Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Im sorry atheists are not stupid

138 replies to this topic
Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    that's how I dooz it

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Netherlands

#121

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:10 PM

 

There is zero evidence for anything precluding our spacetime continuum and all that is within it, at all. It is something we are completely incapable of proving or disproving at this time so any theory is just as rubbish as the next since no matter how much we believe one theory may be true, there's no way to empirically prove it. 

 

But yes, I personally do believe an immaterial eternal, extremely powerful source of energy that is conscious is most definitely logically possible and I think could actually explain a lot. Reality imo makes much more sense with the idea of there being an intelligence behind it's design. 

 

 

The fact that you don't understand the science behind the big bang doesn't make it unproven. I haven't studied it either, but considering there seems to be a pretty universal concensus about it among physicists, I believe I'm not in position to doubt it.

 

Now, I do see your point that there's a logical gap between something coming out of nothing. It's the same sort of logical gap you get when you think avbout how time started. And our minds are logically incapable of giving a rational solution to these probems that doesn't cause more unanswerable questions.

 

But assuming god because of a lack of understanding is ignorant. Before people understood lightning they had a god for lightning. They had gods for every part of nature that they did not understand. Saying 'god' whenever our understanding stops does not explain anything, actually it raises more questions than it answers.

 

I would like to ask you, what exactly does assuming this intelligent conscious cause explain? Wouldn't we then have to ask ourselves how the intelligent conscious cause was caused? How he relates to time, space and matter. But then we would start getting nonsensical answers like: "he's outside of time space and matter". The same sort of answer you'd get when you would've asked an ancient Greek how Zeus caused lightning.

  • El Zilcho and Tacymist like this

Grand Theft Savage
  • Grand Theft Savage

    'Bout that life

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2013

#122

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:13 PM

Gays and Atheists use to get it BAD in my country. If you go out to farms early in the morning, you might seem them being burned to death. I use to think that Atheists and Gays were the same thing when I was a kid, just that Atheists didn't know there was a god.

^ Pretty ignorant, huh?

 

OP, f*ck you. You can await your judgment day and it will never come. Believe me when I say that there is nothing out there. It's like reading Harry Potter and believing that there are really wizards flying around on brooms, casting spells and sh*t in a place called Hogwarts. Get real. Religion is a pile of sh*t to keep savages in check.

  • Seattle Cracker likes this

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#123

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:17 PM Edited by GrandMaster Smith, 08 September 2013 - 01:26 PM.

It's very easy to say you can't prove / disprove something, but then we must consider all manner of things that cannot be disproved, but are nonetheless so unlikely as to be discounted. The Flying Spaghetti Monster does this well; you can't disprove its existence, and yet it is a satire on religious belief precisely because it is so absurd, and yet in the same grey area of "yeah but you can't disprove" as theistic Gods. The likelihood of a Universal God that resembles in action or intellect a species that evolved on the small planet of Earth, one that is conveniently moral or recognisably an architect is also outlandish. Why would our concepts, as Hume said, of why a house must be designed, therefore be be extrapolated to the Universe?

 

 

Of course you would expect to find attributes of the creator within it's own creation. We understand morality because we were designed to be able to act upon it.

 

Many assume reality and life was designed because they are all machines, and through observation we've learned nature degrades and wears down things, not makes them come together and build complex systems. Machines have only ever been proven to come from an intelligent mind.

 

 

 

 

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, a God answers nothing. I hate to mention this, because it is abused so often in debate, but Occam's Razor is useful here. Essentially, the simpler answer is usually the correct one; what is more likely, that the Universe existed in some form, forever, or that a God existed in some form, forever, and made the Universe? If we can't comprehend the infinity of the Universe, and whatever may have existed before (or whether that question is even relevant at all) then why insert a cosmic middleman? It simply raises further questions; who created God? If no one did, then God might as well be left out of the model - because if you attest that God was always extant, then we can attest the same for the Universe, albeit in different form.

