Religion & Morality

[StevePerryHair]

chocolate covered balls

Fuck, Lynn, you'll eat anything with chocolate on it!

She will! I've witnessed!

I wasn't aware they had chocolate covered clams....

If you ever paid attention to my food favorites you'd realize... bananas, pickles, balls (pepperoni (you'd have to be from Erie to get that one) and cake)..... I'm realizing now there may be a pattern NO clams

[Gideon]

balls NO clams

[Melissa]

balls NO clams

LOL!

[Gideon]

balls NO clams

LOL!

You have such a dirty mind.

[S2M]

I'm not a big seafood fan...but when the clamstrip plate is on the menu.....hot damn!!! I'm diving right in...

[Gideon]

I'm diving right in...

Nice visual.

[Rip Rokken]

I totally don't get the purpose in debating the intelligence of believers vs. non-believers. Is it to make people feel superior or make others look stupid? Why not just stick to the topic and let the opinions stand on their own merits? Great example of that here:

God Debate II -- William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg

I agree 100% with you.

Sam Harris slam-dunked Craig, btw...

[Gideon]

I totally don't get the purpose in debating the intelligence of believers vs. non-believers. Is it to make people feel superior or make others look stupid? Why not just stick to the topic and let the opinions stand on their own merits? Great example of that here:

God Debate II -- William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg

I agree 100% with you.

Sam Harris slam-dunked Craig, btw...

That's all right, because Lennox manhandled Dawkins.

[Rip Rokken]

I totally don't get the purpose in debating the intelligence of believers vs. non-believers. Is it to make people feel superior or make others look stupid? Why not just stick to the topic and let the opinions stand on their own merits? Great example of that here:

God Debate II -- William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg

I agree 100% with you.

Sam Harris slam-dunked Craig, btw...

That's all right, because Lennox manhandled Dawkins.

I'm putting that next on my list - will start watching it now and post my thoughts when I finish tomorrow. Thanks for the tip.

[parfait]

I know one thing that doesn't make any sense what so ever; your post. I'll try to explain this to you, in a way that even you'll understand. Alright? Here we go, sugar tits:

These statistics, which have recorded data over almost a decade (ranging back to 1927), through the measuring the level of education and IQ, will then point to an average - in this case that the religious, on average, is less educated and have a lower IQ. You're not however, more intelligent due to the fact that you don't believe in Ganesha, Thor or the Sparkly Green Unicorn. Lower levels of intelligence are associated with a poorer ability – or perhaps willingness – to question and overturn strongly felt institutions (this being the fear of death or of how nihilistic it all really is, which is the primitive root of all religion). You still following? If you are - good girl!

And it's not my opinion. It's a statistical fact. I explained this in an earlier post. An even more interesting fact however, is that atheists/agnostics scored higher in their knowledge in religion over the religious. Why? Because the aforementioned group examines and researches religion, before coming to the only rational and logical choice there is: religion is a bunch of donkey dick bullshit. Methodist minister Adam Hamilton factors what he calls Christians' lack of introspection and curiosity into their relatively low scores: "They accept their particular faith... to be true and they stop examining it, in turn doesn't bother to examine other faiths."

The percentage of religious is even lower in academics (about 5 percent in universities in England). I think, when reading through my post, you can figure out the reason for that all by yourself.

Managed to get through all of this, sweetypuss? Then reward yourself with a fun treat! Cleaning the windows, maybe?

Of course I understand, I’m one of the more intelligent dummies …and my post made perfect sense!!
I’m enthralled w/this topic because, other than Michael Stivic, I don’t believe that I have ever known an atheist/an admitted atheist …
you people seem somewhat normal and your arguments interesting. You’re not going to change me, especially now that I know
I can’t get any smarter, but I will continue to read!!

I do suddenly have a craving for something ewwwy, gooey sweet, though!!!

Just chugged down 2 cartons of pineapple juice. Oh yes...

