Richard Carrier Quotes

So, too, I and countless others have chosen to give God a fair hearing—if only he would speak. I would listen to him even now, at this very moment. Yet he remains silent.

If God wants something from me, he would tell me. He wouldn't leave someone else to do this, as if an infinite being were short on time. And he would certainly not leave fallible, sinful humans to deliver an endless plethora of confused and contradictory messages. God would deliver the message himself, directly, to each and every one of us, and with such clarity as the most brilliant being in the universe could accomplish. We would all hear him out and shout "Eureka!" So obvious and well-demonstrated would his message be. It would be spoken to each of us in exactly those terms we would understand. And we would all agree on what that message was.

We start with the evidence, and then figure out what the best explanation of it all really is, regardless of where this quest for truth takes us.

Chemists all agree on the fundamental facts of chemistry.

However, though belief on faith alone may be comforting, it is wholly arbitrary and thus does nothing to ensure that you are more correct than anyone else. So it cannot properly be described as knowledge, but rather as a mere wish, a desire that something be true or false, or else it is a naive trust in guesswork or hearsay.

We can only believe what we have evidence enough to prove.

Such people are trapped in their own hall of mirrors, and for them there is no escape. They can never know whether they are wrong, even when they are. No evidence, no logic, no reason will ever get through to them.

Colonization of the world, more often than not by robbery and warfare, spread Christianity into the Americas and other corners of the earth, just as Islam was spread throughout Asia and Africa. lt is not a coincidence that the two most widespread religions in the world today are the most warlike and intolerant religions in history. Before the rise of Christianity, religious tolerance, including a large degree of religious freedom, was not only custom but in many ways law under the Roman and Persian empires. They conquered for greed and power, rarely for any declared religious reasons, and actually sought to integrate foreign religions into their civilization, rather than seeking to destroy them. People were generally not killed because they practiced a different religion. Indeed, the Christians were persecuted for denying that the popular gods existed — not for following a different religion. In other words, Christians were persecuted for being intolerant.

...the naive forms of Christian moral motivation - bare threats of hell and the bribery of heaven - stunt moral growth by ensuring believers remain emotional children, never achieving the cognitive moral development of adults. Psychologists have established that mature adults are moral not because of bare threats and bribes (that stage of moral development typifies children, not adults), but because they care about the effects their behavior has on themselves and others.

Accordingly, historicists have to explain why in Paul’s letters there are no disputes about what Jesus said or did, and why no specific example from his life is ever referred to as a model, not even to encourage or teach anything or to resolve any disputes, and why the only sources Paul ever refers to for anything he claims to know about Jesus are private revelations and hidden messages in scripture (Element 16), and why Paul appears not to know of there being any other sources than these (like, e.g., people who knew Jesus).

Imagine for a moment that one of your friends writes you a twenty-page letter passionately wanting to share her excitement about a new teacher. This letter has only one topic, your friend’s new teacher. [But] at the end of her letter, you still do not know one thing about her teacher. Yet, Paul presents the central figure of his theology this way. . . . It [seems] impossible to imagine how Paul could avoid telling one story or parable of—or fail to note one physical trait or personal quality of—Jesus.

Christian rhetoric hardly conceals the fact that it is identically henotheistic, with not just the one God (to whom was later assimilated and originally subordinated the additional gods of the Lord Christ and the Holy Spirit), but many other subordinate gods, including a ‘god of this world’ (i.e., Satan: 2 Cor. 4.4) and a panoply of angels (divine ‘messengers’) and demons (literally, daimones or daimonia, ‘divinities’) possessed of all the same roles, attributes, and powers of pagan gods (see my definitions in §3).

For not even one person to have ever exhibited this interest in writing nor for any to have so satisfied it is bizarre. Saying this all went on in person is simply insufficient to answer the point: if everything was being resolved in person, Paul would never have written a single letter; nor would his congregations have so often written him letters requesting he write to satisfy their questions—which for some reason always concerned only doctrine and rules of conduct, never the far more interesting subject of how the Son of God lived and died. On the other matters Paul was compelled to write tens of thousands of words. If he had to write so much on those issues, how is it possible no one ever asked for or wrote even one word on the more obvious and burning issues of the facts of Jesus’ life and death?

