Title: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: StL FinFan on April 18, 2008, 04:53:28 pm I just read (out of curiosity) a rambling, hate-filled rant regarding the Pope. Nothing unusual about that, except when I got to the end, this was the description of the person who wrote it:
<the author> is a writer currently living in Los Angeles California. The Temple of Love - The World Peace Religion makes peace among and unites Christianity Islam Judaism and Everyone else and the Countries they all live in as the first step towards world peace, by tying everyone together with their common threads and resolving all of their differences once and for all. ??? We achieve world peace by spreading hate? ??? Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: SCFinFan on April 18, 2008, 05:09:37 pm Hmm... did you find that paragraph after this wondrous, open-minded, peace-mongering, accepting, kind-hearted piece?
http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php/topic,10400.msg106636.html#msg106636 If not... you should've. Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: StL FinFan on April 18, 2008, 05:50:23 pm It was way worse, which is why I edited out the name and did not provide a link. If you don't like the pope and want to say so, fine, I belive in freedom of speech, but don't write a hate filled rant and then claim to be for world peace and the unity of all religions.
Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: SCFinFan on April 18, 2008, 05:56:39 pm [hijack]
G.K. Chesterton said it best nearly a century ago... "There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions." Same's true today, though those people usually come up with some other justification like, "belief in the sovereignty of selfhood" or whatnot. Ah well. I have to live with stuff like this, especially on this site, where the mods will only wax you if you're spongebob or disagree with atheism. [/hijack] Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: Guru-In-Vegas on April 18, 2008, 05:58:25 pm I don't hate christianity...just a lot of christians.
Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: SCFinFan on April 18, 2008, 05:59:19 pm You and I are no different then. Though I honestly don't hate anybody. I work very hard on that...
that said... [/hijack] Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: Dave Gray on April 18, 2008, 06:07:38 pm I can't say that I hate the Pope. I thought John Paul II was pretty hip, all things considered. I don't care for the church, however, and I think that some of things they've done, especially towards molesting kids and covering it up, is pretty despicable. I found the new Pope choice kinda strange, because the church needed someone as progressive as John Paul II was for his time to tackle some of these more recent issues like Aids, birth control, gay tolerance, molestation, etc.
I find the whole Pope worship thing kind of silly, personally. Then again, I don't believe in God, so what do I know? Anyway, my dislike of Christianity is the same that I have for Judaism, Islam, etc. They're all damaging, in my opinion, but Christianity is just in my backyard. I'm sure if I lived among Hindus, I'd probably detest that as well. It's not to say that I dislike the people of those religions, though. Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: StL FinFan on April 18, 2008, 06:13:43 pm I don't worship the pope, he is a human being like the rest of us and he did meet with victims of priests in this country and has spoken out against what happened.
I do wish they would have picked someone less conservative, but hopefully he will learn through experience. Visiting this country is an avenue to find out what is wrong with the Catholic church here and find ways to fix it. Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: SCFinFan on April 18, 2008, 06:35:58 pm Dave, with some of your comments, I have no doubt you know much less about Christianity than you think you do. No offense, but I promise you, you overestimate your grasp on it.
Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: Dave Gray on April 18, 2008, 06:39:15 pm I don't claim to know all that much about Christianity. I was a practicing (every Sunday, plus CCD and all sacraments) Catholic until I was about 18, however.
It basically boils down to me thinking it made up by people, and has nothing to do with God at all, as God is a figment of man's imagination. But, I'm open to your teachings. Preach on. Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: SCFinFan on April 18, 2008, 06:44:46 pm Of you're really so open, PM me, and we'll talk.
I find myself thoroughly incredulous, however. Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: Fau Teixeira on April 18, 2008, 07:18:34 pm just to touch on the mods comment earlier. mods aren't here to filter the debate of ehatever issues are being debated. they are here to keep a modicum of civility. if you find people's opinions about your belief system offensive, then how strong is your set of beliefs in the first place.
personally, the biggest problem I have with any religion is the lack of tolerance for "heresy" or "blasphemy" Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: SCFinFan on April 18, 2008, 07:41:10 pm Because I take offense to people's outright nastiness towards my beliefs... my beliefs aren't strong?