[Gideon]

I know one thing that doesn't make any sense what so ever; your post. I'll try to explain this to you, in a way that even you'll understand. Alright? Here we go, sugar tits:

These statistics, which have recorded data over almost a decade (ranging back to 1927), through the measuring the level of education and IQ, will then point to an average - in this case that the religious, on average, is less educated and have a lower IQ. You're not however, more intelligent due to the fact that you don't believe in Ganesha, Thor or the Sparkly Green Unicorn. Lower levels of intelligence are associated with a poorer ability – or perhaps willingness – to question and overturn strongly felt institutions (this being the fear of death or of how nihilistic it all really is, which is the primitive root of all religion). You still following? If you are - good girl!

And it's not my opinion. It's a statistical fact. I explained this in an earlier post. An even more interesting fact however, is that atheists/agnostics scored higher in their knowledge in religion over the religious. Why? Because the aforementioned group examines and researches religion, before coming to the only rational and logical choice there is: religion is a bunch of donkey dick bullshit. Methodist minister Adam Hamilton factors what he calls Christians' lack of introspection and curiosity into their relatively low scores: "They accept their particular faith... to be true and they stop examining it, in turn doesn't bother to examine other faiths."

The percentage of religious is even lower in academics (about 5 percent in universities in England). I think, when reading through my post, you can figure out the reason for that all by yourself.

Managed to get through all of this, sweetypuss? Then reward yourself with a fun treat! Cleaning the windows, maybe?

Of course I understand, I’m one of the more intelligent dummies …and my post made perfect sense!!
I’m enthralled w/this topic because, other than Michael Stivic, I don’t believe that I have ever known an atheist/an admitted atheist …
you people seem somewhat normal and your arguments interesting. You’re not going to change me, especially now that I know
I can’t get any smarter, but I will continue to read!!

I do suddenly have a craving for something ewwwy, gooey sweet, though!!!

Just chugged down 2 cartons of pineapple juice. Oh yes...

Do you have an endless reservoir of .gifs? Ryan Reynolds is but the latest.

I don't suppose you'll ever make your way to America for a Journey show or two? I bet you're a real hoot in person.

[Michigan Girl]

I know one thing that doesn't make any sense what so ever; your post. I'll try to explain this to you, in a way that even you'll understand. Alright? Here we go, sugar tits:

These statistics, which have recorded data over almost a decade (ranging back to 1927), through the measuring the level of education and IQ, will then point to an average - in this case that the religious, on average, is less educated and have a lower IQ. You're not however, more intelligent due to the fact that you don't believe in Ganesha, Thor or the Sparkly Green Unicorn. Lower levels of intelligence are associated with a poorer ability – or perhaps willingness – to question and overturn strongly felt institutions (this being the fear of death or of how nihilistic it all really is, which is the primitive root of all religion). You still following? If you are - good girl!

And it's not my opinion. It's a statistical fact. I explained this in an earlier post. An even more interesting fact however, is that atheists/agnostics scored higher in their knowledge in religion over the religious. Why? Because the aforementioned group examines and researches religion, before coming to the only rational and logical choice there is: religion is a bunch of donkey dick bullshit. Methodist minister Adam Hamilton factors what he calls Christians' lack of introspection and curiosity into their relatively low scores: "They accept their particular faith... to be true and they stop examining it, in turn doesn't bother to examine other faiths."

The percentage of religious is even lower in academics (about 5 percent in universities in England). I think, when reading through my post, you can figure out the reason for that all by yourself.

Managed to get through all of this, sweetypuss? Then reward yourself with a fun treat! Cleaning the windows, maybe?

Of course I understand, I’m one of the more intelligent dummies …and my post made perfect sense!!
I’m enthralled w/this topic because, other than Michael Stivic, I don’t believe that I have ever known an atheist/an admitted atheist …
you people seem somewhat normal and your arguments interesting. You’re not going to change me, especially now that I know
I can’t get any smarter, but I will continue to read!!

I do suddenly have a craving for something ewwwy, gooey sweet, though!!!

Just chugged down 2 cartons of pineapple juice. Oh yes...