 

HA! I wish somebody pulled out Occams Razor before quantum mechanics was founded. "Hey it's simpler just to say everything are just blobs of matter and nothing more, lets not bother investigating"...

 

God is eternal, meaning having no beginning nor end. It simply is and always has been and always will. Surely the universe could've been eternal, but thermodynamics and the big bang itself says otherwise. All hard evidence points to the universe coming from merely nothing.. all that had to have come from somewhere, meaning there is something that is outside and beyond the edges of reality itself. It wouldn't make sense to say the singularity caused itself if it were outside the realm of the spacetime continuum cause and effect would be unable to operate.

 

 

 

 

It only adds more questions, and injects into the whole affair that sordid arrogance that the Universe "was probably made by an intelligence, because we're intelligent and we make things, so I'll assume the Universe came about in the same way." It's bunkum.

 

Things such as DNA are showing us things within reality are extremely complex and even put to shame our own creations. What does it tell you when us incredibly smart humans who can build rocketships that travel across the solar system can't even make a simple single piece of grass? Just one uni-cellular organism is coded and engineered beyond anything humans could even dream of making...

Name the last time you saw inanimate matter be pieced together through natural processes and make a functioning self sustaining machine?

 

 

 

 

 

----------

 

 

 

 

The fact that you don't understand the science behind the big bang doesn't make it unproven. I haven't studied it either, but considering there seems to be a pretty universal concensus about it among physicists, I believe I'm not in position to doubt it.

 

And once again another blind follower who believes what he's told because a man in a white coat said so. You don't know much about it but follow it's teachings because everyone else does.. that's a religion isn't it.. blind faith and all? I'm saying it's unprovable, there's no way without a time machine to prove that's how it happened. Majority used to also beleive heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, I ask you what does majority belief prove?

 

 

 

I would like to ask you, what exactly does assuming this intelligent conscious cause explain? Wouldn't we then have to ask ourselves how the intelligent conscious cause was caused? How he relates to time, space and matter. But then we would start getting nonsensical answers like: "he's outside of time space and matter". The same sort of answer you'd get when you would've asked an ancient Greek how Zeus caused lightning.

 

 

Assuming an intelligence behind reality would allow us to assume everything was designed by an intelligence meaning we can make logical sense of the world around us, which is absolutely true and science couldn't exist if it wasn't.

 

 

An analogy I like to use with god is comparing game developers to the video games they make. Do you think Sam Houser is limited by the way space and time works within GTA IV? Of course not, GTAIV is a separate reality from ours, the creators created time, they exist separate from it and can control it anytime they choose to do so. 

 

They can go in and spawn any vehicle they wish out of thin air.. the world itself it ran by mathematical laws and equations just like ours.

 

Don't say it's impossible for an intelligent entity to exist outside of a certain realm of space and time because we experience this on a daily basis.


The Pizza Delivery Guy
  • The Pizza Delivery Guy

    If You Know What I Mean

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2013
  • None

#124

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:32 PM

I'm sorry but the popular concensus worldwide is that there is some sort of god, so I don't know where you're going with majority belief.

 

And video games are just that, games. Their developers could go in at any time and change the physics of anything they wanted, but you don't see the physics of anything in real life ever randomly changing. Or cars materializing out of nowhere for that matter.


El Zilcho
  • El Zilcho

    Virtuoso

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 14 May 2008
  • European-Union

#125

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:33 PM Edited by El Zilcho, 08 September 2013 - 01:42 PM.

Of course you would expect to find attributes of the creator within it's own creation. We understand morality because we were designed to be able to act upon it.

 

Many assume reality and life was designed because they are all machines, and through observation we've learned nature degrades and wears down things, not makes them come together and build complex systems. Machines have only ever been proven to come from an intelligent mind.

 

-------

 

HA! I wish somebody pulled out Occams Razor before quantum mechanics was founded. "Hey it's simpler just to say everything are just blobs of matter and nothing more, lets not bother investigating"...