C'mon fau. The real weakness is not in the offense taken, but in the disgusting hatred spouted. Atheism has never had one beautiful thought in it. It has only nasty, sharp barbs to shoot at other believers... probably because it's not deep enough to really mold people much beyond a revolting arrogance. Furthermore, watch my writing closely. When someone disagrees, I stay pretty civil. When someone says, "oh stick a rusty shiv up the pope's ass," or "he thinks all religion is bullshit, which is awesome." then, well, yeah, I get a little testy. I mean, c'mon, let's honestly think about this. I feel religion deeply. No more differently than I feel, oh, say my pride in my state. Now, down here I've heard quite a couple of people make fun of South Carolina. People in Miami-Dade just think the whole state is a bunch of stars-and-bars fanatics. Well, if they want to tell me, "You know, I kinda disagree with the SC legislature's decision to not completely remove the confederate flag from state owned property," that's one thing. (And one thing I wouldn't disagree with.) If they said, "South Carolina is obviously backwards," or, "Stick a screwdriver up Mark Sanford's ass," or "South Carolina is bullshit," well... would you not expect me to get a little upset? But the opposite is not true for when some Christians speak out on this site. Let me point out something that was especially grievous. Once tommy, responding to someone who was mentioning one of their friends/sig others/family members had recovered from cancer, said "Praise God" or something to that effect. It was benign and exemplary. Immediately, he was attacked on a couple of sides for saying it. Mods joined in. Are you kidding me? Are people so brittle in here that they can't take someone saying "thank God"? As for your other point: All beliefs systems have some form of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is necessary. You may have a melting pot of ideas and peoples... but you'll need a pot sturdy enough to hold them all. The only pot strong enough to hold the variety of human thought is some tradition firmly believed in, which people are not willing to budge on. Of all of the possible orthodoxies however, atheism is clearly the worst at allowing contrary viewpoints and diversity. Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: Defense54 on April 18, 2008, 07:52:59 pm I don't hate christianity...just a lot of christians. Thats where I differ. I don't hate anybody. Except Jet Fans........they don't count. >:D Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: Fau Teixeira on April 18, 2008, 08:30:10 pm atheism doesn't need to be beautiful... that's a judgement call. besides, just because i'm not a christian does't mean i'm an atheist, cause i'm not an atheist.
Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: Guru-In-Vegas on April 18, 2008, 08:33:29 pm Thats where I differ. I don't hate anybody. Except Jet Fans........they don't count. >:D Jets fans are the embodiment of the anti-christ. Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: Guru-In-Vegas on April 18, 2008, 08:59:48 pm Of all of the possible orthodoxies however, atheism is clearly the worst at allowing contrary viewpoints and diversity. Forgive me if I'm not understanding this correctly. But from this statement are you saying that christianity allows for such opposing views as unlike atheism? Atheism is based on the basic idea that there is no omni-potent creator. At least that is what my understanding of it is. So in terms of contrasting ideas being allowed into their orthodoxy, how is it any different from christianity? I grew up catholic and there was definetely no room for a thought that there might not be a god. I agree with you SC on the level of intelorance that has grown among atheists. However, in terms of hate and intolerance I must confess christianity has all others beat. Here's an example www.godhatesfags.com (http://www.godhatesfags.com) There's also this http://cofcc.org/?cat=17 (http://cofcc.org/?cat=17) Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: run_to_win on April 18, 2008, 10:10:31 pm However, in terms of hate and intolerance I must confess christianity has all others beat. Here's an example www.godhatesfags.com (http://www.godhatesfags.com) Ummm, you do realize that anyone can masquerade as a Christian? The church has no control over the internet and domain names. The retards protesting soldier's funerals view themselves as Christians. There's also this http://cofcc.org/?cat=17 (http://cofcc.org/?cat=17) I'm not Catholic nor overly religious. I've challenged God Himself on many occasions. Show me were one respectable Christian has said "fuck the atheists with a rusty screw driver". Show me one any Christians who would laugh, chuckle or support that statement. The mods get bent out of shape over heat political discussion when they find it disagreeable but that statement goes unchallenged? Disgraceful. Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: StL FinFan on April 18, 2008, 10:23:22 pm There are extremists in every walk of life. The KKK considers themselves Christian. However, extremists are (thankfully) a small portion of any group.
Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: run_to_win on April 18, 2008, 10:33:53 pm Very true ... and "we" always seem to judge groups by their extremists, which is wrong.
I guess one difference is that the majority of Christians do not look up to, support nor enable groups such as the KKK. Quite the opposite, in fact. Hopefully the "most muslims are peaceful" type tolerance/understanding will someday carry over to other groups. On the otherhand though, as often seen on this message board, there's no stigma that goes with being an intolerant religionphobe or Christianityphobe. Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: SCFinFan on April 19, 2008, 02:28:37 am Forgive me if I'm not understanding this correctly. But from this statement are you saying that christianity allows for such opposing views as unlike atheism? Atheism is based on the basic idea that there is no omni-potent creator. At least that is what my understanding of it is. So in terms of contrasting ideas being allowed into their orthodoxy, how is it any different from christianity? I grew up catholic and there was definetely no room for a thought that there might not be a god. I agree with you SC on the level of intelorance that has grown among atheists. However, in terms of hate and intolerance I must confess christianity has all others beat. Here's an example www.godhatesfags.com (http://www.godhatesfags.com) There's also this http://cofcc.org/?cat=17 (http://cofcc.org/?cat=17) For the most part you understand me correctly. This is what I'll say: do not forget where we are, and where the world has been. In the last 100 years (just those 100 years alone) we have seen the rise of political leaders who enforce their atheism on the populace with a vengeance unlike anything else seen this side of hell. In Russia, churches were bombed, turned into pools (http://www.artmargins.com/content/art/paperny/image8.html), people were murdered, religions were banned and persecuted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union), I can go on for days. The truth is that people suffered, and suffered immensely, all because atheists are the least tolerant people on the face of the planet. The same is true in North Korea, China, other parts of Asia, Eastern Europe, South America, and Cuba. It is also true today. You think that atheists are tolerant? Hardly. At best, they can only squeak out impotent insults on screed-filled blogs. Consider the following: http://nomorehornets.blogspot.com/2007/02/congregation-thanks-god-for-20-dead.html or http://choobus.blogspot.com/2007/04/atheist-motto.html or http://ravingatheist.com/archives/2006/07/love_thy_enemies.php (look at the nasty comments) I could keep going... but I'll save ya the trip down drivel lane. It may be objected that, in ages past, atheists suffered immensely at the hands of Christians. I have no doubt that some of this may be true. I also have no doubt that it's greatly exaggerated and/or the blame is put inordinately on religion. Consider this: the courts that eventually became part of the inquisition were originally founded because the Church saw that, in many cases, political entities were using religion as a lever to vent their dislike of certain dissidents. Before the separation of church and state became popular in its modern form, the church was actually fighting for it at some points, knowing that the state would misuse it. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm (Do a word search for the word 'Douais' and then read the paragraph thereafter.) Ecclesiastical courts were usually more gentle and equitably minded. This is why there used to be a doctrine in Anglo-Saxon law known as the Benefit of Clergy, which allowed the accused to plead his case to an ecclesiastical court which would usually let him off with a slap on the wrist. The Constitution, amongst its other defects, banned such rights. Suffice it to say that, more often than not, the tolerant side of life has been with the Church, not the state, and never with the atheists. As for your family and church, well, I'm sorry there was little room for debate and dissent. The difference between the two, however, is quite plain. While people may vehemently disagree with you over the concept of God or His existence, because God exists they'll usually give you some latitude. For, while God wants you to preach His truth, He also reminds us to love our neighbor... even if he is our enemy. There is no such similar restraint on atheists... and history's proven it. Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: CF DolFan on April 19, 2008, 10:47:33 am In the USA, the largest open predjudism is towards Christians. Look no farther than this board for examples. No one thing is attacked in here more than Christianity. There might be more people who hate blacks, Jews, Latinos or even ballet ... but the bottom line is no one is more negative about anything else than the lack of respect for Christians or Christianity.