Oh, damn ...and I ate a dry Donette!!
Calorie intake for the day ...shot!!

[conversationpc]

And it's not my opinion. It's a statistical fact.

It's an opinion based on some studies. As I posted earlier, which no one bothered to respond to, there is a new study coming out that shows the higher the level of education, the more religious people tend to become. That doesn't mean they become Christians but just religious in general. That would explain why so many rich, well-educated people, tend to get involved in new age type religions.

[Rip Rokken]

I didn't know until tonight that Ricky Gervais of the British version of The Office was an atheist until tonight. Nice clips...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAfuKfmE1Tc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1XGTrrZjlI

[conversationpc]

I didn't know until tonight that Ricky Gervais of the British version of The Office was an atheist until tonight. Nice clips...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAfuKfmE1Tc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1XGTrrZjlI

Rip, what's your take on atheists who've gone the other direction? I've heard a good number of stories of unbelievers coming to faith.

[majik]

And it's not my opinion. It's a statistical fact.

It's an opinion based on some studies. As I posted earlier, which no one bothered to respond to, there is a new study coming out that shows the higher the level of education, the more religious people tend to become. That doesn't mean they become Christians but just religious in general. That would explain why so many rich, well-educated people, tend to get involved in new age type religions.

It could also be that being rich and well educated only provides a temporary satisfaction for the mind. Eventually the spiritual path these people turn to will also be seen through as false and impermanent. What is there to turn to then........ only reality itself, that which is permanent and findable.

[Rip Rokken]

I didn't know until tonight that Ricky Gervais of the British version of The Office was an atheist until tonight. Nice clips...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAfuKfmE1Tc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1XGTrrZjlI

Rip, what's your take on atheists who've gone the other direction? I've heard a good number of stories of unbelievers coming to faith.

Haven't heard too many except for Lee Strobel, and Mike Warnke (who turned out to be a fraud). I'm sure they exist, but who knows the reasons. I personally wouldn't understand how anyone well versed in the arguments could convert based on factual evidence, so I wonder how many "atheists" who convert ever really considered their beliefs that deeply. Not to say they haven't -- I'd be interested in hearing what they say for sure. I also don't argue at all with anyone just wanting to believe. A good bit of Christianity makes a nice, captivating story, and all the promises it makes to believers are quite appealing. I'll never try to actively de-convert believers, but if they are interested in why I'm not one any longer, I'll be happy to discuss it with them. If I felt that the discussion would not be beneficial to them though, I would either not continue it or never start it in the first place. People have a lot riding on faith.

BTW, I think someone brought up the question of what happens to babies who die unsaved. Here's a nice little humorous video that talks about how several church leaders over time covered the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf-UploVjHA

[Rip Rokken]

Great commentary on the Book of Job - great use of a Bon Jovi intro!

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cpK1zcMXWw

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQgmS0FAjGk

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTb3jMESjCs

According to the Bible, God was literally tempted by Satan into doing what he did. Hmm...

[Duncan]

I didn't know until tonight that Ricky Gervais of the British version of The Office was an atheist until tonight. Nice clips...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAfuKfmE1Tc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1XGTrrZjlI

Rip, what's your take on atheists who've gone the other direction? I've heard a good number of stories of unbelievers coming to faith.

Haven't heard too many except for Lee Strobel, and Mike Warnke (who turned out to be a fraud). I'm sure they exist, but who knows the reasons. I personally wouldn't understand how anyone well versed in the arguments could convert based on factual evidence, so I wonder how many "atheists" who convert ever really considered their beliefs that deeply. Not to say they haven't -- I'd be interested in hearing what they say for sure. I also don't argue at all with anyone just wanting to believe. A good bit of Christianity makes a nice, captivating story, and all the promises it makes to believers are quite appealing. I'll never try to actively de-convert believers, but if they are interested in why I'm not one any longer, I'll be happy to discuss it with them. If I felt that the discussion would not be beneficial to them though, I would either not continue it or never start it in the first place. People have a lot riding on faith.