 

God is eternal, meaning having no beginning nor end. It simply is and always has been and always will. Surely the universe could've been eternal, but thermodynamics and the big bang itself says otherwise. All hard evidence points to the universe coming from merely nothing.. all that had to have come from somewhere, meaning there is something that is outside and beyond the edges of reality itself. It wouldn't make sense to say the singularity caused itself if it were outside the realm of the spacetime continuum cause and effect would be unable to operate.

 

----
 

Things such as DNA are showing us things within reality are extremely complex and even put to shame our own creations. What does it tell you when us incredibly smart humans who can build rocketships that travel across the solar system can't even make a simple single piece of grass? Just one uni-cellular organism is coded and engineered beyond anything humans could even dream of making...

Name the last time you saw inanimate matter be pieced together through natural processes and make a functioning self sustaining machine?

 

 

First Section: Morality is hardly a universal concept; not everyone would consider shop lifting heinous, especially if from a large supermarket chain. If we were designed to a blueprint, it would stand to reason we wouldn't have such differing perspectives on what is wrong and right. And machines perhaps, but we can observe quite clearly how natural selection and mutations adapt species without the need for a design; should we consider that entire process suspended for us? Are we the only species to have God's hand in us? Your views break down when we consider there is a weight of scientific evidence to the contrary of your assertion that nature is only entropy - it may be, but life is not.

 

Second Section: You don't understand. Occam's Razor is not used to refute things that are evidenced, like quantum mechanics. It is used in theoretical analysis, not as a weapon against experimental evidence. You're missing the point, again, we can observe instances where the simplest solution is not the correct one - with God we cannot, so it is useful when considering the Universe not to insert a middleman.

 

All hard evidence points to the Universe coming from a singularity, which is literally everything in one minuscule point - before that we cannot say. So no, not nothing. Outside the bounds of the Universe, we're still inserting something that is eternal, so you're still just adding another layer of mystery. The possibilities for a previous Universe initiating our own, or something even more incomprehensible, are open. Claiming "it's a God" is a worst mistake to make then saying "I don't think it was a God", as the former is both restrictive and unimaginative.

 

Third Section: A functioning, self sustaining machine (life) doesn't piece itself together overnight. I've already explained to you, and I'm sure I didn't even need to, about evolution. We can observe, overtime, how life adapts. How it starts may not yet be understood, but jumping to the conclusion of a God is again a fallacy. You're replacing a lack of understanding with a superficial one.

  • Eutyphro likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    that's how I dooz it

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Netherlands

#126

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:39 PM Edited by gtaxpert, 08 September 2013 - 02:57 PM.

Many assume reality and life was designed because they are all machines, and through observation we've learned nature degrades and wears down things, not makes them come together and build complex systems. Machines have only ever been proven to come from an intelligent mind.

 

Things such as DNA are showing us things within reality are extremely complex and even put to shame our own creations. What does it tell you when us incredibly smart humans who can build rocketships that travel across the solar system can't even make a simple single piece of grass? Just one uni-cellular organism is coded and engineered beyond anything humans could even dream of making...

Name the last time you saw inanimate matter be pieced together through natural processes and make a functioning self sustaining machine?

 

 I wish somebody pulled out Occams Razor before quantum mechanics was founded. "Hey it's simpler just to say everything are just blobs of matter and nothing more, lets not bother investigating"...

 

God is eternal, meaning having no beginning nor end. It simply is and always has been and always will. Surely the universe could've been eternal, but thermodynamics and the big bang itself says otherwise. All hard evidence points to the universe coming from merely nothing.. all that had to have come from somewhere, meaning there is something that is outside and beyond the edges of reality itself. It wouldn't make sense to say the singularity caused itself if it were outside the realm of the spacetime continuum cause and effect would be unable to operate.

 

So can I conclude from this post that you do not believe in evolution? The evolution theory has massive concensus among actual scientists who study biology and debating it would feel silly. It's funny how Hume was mentioned, because Hume called the Human body a 'mighty complex machine'. DNA shows us things that are mighty complex, that were all created by cause and effect, and no 'intelligence' whatsoever was involved.