This problem can be illustrated with a mock analogy. Imagine in your golden years you are accused of murdering a child many decades ago and put on trial for it. The prosecution claims you murdered a little girl in the middle of a public wedding in front of thousands of guests. But as evidence all they present is a religious tract written by ‘John’ which lays out a narrative in which the wedding guests watch you kill her. Who is this John? The prosecution confesses they don’t know. When did he write this narrative? Again, unknown. Probably thirty or forty years after the crime, maybe even sixty. Who told John this story? Again, no one knows. He doesn’t say. So why should this even be admissible as evidence? Because the narrative is filled with accurate historical details and reads like an eyewitness account. Is it an eyewitness account? Well, no, John is repeating a story told to him. Told to him by an eyewitness? Well . . . we really have no way of knowing how many people the story passed through before it came to John and he wrote it down. Although he does claim an eyewitness told him some of the details. Who is that witness? He doesn’t say. I see. So how can we even believe the story is in any way true if it comes from unknown sources through an unknown number of intermediaries? Because there is no way the eyewitnesses to the crime, all those people at the wedding, would have allowed John to lie or make anything up, even after thirty to sixty years, so there is no way the account can be fabricated. If that isn’t obviously an absurd argument to you, then you didn’t understand what has just been said and you need to read that paragraph again until you do. Because

Acts as Historical Fiction The book of Acts has been all but discredited as a work of apologetic historical fiction.1 Nevertheless, its author (traditionally Luke, the author of the Gospel: see Chapter 7, §4) may have derived some of its material or ideas from earlier traditions, written or oral. But the latter would still be extremely unreliable (note, for example, the condition of oral tradition under Papias, as discussed in Chapter 8, §7) and wholly unverifiable (and not only because teasing out what Luke inherited from what Luke chose to compose therefrom is all but impossible for us now). Thus, our best hope is to posit some written sources, even though their reliability would be almost as hard to verify, especially, again, as we don’t have them, so we cannot distinguish what they actually said from what Luke added, left out, or changed.

Religious intolerance is an idea that found its earliest expression in the Old Testament, where the Hebrew tribe depicts itself waging a campaign of genocide on the Palestinian peoples to steal their land. They justified this heinous behavior on the grounds that people not chosen by their god were wicked and therefore did not deserve to live or keep their land. In effect, the wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian peoples, eradicating their race with the Jew's own Final Solution, was the direct result of a policy of religious superiority and divine right. Joshua 6-11 tells the sad tale, and one needs only read it and consider the point of view of the Palestinians who were simply defending their wives and children and the homes they had built and the fields they had labored for. The actions of the Hebrews can easily be compared with the American genocide of its native peoples - or even, ironically, the Nazi Holocaust. With the radical advent of Christianity, this self-righteous intolerance was borrowed from the Jews, and a new twist was added. The conversion of infidels by any means possible became the newfound calling card of religious fervor, and this new experiment in human culture spread like wildfire. By its very nature, how could it not have? Islam followed suit, conquering half the world in brutal warfare and, much like its Christian counterpart, it developed a new and convenient survival characteristic: the destruction of all images and practices attributed to other religions. Muslims destroyed millions of statues and paintings in India and Africa, and forced conversion under pain of death (or by more subtle tricks: like taxing only non-Muslims), while the Catholic Church busily burned books along with pagans, shattering statues and defacing or destroying pagan art - or converting it to Christian use. Laws against pagan practices and heretics were in full force throughrout Europe by the sixth century, and as long as those laws were in place it was impossible for anyone to refuse the tenets of Christianity and expect to keep their property or their life. Similar persecution and harassment continues in Islamic countries even to this day, officially and unofficially.

The Romans would have had an even more urgent worry than bodysnatching: the Christians were supposedly preaching that Jesus (even if with supernatural aid) had escaped his execution, was seen rallying his followers, and then disappeared. Pilate and the Sanhedrin would not likely believe claims of his resurrection or ascension (and there is no evidence they did), but if the tomb was empty and Christ’s followers were reporting that he had continued preaching to them and was still at large, Pilate would be compelled to haul every Christian in and interrogate every possible witness in a massive manhunt for what could only be in his mind an escaped convict (not only guilty of treason against Rome for claiming to be God and king, as all the Gospels allege [Mk 15.26; Mt. 27.37; Lk. 23.38; Jn 19.19-22] but now also guilty of escaping justice). And the Sanhedrin would feel the equally compelling need to finish what they had evidently failed to accomplish the first time: finding and killing Jesus.