The funny thing is I get it. If people feel they can dispel Christianity in their own mind then they somehow feel they don't have to follow it. I wish I could say that is true but I didn't make the rules. Same goes for accepting homosexuals and adulterers. I can love them all I want and then some but I can't ever say it is acceptable and that they don't need to repent. I didn't get to make those rules either. Neither did the Pope. Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: landlocked on April 19, 2008, 01:38:49 pm matthew 10:34
john 15:18 Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: Dave Gray on April 19, 2008, 02:20:23 pm SC,
I'm not really interested in having a religious discussion over private messages. That's why we have a forum, so we can all discuss. I'm not interesting in learning about the scriptures, if that's what you thought I meant. I am more concerned with the effects of religion on society, which are debatable, but I consider the bad to outweigh the good. I may be behind on the specifics teachings of Christianity, but to me, they don't matter. Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: SCFinFan on April 19, 2008, 02:53:17 pm Alright, that's fair. You open up the topic, and I'll rebut.
Let's set some boundaries first though: What do you consider to be beneficial to society? What evidence do you allow for inquiry? What is the standard we'll accept as convincing? (i.e. reasonable doubt? preponderance?) Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: CF DolFan on April 19, 2008, 03:51:45 pm matthew 10:34 john 15:18 Those are both great versus landlocked, as well as relevant to the conversation at hand, but you should have posted them. matthew 10:34 (I actually went back to 32) 32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword 35 For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - 36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household john 15:18 18"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: Dave Gray on April 19, 2008, 07:15:26 pm Well, that's kinda the problem. I don't really know what to debate. I don't believe in God, and there is no evidence to support such a belief. Anyone's belief in God is from their faith, which I lack. So, I don't really know what there is to rebut about that. At the same time, my efforts to try to dispute the existence of God will be fruitless as well, because God is not fallible by the rules of reason.
As far as the benefits of society thing, it's pretty much the basics -- War, money, power, control, intolerance, etc. I don't really have the need to debate the subject, though. That's kind of it for me. Bible quotes and stuff -- it's all fake to me -- Made up by some guy a long time ago. I believe that our morality caused us to create religion, that we are inherently born with some morals and ethics through society bring the other parts. Some people will lack these morals, religious or otherwise. The idea that atheists are the most intolerant people doesn't matter (first off, I don't think that's true at all, but whatever...) -- Whether atheists are intolerant or not doesn't change the fact of whether there is a God or not. Even if atheists are all murderers and rapists, it doesn't mean that God exists. I don't believe in God, but not because it's the convenient choice. It'd be much easier to think that I got to go to heaven and that I could pray if I needed help, but in real life I just don't believe that. Just because I want something to be so, doesn't make it so. Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: run_to_win on April 19, 2008, 07:50:12 pm In the USA, the largest open predjudism is towards Christians. Indisputable.There's no stigma attached to hating/bashing the majority. Quite the opposite in fact. Not only is it not a hate crime to openly hate the majority, it's not even a crime. Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: SCFinFan on April 21, 2008, 01:36:58 am I know it's a little late to post this, but I had to study all day so I couldn't really respond.