 

Your reasoning about us not understanding how we could build an organism has the same flaw as your reasoning on that we don't understand how something came out of nothing. Before we understood lightning it was assumed that there was a god who caused it. You apply the same logic to organisms. We can't build them yet, so god must have..

 

And you also seem to have a great lack of understanding concerning Ockhams razor. Ockhams razor is not about not investigating something. It's about giving the simplest explanation. Bringing god into the equasion adds 0 explanatory force to our existing understanding of nature, which is why it's a completely useless addition to it.

 

"all that had to have come from somewhere, meaning there is something that is outside and beyond the edges of reality itself."

 

The human understanding has limits. We are not gods (metaphorically used, I don't believe in god). And one of those limits, as I have already pointed out, is understanding how something came from nothing. How you use the word 'reality' is as in, 'things we human beings can grasp'. But there can be lots of things outside our graps, and those are also reality. There is no indication however that it has to be an intelligent conscious being who designed everything and gave everything a cause.

  • El Zilcho and Tacymist like this

Cyper
  • Cyper

    Liberty City Lover Since 2001

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2008
  • None

#127

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:04 PM

 

 

God is simply one of the innumerous theories that humans believe to be the origins of the universe and life. 

 

Some people believe the big bang was the origins of everything, if someone doubts this theory then do they become an a-big bang theory-ist? What about those who doubt the infinite multiverse theory, do they become a a-multiverse-ist?

 

Since none of those theories are actually provable at this point in time, would you identify with all the titles mentioned above alongside being an atheist?

 

Why don't atheists just coin up a term to show you don't believe in anything as related to our origins at all, why is only god? And the majority of the time atheists only talk about Christianity based faiths, do they only acknowledge and research that one religion?

 

You missed two of my points.

 

First, you have to evaluate what theory of all given theories seems to have the highest probability to be true.

 

Secondly, it is not your belief in a specific theory that is relevant. What's relevant is the evidence for the theory that you believe in. On the contrary, someone who does not believe in theory X should then demostrate evidence to why he or she discard it. People who discard a theory without explaining why should hardly be taken seriously. Just because you believe in something does not make it true.

 

So why discard God but not other theories related to our origins?

 

Because there is not a single shred of evidence for the existance of a God. Because God does not really explain anything. Because these ''other theories'' are not only rational, but supported by massive amount of evidence.

 

 

What you then personally have faith in is not interesting to hear about.

 

 

There is zero evidence for anything precluding our spacetime continuum and all that is within it, at all. It is something we are completely incapable of proving or disproving at this time so any theory is just as rubbish as the next since no matter how much we believe one theory may be true, there's no way to empirically prove it. 

 

But yes, I personally do believe an immaterial eternal, extremely powerful source of energy that is conscious is most definitely logically possible and I think could actually explain a lot. Reality imo makes much more sense with the idea of there being an intelligence behind it's design. 

 

No, all theories are not rubbish. You have a disorted way to look at reality.

 

There is a lot of theories that can be proven by both logical truths, probability, and empirical evidence.

 

It's not interesting to hear what you personally believe. Demostrate what makes you believe in superstitious nonsense such as God. As I have already said two times: the fact that something is logical (for instance that there must be a designer) does not make it probable.

  • El Zilcho likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#128

Posted 08 September 2013 - 03:57 PM

I can see this very rapidly going the way of the "do you believe in God" thread, which descended into about 15 pages of repetition and nonsensical crap.

El Zilcho
  • El Zilcho

    Virtuoso

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 14 May 2008
  • European-Union

#129

Posted 08 September 2013 - 04:02 PM

I can see this very rapidly going the way of the "do you believe in God" thread, which descended into about 15 pages of repetition and nonsensical crap.

 

To be fair staying on any discernible topic, aside from a classic God debate slog, was impossible. Look what we had to work with from OP's post!


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    that's how I dooz it

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Netherlands

#130

Posted 08 September 2013 - 04:06 PM

I can see this very rapidly going the way of the "do you believe in God" thread, which descended into about 15 pages of repetition and nonsensical crap.

