    Refer to my previous post in this thread for more listed references.

  26. Mark says:

    You also can’t prove that the things Hitler(already proved he was a Christian), Stalin, and Marx (did he even do anything bad?) are due to evolutionary thought. Just because you have identified 1 common denominator does not mean that is the cause (any scientist would tell you this). Thats like saying 2/3 of people in California are obese because they live near mountains. That is a ridiculous statement but it shows that just because people people have two things in common does not imply a cause and effect.

    In addition evolution only says that organisms evolve through natural selection. Nowhere are morals that incite mass murder implied.

  27. MOM says:

    Mike you are the one who is so tiresome, and rude. Can you respond to anything else I said intelligently? Or do you just focus on one part of a discussion to suit you?

  28. Brandon says:

    “I appreciate what you said, and you are correct, but the fact remains, that “anti-science” evolution produces the types of thinking of Marx, Stalin, Hitler, etc. because it is all godless.”

    This is a fallacy. Additionally, there is no evidence to support this claim as I already mentioned.

    “I can’t believe that you would say that Humanistic though contains ridiculous assumptions, when there are no absolutes, no right or wrong, no ethics, accept those that are made up by each individual.”

    I don’t understand this: could you rephrase?

  29. Mark says:

    Mike,

    You continually deride evolution but when asked about your proof you have no response. Your argument has no strength.

  30. Mike says:

    Mark,

    I’m saving my evidence for debate. Are you willing?

  31. Mark says:

    As I have said before I’m not available for debate, I’m living in Europe at the moment. I also don’t like the idea of a debate, I have seen people on both sides much more knowledgeable than either of us make stupid comments because they were either rushed for time or ill prepared. Having time to think things over provides for more intelligent conversation from everyone.

    Also, if you will not provide written evidence, how do you expect to convince anyone on this forum of your beliefs? If you don’t expect to convince anyone why are you posting here?

  32. Mike says:

    Well Mark,

    I started posting on this site because of the challenge made by this group to debate the existence of God (not me but another person). That person did not except, so I issued the challenge that has thus far been ignored. One person did agree to a written debate, but when held to rules, he decided that he wouldn’t debate in that manner.

    I have given the same type of evidence that everyone else on this site has given. My evidence goes ignored, so I see no point in giving anymore. I appreciate your inability to debate as you are no in the country to do so. However, there is always the possibility of a written one.

  33. Mark says:

    Are we not in a written debate right already? There are a few different varieties of debate and this definitely constitutes an informal one. What kind of debate do you want and why?

    • Mike says:

      I’m speaking of a “formal” debate, where there are rules that govern it. This back and forth discussion, may be debating, but it’s getting us no where. Plus, a formal debate keeps it between two individuals, and 4 to 1 or more.

  34. Mark says:

    I would be open to a formal written debate. However I would not be able to do until the middle of July due to exams and vacation. What specifics do you have in mind?

  35. Mike says:

    Since every post revolves around the theory that God does not exist, that we are simply a product of random events, then I believe the most logical debate would be the following.

    Propositions for Debate

    1. RESOLVED: I know that the God of the Bible does not exist.
    Affirm:
    Deny: Mike Demory

    2. RESOLVED: I know that the God of the Bible does exist.
    Affirm: Mike Demory
    Deny:

    Four exhanges on each proposition by each of us. Each exhange will be a maximum of 8 pages. In keeping with the general rules of debate the last negative writer shall not introduce any new material to which the affirmative writer does not have opportunity to reply.
    The Affirmative will present material first on each proposition.

    There will be a 2 page rejoiner at the end of each proposition.

    No more than 15 days shall elapse between exchanges (time to be counted from reception of manuscript).
    Each of us will have permission to publish the material (if we wish) agreeing not to change or add materials.

    So that we have no interference, I can post our material on my website for anyone to view, if that’s all right with you.

    I believe that you can agree that such an exhange would be fair and benefical to all.

    The first of August would be fine to begin, or there abouts. I think the best way to do this, would for each of us to exchange emails, and that it be between the two of us. I would agree to post it on my web site, but you can also post on any web site you wish, so that others could see it as it progresses.

    Let me know your thoughts.

    Thanks, Mike

  36. Mark says:

    Most of it looks good to me. I’ll say a few things but lets continue via email. Mine is markg729@gmail.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s