BTW, I think someone brought up the question of what happens to babies who die unsaved. Here's a nice little humorous video that talks about how several church leaders over time covered the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf-UploVjHA

Well there you go.

[majik]

I didn't know until tonight that Ricky Gervais of the British version of The Office was an atheist until tonight. Nice clips...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAfuKfmE1Tc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1XGTrrZjlI

Rip, what's your take on atheists who've gone the other direction? I've heard a good number of stories of unbelievers coming to faith.

Haven't heard too many except for Lee Strobel, and Mike Warnke (who turned out to be a fraud). I'm sure they exist, but who knows the reasons. I personally wouldn't understand how anyone well versed in the arguments could convert based on factual evidence, so I wonder how many "atheists" who convert ever really considered their beliefs that deeply. Not to say they haven't -- I'd be interested in hearing what they say for sure. I also don't argue at all with anyone just wanting to believe. A good bit of Christianity makes a nice, captivating story, and all the promises it makes to believers are quite appealing. I'll never try to actively de-convert believers, but if they are interested in why I'm not one any longer, I'll be happy to discuss it with them. If I felt that the discussion would not be beneficial to them though, I would either not continue it or never start it in the first place. People have a lot riding on faith.

BTW, I think someone brought up the question of what happens to babies who die unsaved. Here's a nice little humorous video that talks about how several church leaders over time covered the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf-UploVjHA

Well there you go.

Is atheism becoming the new religion eh! I mean belief system.

[Duncan]

I didn't know until tonight that Ricky Gervais of the British version of The Office was an atheist until tonight. Nice clips...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAfuKfmE1Tc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1XGTrrZjlI

Rip, what's your take on atheists who've gone the other direction? I've heard a good number of stories of unbelievers coming to faith.

Haven't heard too many except for Lee Strobel, and Mike Warnke (who turned out to be a fraud). I'm sure they exist, but who knows the reasons. I personally wouldn't understand how anyone well versed in the arguments could convert based on factual evidence, so I wonder how many "atheists" who convert ever really considered their beliefs that deeply. Not to say they haven't -- I'd be interested in hearing what they say for sure. I also don't argue at all with anyone just wanting to believe. A good bit of Christianity makes a nice, captivating story, and all the promises it makes to believers are quite appealing. I'll never try to actively de-convert believers, but if they are interested in why I'm not one any longer, I'll be happy to discuss it with them. If I felt that the discussion would not be beneficial to them though, I would either not continue it or never start it in the first place. People have a lot riding on faith.

BTW, I think someone brought up the question of what happens to babies who die unsaved. Here's a nice little humorous video that talks about how several church leaders over time covered the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf-UploVjHA

Well there you go.

Is atheism becoming the new religion eh! I mean belief system.

No, its is neither. I do hope we are entering a new age of enlightenment though.

[majik]

I didn't know until tonight that Ricky Gervais of the British version of The Office was an atheist until tonight. Nice clips...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAfuKfmE1Tc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1XGTrrZjlI

Rip, what's your take on atheists who've gone the other direction? I've heard a good number of stories of unbelievers coming to faith.

Haven't heard too many except for Lee Strobel, and Mike Warnke (who turned out to be a fraud). I'm sure they exist, but who knows the reasons. I personally wouldn't understand how anyone well versed in the arguments could convert based on factual evidence, so I wonder how many "atheists" who convert ever really considered their beliefs that deeply. Not to say they haven't -- I'd be interested in hearing what they say for sure. I also don't argue at all with anyone just wanting to believe. A good bit of Christianity makes a nice, captivating story, and all the promises it makes to believers are quite appealing. I'll never try to actively de-convert believers, but if they are interested in why I'm not one any longer, I'll be happy to discuss it with them. If I felt that the discussion would not be beneficial to them though, I would either not continue it or never start it in the first place. People have a lot riding on faith.

BTW, I think someone brought up the question of what happens to babies who die unsaved. Here's a nice little humorous video that talks about how several church leaders over time covered the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf-UploVjHA

Well there you go.