 

Well, then it's up to a certain group of people to try to turn it into 15 pages of nonsensical crap being refuted by sensical crap.


Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#131

Posted 08 September 2013 - 04:22 PM

You never truly believe that Icarus flew to the sun, and yet you can still find entertainment and joy in those tales. But when we allow equally improbable tales to bleed into our morality, our perspective of the world, or philosophy, then we have issues. And if anything, taking a secular route, or a philosophical one, as opposed to a religious one is far richer. It opens your mind to other conclusions, without reducing the Universe's complexity into a conveniently recognisable deity.

The problem I have with secular thinking is that no matter how much it opens your mind, what the world shows you will never be as incredible as the fiction humans have created. Everything seems to be chaos and chemicals and full of such cold logic that silly stories like that of Icarus or Christ seem like bastions of humanity against the black void our boundless intelligence has shown us.

 

Honestly, I really think my bone of contention is all about the perception of things you and I both know to be true. I really envy anyone who can see beauty in the world as it is, but to me, it simply doesn't live up to the fantasy we crafted in our more ignorant days.


El Zilcho
  • El Zilcho

    Virtuoso

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 14 May 2008
  • European-Union

#132

Posted 08 September 2013 - 04:58 PM

 

You never truly believe that Icarus flew to the sun, and yet you can still find entertainment and joy in those tales. But when we allow equally improbable tales to bleed into our morality, our perspective of the world, or philosophy, then we have issues. And if anything, taking a secular route, or a philosophical one, as opposed to a religious one is far richer. It opens your mind to other conclusions, without reducing the Universe's complexity into a conveniently recognisable deity.

The problem I have with secular thinking is that no matter how much it opens your mind, what the world shows you will never be as incredible as the fiction humans have created. Everything seems to be chaos and chemicals and full of such cold logic that silly stories like that of Icarus or Christ seem like bastions of humanity against the black void our boundless intelligence has shown us.

 

Honestly, I really think my bone of contention is all about the perception of things you and I both know to be true. I really envy anyone who can see beauty in the world as it is, but to me, it simply doesn't live up to the fantasy we crafted in our more ignorant days.

 

 

I think that's a matter of taste. I don't particularly notice beauty in most things, until I stop and pay attention. So while a story can be a great thing (indeed, the art of storytelling is one of our finest), I find what you call "chaos and chemicals" to be amazing, partly, because of how alien it is. I think reading about quantum entanglement or tunnelling is brilliant, because we can see how wild the Universe can be all around us, just at minuscule scales.

 

But it isn't mutually exclusive. You're acting as if fantasy stories lose their value if we realise they are fantasy, or that engaging in secular thinking limits us from finding meaning in art or stories. Why should it? Don't let the fantasy cloud your world view, but treating it as art rather than gospel means we don't lose any cultural value. I don't see the conflict at all.

  • Eutyphro likes this

Durden
  • Durden

    Jack's blatant honesty

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2012
  • None

#133

Posted 08 September 2013 - 07:40 PM

If you're going to defend atheist's intelligence, you might want to use correct grammar/punctuation in your thread. 

 

Your OP implies that there was an initial thread bashing atheism. Yes, that is stupid, but what you did is also stupid, hypocrite.

 

 

 

I don't understand why people call themselves atheists rather than agnostic.

 

Agnostic = A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.

 

Atheism = The theory or belief that God does not exist.

 

Do some actually believe that there is nothing greater than humanity? That we've began everything from scratch, evolving from monkeys to smartphone-wielding geeks?

 

That's why I'm agnostic. I don't think humanity could've done all this, but there's no proof of a God nor do I think there ever will be.


The Pizza Delivery Guy
  • The Pizza Delivery Guy

    If You Know What I Mean

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2013
  • None

#134

Posted 08 September 2013 - 07:58 PM

That's why I'm agnostic. I don't think humanity could've done all this, but there's no proof of a God nor do I think there ever will be.

Why be agnostic if you don't think evidence will arise of a god? That's more like "apatheism."