But be that as it may, the telling point is that in this parable, a rich man ends up burning in hell and sees up in heaven a dead beggar he once knew named Lazarus, resting on the ‘bosom of Abraham’, so he begs Abraham to let Lazarus rise from the dead and warn his still-living brothers to avoid his own hellish fate. The parable ends with Abraham refusing, because ‘if they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead’ (Lk. 16.31). Key to this parable is that this fictional Lazarus does not rise from the dead, and that even if he did, it would convince no one, and therefore it won’t be done. This is thus another expanded exercise in making the repeated point that Jesus will not perform signs because they will not persuade anyone (as I surveyed earlier). Notice what happens in John: he reverses the message of Luke’s parable, by having Jesus actually raise this Lazarus from the dead, which actually convinces many people to turn and be saved, the very thing Luke’s Jesus said wouldn’t work. In fact, just as the rejected request in Luke’s parable imagined Lazarus going to people and convincing them, John’s Lazarus is then cited as a witness to the crucifixion, empty tomb and resurrection of Jesus, and is so cited specifically to convince people—again what Luke’s Jesus said wouldn’t work.

In his outstanding book Why the Allies Won (1995), the British historian Richard Overy analyses the outcomes of the Second World War, which were not, he claims, a given. One explanation he offers is the German army’s attempt to optimise use of its military munitions at the expense of tactical combat efficiency. At one point in the war, the Germans had no fewer than 425 different kinds of aircraft, 151 kinds of trucks, and 150 kinds of motorcycles. The price they paid for the technical superiority of German-made munitions was difficulty in mass-production, which was ultimately more important from a strategic point of view. In the decisive battles fought in Russia, one German force had to carry approximately one million spare parts for hundreds of types of armed carriers, trucks and motorcycles. The Russians, in contrast, used only two types of tanks, making for much simpler munitions maintenance during war. It was ‘good enough’ for them.

These were well-recognized code words in the mystery cults, which meant the same thing there as they clearly do for Clement here: ‘babes’ were Christians not yet inducted into the higher mysteries, while the ‘mature’ had been, and thus knew teachings that other Christians did not. But Clement also indicates in the above quotes that there were also teachings that ‘babes’ were privy to that non-Christians (the ‘profane’) were not to be told.

Robert Lindet, ossessionato creatore di quella piovra che aveva la sua testa nel comitato di sicurezza generale e che stendeva le braccia, ventunmila!, su tutta la Francia attraverso i comitati rivoluzionari; Lebuef, sul quale Girey-Duprè scrisse nel suo Noël des fau patriotes questo verso: «Lebouf vit Legendre et beugla»;Thomas Paine, americano, incline alla clemenza; Anacharsis Cloots, tedesco, barone, milionario, ateo, hébertiano, animo candido; l'integerrimo Lebas, amico dei Duplay; Rovère, una delle rare creature che godono della perfidia come uno può godere dell'arte per l'arte, il che avviene più frequentemente di quanto non si creda; Charlier, il quale voleva che si trattassero gli aristocratici con il voi; Tallien, elegiaco e feroce, dai cui amori nascerà il 9 termidoro; Cambacéres, un procuratore che diverrà principe; Carrier, un procuratore che si paleserà tigre; Laplanche, il quale esclamò un giorno: «Voglio che sia data priorità al cannone d'allarme»; Thuriot, che propose la votazione ad alta voce da parte dei giurarti del tribunale rivoluzionario; Bourdon de l'Oise, che sfidò a duello Chambon, denunciò Paine e fu denunciato da Hébert; Fayau, il quale propose l'invio nella Vandea di «un'armata incendiaria»; Tavaux, che il 13 aprile tentò la mediazione tra Gironda e Montagna; Vernier il quale chiese che i capi girondini e quelli della Montagna andassero a servire la patria come semplici soldati; Rewbell, che si chiuse dentro Magonza assediata; Bourbotte, che ebbe il suo cavallo ucciso alla presa di Saumur; Guimberteau, che fu a capo dell'armata delle Côtes di Cherbourg; Jard-Panvilliers, il quale comandò le truppe della Côtes de la Rochelle; Lecarpentier, che comandò la squadra di Concale; Roberjot, vittima dell'imboscata di Radstadt; Prieur de la Marne, che si compiaceva di indossare sul campo di battaglia le sue vecchie spalline di comandante si squadrone; Levasseur de la Sarthe, il quale, con una sola parola, indusse al sacrificio Serrent, comandante del battaglione di Saint-Armand; Reverchon, Maure, Bernard de Saintes, Charles Richard, Lequinio, e, in testa a questo gruppo un Mirabeau che portava il nome di Danton. Estraneo a questi due gruppi e dominatore di entrambi, Robespierre.