Is atheism becoming the new religion eh! I mean belief system.

No, its is neither. I do hope we are entering a new age of enlightenment though.

Sounds good, but maybe not as 2.5 thousand years of Buddhism has not resulted in any enlightened Buddhists, that in itself is a clue.

[conversationpc]

Rip, what's your take on atheists who've gone the other direction? I've heard a good number of stories of unbelievers coming to faith.

Haven't heard too many except for Lee Strobel, and Mike Warnke (who turned out to be a fraud). I'm sure they exist, but who knows the reasons.

It's not completely uncommon and I actually know of one who was a lawyer, extremely intelligent, and converted from Atheism to Christianity over the course of some conversations he had with a former pastor of ours. Like Strobel, he was an antagonistic atheist and began writing letters to our pastor on questions he had and why the Christian faith could not be true.

[Rip Rokken]

Is atheism becoming the new religion eh! I mean belief system.

For some it may seem to be that, but I feel Sam Harris answers the question best:

"In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

[Rip Rokken]

Rip, what's your take on atheists who've gone the other direction? I've heard a good number of stories of unbelievers coming to faith.

Haven't heard too many except for Lee Strobel, and Mike Warnke (who turned out to be a fraud). I'm sure they exist, but who knows the reasons.

It's not completely uncommon and I actually know of one who was a lawyer, extremely intelligent, and converted from Atheism to Christianity over the course of some conversations he had with a former pastor of ours. Like Strobel, he was an antagonistic atheist and began writing letters to our pastor on questions he had and why the Christian faith could not be true.

It would be very interesting to hear his story first-hand, or from an eyewitness. Not to doubt you, but to clarify -- did you know him personally or only know of him? I'm asking because of my experience also with miracle stories -- they are always a "friend of a friend" type of things, so the exact details are often questionable.

[majik]

Is atheism becoming the new religion eh! I mean belief system.

For some it may seem to be that, but I feel Sam Harris answers the question best:

"In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

Totally agree with that, good one.

[Rip Rokken]

That's all right, because Lennox manhandled Dawkins.

I'm putting that next on my list - will start watching it now and post my thoughts when I finish tomorrow. Thanks for the tip.

Quick follow-up. Looks like they've debated twice, and I've had to order the first one on DVD. From the reviews I read, it sounds like the structured format of that debate may have not favored conversation very well, but I am almost through watching their 2nd debate called "Has Science Buried God", and don't believe Lennox is coming out on top at all. He's very well spoken, and doesn't hesitate to counter with his own points, but after the initial scientific arguments, he goes strictly into wish thinking. I see that happen with quite a few of these debates, and what they do is appeal to things like:

1) That morality can't exist without a firm foundation (God).

2) That there would be no ultimate justice without God (and wouldn't that suck?)

Just a few examples, but it's strictly wish-thinking -- nice thoughts that we want to be true, but our wanting them to be true doesn't make them true (Dawkins' reply). The more I watch of these, the more I feel that the Christians or religious folk have to resort to appealing to the fear of what would happen if God was removed from the equation. It's kinda like saying"Please don't take our toys away." I can understand it, and for that reason, I am not altogether against the concept of allowing people their illusions if it makes them happy and feel better. I can't advocate it, but won't interfere with it.

I think perfectly well that mankind under proper leadership could guide themselves back on a better moral and ethical course, but we'll never have proper human leadership -- not in positions of power anyway, including Big Religion. What's happening to us is only the history of other large empires once they get too fat and comfortable.

I don't understand why we can't teach good ethics and morals from a young again without tying them to religion, but since religion is so ingrained in our society, it would be very hard to replace it. Religion is very much like an antidepressant -- it's a substitute that "dulls the edges" of life. No, I don't mind if people want to be religious at all, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of other people to exist peacefully and life on their own accord. When it does, it has to be called out.

[Gideon]

but I am almost through watching their 2nd debate called "Has Science Buried God", and don't believe Lennox is coming out on top at all.