Here's the thing. I find it odd, Dave, that you first tell me you don't want to debate in private, that THAT is what forums are for, and then tell me I don't really have the need to debate the subject, though. That's kind of it for me. I honestly don't know what to say in response to this. That's because it's hard to argue with a creed, which is what the rest of your post really looks like. Here's what I mean: I don't believe in God, and there is no evidence to support such a belief. Anyone's belief in God is from their faith, which I lack. [...] God is not fallible by the rules of reason. Bible quotes and stuff -- it's all fake to me -- Made up by some guy a long time ago. I believe that our morality caused us to create religion, that we are inherently born with some morals and ethics through society bring the other parts. [...] The majesty of that closing doxology hasn't been seen since the Nicene creed hit the scene however many generations ago. But, what I'll say is this... a mind that is willing to say these things, in other words, that is so closed to the subject, is evidence not of a rigorous search into the truth of the matter, but rather of a disingenuous attitude to the whole debate in the first place. For you have never demonstrated exactly what you mean when you say evidence. I have never know what that term means for you. For all I know, all you could mean by, "there's no evidence" is that you won't really even face the question. I don't say this to impugn your integrity, but honestly, a more conclusory statement was never made. As for the rest, you've never demonstrated that God is not bound by reason. Or that, should He not be, that this renders the question worthless. Or that anything is bounded by "reason" or "logic." You have not demonstrated that people's belief in God relies wholly upon faith, nor have you ever explained just why, beyond a "well, I just don't," (the pinnacle of empirical inquiry, obviously) you do not think that faith is a valid way to understand the world. There are justifications needed for these positions too. Frankly, if this is the totality of your thought upon the subject, it's not at all a stretch for me to say that it appears that all you've done is become enamored with the idea that no God exists, and then backed into the reasoning from there. So, if you want to puzzle this out, then let's do. Or let's not. But let's not make conclusory statements to duck the possibility that we may, terrifying and humbling as it the thought is, be wrong. The idea that atheists are the most intolerant people doesn't matter (first off, I don't think that's true at all, but whatever...) -- Whether atheists are intolerant or not doesn't change the fact of whether there is a God or not. Even if atheists are all murderers and rapists, it doesn't mean that God exists. As hard as it may be to believe, I hated writing what provoked this response. I don't think most atheists are evil. Just wrong. That said, I do think that atheists, when they've held positions of political power, have been more vicious, more tyrannous, and more stultifying than any other breed of religionist. However, what I wrote was in response to Guru-in-Vegas' contrary position. Nothing more. The evil of atheists does not prove, not by a long shot, that their theological conclusions are wrong. Neither does the evil of Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and the like. I don't believe in God, but not because it's the convenient choice. It'd be much easier to think that I got to go to heaven and that I could pray if I needed help, but in real life I just don't believe that. Just because I want something to be so, doesn't make it so. I used to march to this drumbeat as well. It doesn't wash. If you think the idea of God is solely comforting, you mischaracterize all theism. The therapeutic value of religion, I think, is a bit higher than atheism, sure, but therapy is not the sole basis for religion. There is such a thing as the fear of God. There is such a thing as the true love of God. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padre_pio)There is such a thing as real cosmological hopes and fears. And when a Christian pickets an abortion clinic, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._M._Anscombe#Life) or says no to illicit sex, (http://saints.sqpn.com/sainta04.htm) or submits to harsh treatment for the sake of another, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Leseur) all for the love of God, one can tell more is going on there than just a feeling that, "oh, well, I believe in the afterlife and now life's all set." No, your characterization is a straw man if there ever was one. And atheists typically have their cake and eat it too on problems like this. One minute, they tell you religion is only widespread because it makes people not fear death. The next they remind you how inhumane and disgusting the idea of eternal damnation is... must be fun to pick and choose which stick to beat your enemy with on any given day, but it certain doesn't lend much credulity to one's line of thought... The longer one stays in stays in such myths (as you have parroted above), the harder it is to puzzle one's way out of them. For while some dogma is right and good, most of it, and all of the typical atheistical dogma, is flatly false. Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: Dave Gray on April 21, 2008, 03:05:48 am What do you want me to say? I've told you this before -- I'm not really all that interested in this debate. I already have my answer. I think that those who believe in God are delusional.
