rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 08/06/09 at 09:19 AM | Reply with quote | #1 |
|
On another thread, a Christian mentioned losing respect for a certain atheist because he demanded evidence from Christians to back up their claims for God.
My question is: Exactly why should Christians not provide proof for this elusive God if they insist the rest of us believe on him??? OR if they insist laws be made in favour of their beliefs in this God and that the rest of us "respect" their beliefs in this "God"???
I realize the poster is from Canada where Christians have not yet taken quite so ridiculous a stand as in the American South, but I think Canadian Christians should be held just as accountable as Americans for their beliefs. We atheists are always giving account of our beliefs when asked, and "turn about is fair play," as my mother used to say. So let's hear it.
In case you think all religions are like this, I have yet to see the believers in Thor make remotely similar requests. In fact, I have to beg them to talk about their beliefs--not because they are ashamed of their god because they are not ashamed, but because they refuse to be obnoxious and over-bearing like Christians.
So I repeat my question: Exactly why should Christians NOT provide evidence or support for their arguments for God's existence? They are pretty much the only group of Western people who consider themselves to be exempt from the obligation of providing evidence for their claims. Why is this? What makes them think they think they are so special?
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
billclute
Registered: 12/12/07
Posts: 1,941
|
| | 08/06/09 at 09:48 AM | Reply with quote | #2 |
|
Quote: I realize the poster is from Canada where Christians have not yet taken quite so ridiculous a stand as in the American South
Quote:
I have yet to see the believers in Thor make remotely similar requests.
"In my world everyone is a pony, and they all eat rainbows, and poop butterflies." - Katie, Horton Hears a Who! (the movie)
__________________
"You can't be my boss! Nobody's my boss! I'm my own boss! I created myself!" - White Goodman |
| Loading... | |
etiainen
Registered: 07/15/08
Posts: 531
| |
harvey1
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 3,598
|
| | 08/06/09 at 10:15 AM | Reply with quote | #4 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
Exactly why should Christians NOT provide evidence or support for their arguments for God's existence?
That would take more time than I have available. However, let me list a few compelling arguments:
1. The universe is here either by some blind processes (atheism) or by some intentional acts to those processes (theism, deism, or pantheism depending on how we define "intention"). If the former, then there exist possible worlds where there could have been other blind processes (or algorithms) than the actual ones, or this is a necessary world. If this is a necessary world, then there exists a deist or pantheist God that brings order and structure as part of its underlying metaphysical nature. On the other hand, if there are possible worlds where a different ultimate reality with a different algorithm could have existed, then we ought to exist in an ultimate reality that was either simplest (i.e., requires the fewest lines of algorithmic code to describe that world) or the most typical (i.e., being a result obtained by a great many of these possible worlds). From the study of cellular automata we know both are not the case. There are many, many cellular automata that produce very dull worlds, and none of those worlds produce universes having any kind of sophisticated order as our own. Thus, we are justified in believing either that a theist God or pantheist God exists.
2. The kalam argument. The universe had a beginning. The cause for its coming into existence is either personal (theism) or impersonal (pantheism or deism).
3. The world is mathematical. This is either a result of random luck, or it is because there is a metaphysical order that exists. It's very unlikely that it is due to random luck given the amount of predictive successes of mathematical physics, therefore there exists a metaphysical order that exists. This metaphysical order is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient as can be demonstrated by a few quantum experiments. Hence, we are justified in identifying this metaphysical order as God (either theistic/pantheistic/deistic).
4. Either the world is caused by blind processes (atheism) or by intentional acts to those processes (i.e., theism, deism, or pantheism). If the former, and assuming the world is not necessary (see 1), then the ordering principles of nature is a brute fact. However, if it is a brute fact, then as the universe evolves it does so brute factly. However, if that's true, then there is no reason that there exist an innumerable number of opportunities to suddenly break from that stability, and evolve in a manner altogether different than its past by breaking whatever regularity was seen in previous epochs. Since the universe has not done so, we can be sure that we do not live in a brute fact world that is governed by "laws" that brute factly remain stable. Thus, we have very good reason to believe in God.
5. We have no reason to believe that our place in the universe is special with respect to consciousness. That is, it seems that the universe could support and evolve intelligent life for many billions of years to come. However, based on our knowledge of the universe, the earliest supernovas did not start seeding the universe with heavier elements until a few billion years had passed. Let's say that on average the universe were not seeded with enough heavy elements for life to exist until it was 3-5 billion years old. That means that life originated on Earth within 4-6 billion years of when it could possibly have done so (i.e., on average). Hence, if we assume the universe is capable of evolving life for another 30 billion years (to be extremely conservative), that would mean that we are the firstborn of the universe. That is, the universe "child bearing" years are 3-5 billion years of age to 38-40 billion years of age. Life on earth was born when the universe was 8.5 billion years of age. Thus, of the 35-37 billion years the universe could have given birth to life, it did so here a few billion years into its child rearing years of life. By the Copernican principle, we have reasons to reject this is as random luck. Therefore, there must exist a reason for why this is the case.