After that Richard Cassaro brought up attention to Gary Osborn's work with the specter of the Scarab symbolizing the human brain, I couldn't help but view it as another proof and confirmation of my own work when I validly asserted that the Scarab represented 'tidings/news'. The new information I am able to generate now out of this new revelation lies in the fact that the brain is the receiving device of the 'tidings/news' in contrast to the Phoenix, which was the carrier thereof; and this is just astounding!

. . free of carrier material. . . .1606 This precipitate of 94, which was viewed under the microscope and which was also visible to the naked eye, did not differ visibly from the rare-earth fluorides. . . . It is the first time that element 94 . . . has been beheld by the eye of man.

In 1944, an experiment was conducted that should have conclusively proven that DNA was actually the carrier of the genetic code, but these results were resisted and largely ignored. Scientists had convinced themselves that DNA was too simple to be the conductor of the orchestra, and clung to this belief. Again, once consensus is reached, it isn’t easily overcome,

Veritas whistleblower USPS carrier Richard Hopkins “recanted his allegations of ballot tampering.” Bogage relied on information from “three officials briefed on the investigation.” To

The complex Japanese aircraft designation systems proved confusing during and after the war. Several forms of nomenclature applied to Imperial Navy aircraft, but just two are important. The first system (“short form”) comprised a letter, number, letter (e.g., A5M). The first letter identified mission (A = carrier fighter, B = carrier bomber, G = land-based bomber, etc.). This was followed by a numeral indicating the numerical sequence of that model for the mission (5 = fifth carrier fighter). The second letter designated the manufacturer (the most important were A = Aichi, K = Kawanishi, M = Mitsubishi, N = Nakajima). The second major system was the type number from the year of service introduction under the Japanese calendar. By the Japanese calendar, 1936 was Year 2596, from which “96” was taken as the year of introduction. The year 1940 was Year 2600, hence the famous designation of the Mitsubishi A6M Carrier Fighter as the Type “0” or “Zero.” Imperial Army aircraft bore a Kitai (airframe) number (e.g., Ki-27), a type number/mission designator based on the Japanese calendar (Army Type 97 fighter had a 1937 year of introduction), and sometimes a name. The Imperial Navy resisted the use of names before capitulating to this system in 1943. To unify and simplify the identification of Japanese aircraft, the United States adopted a system by 1943 of providing male (fighters) and female (bombers) names for Japanese aircraft. Hence, the A6M “Zero” became officially the “Zeke” (although the Zero alone of Japanese aircraft continued to be widely known by that designation), while the “Nell” stood for the G3M and “Betty” for the G4M. This system has become so entrenched in decades of literature about the Pacific War that it will be used here for purposes of clarity.

The cause of lightning was once thought to be God's wrath, but turned out to be the unintelligent outcome of mindless natural forces. We once thought an intelligent being must have arranged and maintained the amazingly ordered motions of the solar system, but now we know it's all the inevitable outcome of mindless natural forces. Disease was once thought to be the mischief of supernatural demons, but now we know that tiny, unintelligent organisms are the cause, which reproduce and infect us according to mindless natural forces. In case after case, without exception, the trend has been to find that purely natural causes underlie any phenomena. Not once has the cause of anything turned out to really be God's wrath or intelligent meddling, or demonic mischief, or anything supernatural at all. The collective weight of these observations is enormous: supernaturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always lost; naturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always won. A horse that runs a million races and never loses is about to run yet another race with a horse that has lost every single one of the million races it has run. Which horse should we bet on? The answer is obvious.