I think that God is made up and there's no evidence. For a claim as extraordinary as the existence of God, the burden of proof is on you, in my opinion. There's no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. Especially coming from my perspective, where God doesn't exist, debating these things is pointless. Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: SCFinFan on April 21, 2008, 08:10:35 am I'll take the burden of proof. But what counts to you as evidence?
Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: Dave Gray on April 21, 2008, 01:10:13 pm Do I really have to define evidence?
As a skeptic, when a claim is great, such as the existence of God, I need concrete evidence to support that claim. Not all claims require such scrutiny, however. If you told me that you saw a lady with a red dress at the store, while I was not there, your eyewitness testimony would be enough for that, because that claim is not outside the realm of normal possibility. Such is not the case for things like God, for me. The claim is too great, and there isn't the hard-evidence to back it up. So, there is some evidence to support God. People have seen Him, felt Him, He came in their dreams, there are artifacts that exist, but cannot be proven as genuine, etc. But those forms of evidence are not enough to back up a claim so great. I hold aliens, ghosts, etc. all to the same level of scientific scrutiny. Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: SCFinFan on April 23, 2008, 02:45:19 am With respect, a definition of evidence is absolutely essential. Without it, it would allow someone to do with semantics what must be done with rigorous scrutiny. Plus, whenever a definition is given, light is shone on a persons biases towards a certain topic area.
Further, I am compelled to say I doubt very much that your test does anything more than allow you to pay lip service to evidence standards, and shun a great quantity of evidence which would be reasonable to prove a multitude of other things, but apparently not God. My reasoning is as follows. You start off by saying, "when a claim is great [...], I need concrete evidence to support that claim." You never tell us why the claim of God's existence or non-existence is "great," though you do give us an example of what you consider the difference between a "great" claim and a "claim [that] is not outside the realm of normal possibility." The lady in the red dress... Now, I fail to see how exactly these two are different, unless your importing your atheism in to the standard already. If a person tells you they saw a lady in a red dress, or that they saw God, what exactly is the difference? You say one is in the realm of normal possibility, and one is not; well, what is that "realm of normal possibility?" It seems as though you've already cabined in that spectrum to a mechanical, atheistic expectation... but in doing so, you've made a biased test which will always give you the answer you want, rather than get you closer to the truth. If you're going to question the existence of God, you can't make a test which backs in to atheism without really ever getting to the issue. A test which would be more fundamentally fair, would be one that was agnostic to what exactly the realm of normal possibility was (and thus, what a "great" claim was). We do ourselves no good in asking about whether God exists, if we start off thinking that there is a set of normal possibilities of which God is not one, and, did he exist, he would have to create a substantial abnormality in that normal set of possibilities to be believable. A test like that would show, rather than a real engagement with the problem, a disdainful attitude to the whole debate in the first place. Using your test, as it stands, would also exclude a great deal of rather normal evidence which cannot be proven by anything besides testimony if you (subjectively, might I add, with no criteria as to why you do so, other than your atheism) if you put it in the category of "great" claims. For example: intent. No scientific testing can prove what a man's intent was or is. It can only be inferred from his words and actions. (i.e. testimony) Other people have spoken about it, they've felt it, had dreams about it. There are dubious artifacts (stream of consciousness books) which attempt to tell you about it. But... well, nothing really scientific or "hard" (whatever that means, probably nothing) which the mind can wrap itself around. Thus, as it stands, your claim that there is no evidence for God is faulty before it even gets off the mark. You've made a test which is so biased as to be worthless... except to those who have gotten to their conclusion before they've really thought about it. Title: Re: This is how we achieve world peace? Post by: Dave Gray on April 23, 2008, 03:54:03 am I don't really want to argue this anymore.
If you can't see a difference in "I saw a lady with a red dress" and "I saw God", then I don't know what to tell you. We're arguing how to argue. What's the point? |