Cyper
  • Cyper

    Liberty City Lover Since 2001

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2008
  • None

#135

Posted 08 September 2013 - 09:29 PM Edited by Cyper, 08 September 2013 - 09:30 PM.

If you're going to defend atheist's intelligence, you might want to use correct grammar/punctuation in your thread. 

 

Your OP implies that there was an initial thread bashing atheism. Yes, that is stupid, but what you did is also stupid, hypocrite.

 

 

 

I don't understand why people call themselves atheists rather than agnostic.

 

Agnostic = A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.

 

Atheism = The theory or belief that God does not exist.

 

Do some actually believe that there is nothing greater than humanity? That we've began everything from scratch, evolving from monkeys to smartphone-wielding geeks?

 

That's why I'm agnostic. I don't think humanity could've done all this, but there's no proof of a God nor do I think there ever will be.

 

Personally I don't believe that a God exist. I don't know if of course. Because something such as a God cannot be neither proven or disproven. But I'd say that the probability of a God is extremely low.

 

Of course there could be something greater than humanity.

 

I just have to ask: are you agnostic about Tengri, Alusi, Ptah, Viracoha, El, Zeuiz, Oden, or Thor?

 

My point is that there is roughly 2,000 different kinds of Gods. Most people are atheist in one sense because most religious people discard all these Gods and only believe in on of them.

  • El Zilcho likes this

TheUnholy
  • TheUnholy

    Crap Fly

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2012
  • None
  • Contribution Award [Concepts]

#136

Posted 08 September 2013 - 09:38 PM

If you're going to defend atheist's intelligence, you might want to use correct grammar/punctuation in your thread. 

 

Your OP implies that there was an initial thread bashing atheism. Yes, that is stupid, but what you did is also stupid, hypocrite.

 

 

 

I don't understand why people call themselves atheists rather than agnostic.

 

Agnostic = A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.

 

Atheism = The theory or belief that God does not exist.

 

Do some actually believe that there is nothing greater than humanity? That we've began everything from scratch, evolving from monkeys to smartphone-wielding geeks?

 

That's why I'm agnostic. I don't think humanity could've done all this, but there's no proof of a God nor do I think there ever will be.

I generally agree. For me, the people who ignore or stay away from Agnosticism are in that way because they think Agnostics are "in the closet", because they know as the general Agnostic discipline is believing neither God exists nor God does not exist, but in my opinion Agnostic view's main discipline is uncertainty, the situation of human mind's lack of getting certain info if God exists or not. That's why I'm Agnostic initially. Also I have a friend who said "Dude, Agnosticism is like getting out of your mind or killing yourself. You guys are not defending both existence of God or non-existence of God. It's like suicidal. I prefer Atheism rather than Agnosticism." (this dude is a Theist himself) and as far as I understand this friend of mine sees Agnosticism as being "in the closet". I don't know, it's no problem if I am living with the uncertainty of something and for me, living with uncertainty does not result with getting out of mind or suicidal as I'm not seriously combining this life with after-death life. Don't get me as a strict Agnostic, I'm not really like that; I don't have problem with believing or non-believing, I respect all of the views as they don't go much crazy with themselves but it's the situation for me.


Seattle Cracker
  • Seattle Cracker

    That awkward white guy

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2012

#137

Posted 09 September 2013 - 02:54 AM

Well. Now that all the various (x)tian's have gone now what do we do.


GTASAIDEAMASTER
  • GTASAIDEAMASTER

    Made in china.

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2010

#138

Posted 09 September 2013 - 03:47 AM

I came here expecting a small thread about an apology from a religious person,instead,I got a religious / non religious arguement.

 

I'll take my leave then.


The Pizza Delivery Guy
  • The Pizza Delivery Guy

    If You Know What I Mean

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2013
  • None

#139

Posted 09 September 2013 - 04:40 AM

I came here expecting a small thread about an apology from a religious person,instead,I got a religious / non religious argument.

 

I'll take my leave then.

Well this is the internet. Say "god" once and BOOM, the posts grow from there.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users