In fact, this universe appears more epistemically probable given naturalism than it does given basic theism (BT).[12] In the words of cosmologists Hawley and Holcomb, "if the intent of the universe is to create life, then it has done so in a very inefficient manner," e.g. "Aristotle's cosmos would ... [have given] a much greater amount of life per cubic centimeter."[13] In fact, I've made the same point before: A universe perfectly designed for life would easily, readily, and abundantly produce and sustain it. Most of the contents of that universe would be conducive to life or benefit life. Yet that's not what we see. Instead, almost the entire universe is lethal to life--in fact, if we put all the lethal vacuum of outer space swamped with deadly radiation into an area the size of a house, you would never find the comparably microscopic speck of area that sustains life.[14] In other words, that we appear to be an extremely rare, chance byproduct of a vast, ancient universe almost entirely inhospitable to life is exactly what naturalism predicts, but not at all what BT predicts.[15]

Finely Tuning a Killer Cosmos Even the Christian proposal that God designed the universe, indeed “finely tuned” it to be the perfect mechanism for producing life, fails to predict the universe we see. A universe perfectly designed for life would easily, readily, and abundantly produce and sustain it. Most of the contents of that universe would be conducive to life or benefit life. Yet that is not what we see. Instead, almost the entire universe is lethal to life—in fact, if we put all the lethal vacuum of outer space swamped with deadly radiation into an area the size of a house, you would never find the submicroscopic speck of area that sustains life. It would be smaller than a single proton. Would you conclude that the house was built to serve and benefit that subatomic speck? Hardly. Yet that is the house we live in. The Christian theory completely fails to predict this. But atheism predicts exactly this.

The sun was already coming up, Richards thought, casting a critical glance toward the eastern horizon as he strode toward the line of waiting vehicles, his Mk 14 EBR in one hand—adjusting the straps of his plate carrier as he moved. The brim of his Texas Longhorns ball cap keeping the glare out of his eyes. This reminded him far too much of his time in Afghanistan—heading out from the FOB to track down Taliban insurgents. Working with the locals. His gaze fell on the up-armored Egyptian Army HMMVs outside the gate—on the young corporal standing in the open roof turret, feeding a long, glistening brass belt of ammunition into the loading port of the mounted M60. Some things never changed.

Mark even makes the time of his death, “the ninth hour,” identical to that of the slaying of actual Passover lambs the day before. And finally chapter 16 symbolizes the very rescue from death that the Passover represents. On the original Passover, the angel of death “passed over” those who were protected by the lamb’s blood and killed the “firstborn sons” of those who were not; in Mark, the firstborn son is rescued from death, and his blood protects those who share in it. This is all obvious mythic symbolism. It is not remembered history.

No legitimate conclusion would depend on such a fallacious approach to the evidence.

In fact, in the whole category of Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, forgery was the normal mode of Christian production. So why on earth would we trust any Gospel as our only real source for the historicity of Jesus? Much less an anonymous Gospel, written a lifetime later, in a land and a language quite foreign to Jesus, citing no sources, and corroborated by no one?

Not only do these things suddenly get added to the creed, but they also become essential to the creed: we are told we must condemn any Christians who reject them. Which means … there were Christians who rejected them. And we don’t get to hear from them. Think about that.

there are no sources at all that are independent of the Gospel of Mark.

So Jesus was only passed off as a definitely historical person long after pretty much everyone of his alleged time was dead, by an author writing in a foreign land and language, whose text was probably never seen by anyone in Palestine.

Indeed, since executions would not be performed on holy days, Mark’s narrative has no historical credibility at all. As we learn from the Mishnah tractate on the Sanhedrin, Jewish law also commanded that trials for capital crimes had to be conducted over the course of two days and could not be conducted on or even interrupted by a Sabbath or holy day—nor ever conducted at night. Mark’s account violates every single one of these requirements and is therefore not at all what would actually have happened.

The third-century Christian scholar Origen gave this away, for example, when he let slip the Christian principle of two truths—that literal stories were invented to save the ignorant masses, while educated elites know the real truth lies only within the allegory, and dare not expose this to the rank and file lest they lose faith and become damned.

In reality had Jesus been arrested at Passover he would have been held over in jail until Sunday, and could only have been convicted and executed on Monday at the earliest. So as history, Mark’s narrative makes zero sense. But as symbolic myth, every oddity is explained, indeed expected.