I do, for a number of reasons: Dawkins' demeanor was visibly agitated the entire way through (as a debater, I can tell you that is usually not the hallmark of a victor, or at least someone confident of victory) whereas Lennox was completely calm and affable, Dawkins failed to properly articulate the point regarding agents and mechanisms (Lennox correctly pointed out that the existence of a mechanism in evolution-by-natural-selection does not preclude the existence of an agent), Dawkins conceded on the issue of the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, etc.

All of the concessions or failures to properly articulate one's points were largely on Dawkins. As logicians, it was close, but Lennox carried the day. As rhetoricians, it wasn't especially close here: Lennox was more articulate and more charismatic.

[Rip Rokken]

but I am almost through watching their 2nd debate called "Has Science Buried God", and don't believe Lennox is coming out on top at all.

I do, for a number of reasons: Dawkins' demeanor was visibly agitated the entire way through (as a debater, I can tell you that is usually not the hallmark of a victor, or at least someone confident of victory) whereas Lennox was completely calm and affable, Dawkins failed to properly articulate the point regarding agents and mechanisms (Lennox correctly pointed out that the existence of a mechanism in evolution-by-natural-selection does not preclude the existence of an agent), Dawkins conceded on the issue of the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, etc.

All of the concessions or failures to properly articulate one's points were largely on Dawkins. As logicians, it was close, but Lennox carried the day. As rhetoricians, it wasn't especially close here: Lennox was more articulate and more charismatic.

I disagree completely, and just finished watching it. I think you're perceiving what you want to see in Dawkins' agitation. If you're perceiving anything in his facial expressions, we all evidence a little agitation sometimes in conversation, especially if we feel we're having to repeat ourselves, have been asked a silly question, if the conversation takes an unexpected curve, or if we're being misunderstood, misquoted, etc. He also mentioned that he felt Lennox was jumping around from point to point a bit, but both Dawkins and Lennox were very calm and totally respectful of each other the whole time. I didn't get the sense that Dawkins was frustrated at all.

I think this is one reason anyone gives William Lane Craig a win in any of his debates -- he's a professional, extremely skilled debater... he's very sharp, hardly misses a step in his speech, never seems taken off guard, etc. It's all about style though - trust me, he isn't "winning" on the merits of his arguments, though he and his followers always claim victory afterwards, and he even goes so far as to insult some of his opponents intellectually. I seriously doubt the majority of the audience can even recall his points with any clarity. So being skilled in rhetoric has nothing to do with the validity of one's arguments. I do think Lennox was highly articulate and engaged Dawkins very well -- but there's just only so much you can do with a cork gun.

Remember one thing -- the burden of proof is on Christianity, because it's the one making the positive claim for something -- the existence of God is only the mere, mere beginning. The critical focus of all these debates is whether or not Christianity is true, and the opposition only states that there is no convincing reason to believe that it is. So far I have yet to see even one single convincing proof for the validity of Christianity as a truth, and this is especially made true by the fact that Christianity cannot claim for itself anything that other religions haven't also claimed for themselves, and many times, before Christianity even existed. Virgin births, divine heritage, death/resurrection, promises of redemption and eternal life, miracles galore, and yes... radically changed lives. Christianity also has a ton of other things in common with the religions of the time and predating it (especially thanks to the insistence that the O.T. God is the same as the N.T. God)... human sacrifice, genocide, allowance of slavery, subjection of women, etc, etc, etc. So there's not just a lack of any convincing positive proof, but there is a huge wealth of circumstantial evidence to indicate it's not. There would have to be something more -- something truly divine, and there just isn't.

Dawkins does a great job of pointing out what I also have -- that if someone could wage a convincing argument for a deist God who created a universe, it doesn't even go the first step toward proving this being is a "personal" god that wants to be involved in our lives.

[Rip Rokken]

Priest gets stumped by a question about where Cain and Abel's descendents came from -- this is fun!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FcUzVKmLlk