Mark is cluing you in to the function of his entire Gospel. If you are reading it as history, you are the outsider; you are the damned. Those who “get it” and will thus turn and be forgiven are those who read these stories as signifying deeper truths about reality—as symbolic, and not as events that “actually” happened; just as Mark’s Jesus instructs that we approach all parables. It was only the later redactors of Mark who increasingly tried to market their rewrite of his Gospel as a history—first Matthew purports it all happened to fulfill prophecy (to make Mark’s fable resemble the Pentateuch); then Luke tries to rewrite it all to look and sound like a rational Greco-Roman history (albeit only with vaguely formulated assertions); and finally John insists it’s all literally true—and implies anyone who doesn’t believe it will be damned (John 20:29–31). Thus, what Mark told his readers, through the voice of Jesus, has by then been completely reversed. This is how the whole Jesus narrative came to be transformed from myth to history.

Mark does this again with the similarly implausible (and thus obviously made-up) tale of the raising of Jairus’s twelve-year-old daughter, which Mark wrapped around a symbolically related story of a woman who had bled for twelve years. The coincidence of the number twelve is a dead give away: both stories are fable, not fact. They are meant to convey a point, not record history. In both tales, Jesus is explicitly asked to touch the girl (Mark 5:23) and does (5:41), while in between the woman seeks to touch Jesus (5:28) and does (5:27), and by this means both are “saved” (5:23, 28, 34) by “faith” (5:34, 36) in spite of “fear” (5:33, 36). Both the girl and the woman are called “daughter” (5:23, 34). Moreover, the woman has bled for twelve years, which is not only the same age as the girl, but also at which menstruation was thought typically to begin, and thus the point at which a girl becomes a woman. We can see symbolism here of the twelve tribes of Israel and how they shall be saved by evolving from the old Israel to the new, through faith in Jesus Christ. Whereas in no way is either story believable as history.

As we can see from all of the above, Mark appears to be the only real Gospel. None precede Mark. And every subsequent Gospel is just, in one way or another, a rewrite of Mark, naming no sources for anything they add or change.

As Mark has Jesus himself say, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding, otherwise they might turn and be forgiven” (Mark 4:11–12).

We know from Philo there was already a Jewish tradition of a preexistent being named Jesus who was the Form of God (Element 40). It cannot be claimed Philo came up with this notion on his own, since that would entail a wildly improbable coincidence. So we surely are looking at a derivation from an earlier Divine Logos doctrine. Then we’re told this Jesus did not try to seize power from God in heaven (as by some accounts Satan had once done, resulting in his fall to the lower realms), but instead divested himself of all his power and higher being, enslaving himself (either to God’s plan or the world of flesh) by ‘being made’ [genomenos] in the ‘likeness’ of men (not literally becoming a man, but assuming a human body, and thus wearing human ‘flesh’).

Pearl Harbor conference are interesting, it is apparent that the final decisions in regard to the Marianas had already been made by the Joint Chiefs, and the Truk-by-pass decision would await the results of the carrier strikes. General MacArthur continued his opposition to the Central Pacific route as late as February 1944, when be sent his deputy, Lieutenant General Richard K. Sutherland, USA, to Washington in a desperate effort to convince the Joint Chiefs that both Truk and the Marianas should be by-passed and that the impetus should be along the New Guinea-Mindanao axis of advance. General Sutherland had been in Washington but a short time when he found it necessary to advise MacArthur that the die was, indeed, cast: the Marianas operation was a certainty; the

It follows that if God is a loving being, he will do no less for us. In the real world, kind people don’t act like some stubborn, pouting God who abandons the drowning simply because they don’t want to be helped. They act like this rescue swimmer. They act like us.

Nor can it be argued that God must sit back to give us the chance to do good. For that is not how good people act. Therefore, a “good” God can never have such an excuse. Imagine it. You can heal someone of AIDS. You have the perfect cure sitting in your closet. And you know it. But you do nothing, simply to allow scientists the chance to figure out a cure by themselves—even if it takes so long that billions of people must suffer miserably and die before they get it right. In what world would that ever be the right thing to do? In no world at all. When we have every means safely at our disposal, we can only tolerate sitting back to let others do good when others are actually doing good. In other words, if misery is already being alleviated, perhaps even at our very urging, then obviously we have nothing left to do ourselves. But it would be unbearable, unconscionable, outright immoral to hide the cure for AIDS just to teach everyone a lesson. That is not how a good person could or ever would behave.