The atheist answer is not very convincing. That is, there must exist a blind process for why this is so. Either we are just an extraordinarily odd phenomena, or there are possible worlds (i.e., not talking about a multiiverse) where the average age of those universes is about 8.5 billion years when life originates. However, both of these possibilities are unlikely. There is no reason to believe we are an extraordinary odd phenomena given the plentiful number of planets that are being discovered, and the processes for solar and planetary evolution appear to be stable processes that have been going on and will be going on for some time. As for the possible worlds where a 8.5 billion year age universe is when the typical universe has life originating throughout its child bearing years is not based on any observable phenomena. This would suggest that there is a natural phenomena that makes universes such as our own short lived. But, as we see, our universe has survived an additional 4.5 billion years since life originated on earth. So, there is no reason to believe that a blind process is responsible for our earth yielding life so very close to the time when our universe became a life bearing universe. Thus, the atheist view fails miserably to account for the special position that earth has in terms of bearing life. (Btw, while there could be extraterrestrial intelligence beyond our means to detect life, the lack thereof just increases the stakes of this argument to include intelligent life. Although, I specifically formulated this argument to not depend on those things which we cannot detect at the moment.)
6. Either the universe is completely filled with blind causes (atheism), or it contains some intentional causes (theism, deism, pantheism). Atheists are being closed minded by rejecting the latter. To ask for evidence to support the latter, while having no evidence to accept the former (or at least, not willing to usually cite this evidence), is being extremely irresponsible in one's epistemic stance. Hence, even by the flip of a coin, the most one can be is an agnostic if they are unwilling to put up evidence to counter pantheism (which I cite since it can skirt the problem of evil -- which a lazy atheist will sometimes cite as their argument for the non-existence of God). Thus, unless atheists can provide an argument for their atheism, we are justified in believing in theism, pantheism, deism; or, in the worst case, we ought to settle for agnosticism.
7. According to atheism, there is no intention associated with the universe (i.e., back to blind processes again). However, there is a lot of physical evidence that intention is inherent in the laws of physics (e.g., the double slit experiment, delayed choice experiment, the Zeno effect). Since we have no reason to think that intention is just an epiphenomenon of bio-chemical brain processes, but is inherent in the laws of physics, we therefore are justified in believing in the existence of a objective intention in the universe (i.e., the existence of God on some level).
8. The constants of physics strongly suggest that they are fine-tuned for the existence of life. This is well-documented in the annals of physics. In fact, there is now a program in cosmology called the top-down approach which is now using the fine-tuning nature of the constants as a means to select which string vacuum the world emerged from. That is, first we look for the culprit vacuums that could have given birth to a universe with these very unique constants, then we identify other theoretical predictions that the vacuums of interest (or under suspicion) can provide for us to look for. If we find those observables, then we know we've found the right string vacuum that our universe originated from. Given this clear endorsement of the fine-tuning of the physical constants, we are well within our rights to say that this universe is so extremely special that it ought to cause us to give up atheism for a more plausible cosmogony (i.e., theism, deism, or pantheism).
9. This argument of the mind is a very compelling argument to give up a naturalist view of the mind. It goes like this. Darwinian adaptations require the adaptation to provide its host (or its species) an advantage such that they can have more babies. However, if the mental is such an adaptation, then mental processes of figuring things out and having the feel of being in control of one's faculties must be efficacious. However, according to physicalism, the mental is a supervenient process that in some way emerges from the physical neurons and other structures of the brain. In fact, every mental event emerges from the physical neurons and other structures of the brain -- even those mental events that are in response to physical urges (e.g., hunger, fear, sex, thirst, etc.). This being the case, the mental is a movie screen where the movie goer doesn't actually do anything -- cannot do anything since the movie goer is just an emergent phenomena of something else happening on the physical level. Therefore, naturalism is without an explanation for why a mental world has evolved at all since it offers no efficacious adaptation for these mental events to make possible. The only means for a Darwinist to accept this adaptation as effacious is if the mental has a downward causal influence on the physical form, but that means accepting some form of dualism of the mind. Again, this puts the mental in a new ontological category which must be anathama to atheism since the world contains intention as basic furniture of the world -- therefore favoring at least pantheism. Hence, atheism is again the loser.
10. This is one which I think most theists believe, but which for some unknown reason is ignored by most atheist thinkers. The world is certainly messy and such, but as any company that produces complex products can testify, the more complex the product the more that can go wrong with that product. So, even if there are a million working parts all working together in some complex fashion, even one non-working part (or a part that performs poorly), and that system will not be perfect. However, given the complexities of our world, we are much more justified in believing that our world is more like the product that is nearly perfect than a world that is run by blind processes. Now, of course natural selection and perhaps quantum vacuums, etc., have complicated this by giving us a process by which mount improbable can be climbed. I am not denying this. However, what would mount improbable actually look like if we take as our premise that the world is run by purely blind processes (i.e., if we overlook the arguments 1-9 above)?
Well, there's nothing required by mount improbable that consciousness be even possible, much less likely given our sudden emergence (afterall, in less than 15% of the age of the earth, life went from single celled organisms to space-faring organisms capable of harnassing the power of fundamental physics). There is nothing required by mount improbable that human beings literally have thousands of foods which they can eat and enjoy, great wines and beers to taste, wives and husbands and kids and families to enjoy, careers and hobbies to immerse themselves in, hundreds of potential trip destinations to enjoy, and just so many of the things that make life worth living. Now, this gets back to my point made in (1), but far beyond just having a functional algorithm that eeks out something that mount improbable succeeds at accomplishing (again, ignoring 1-9 arguments above), the world is just downright beautiful.
Anyway, that's all I have time for.
|
| Loading... | |
harvey1
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 3,598
|
| | 08/06/09 at 10:17 AM | Reply with quote | #5 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
My question is: Exactly why should Christians not provide proof for this elusive God if they insist the rest of us believe on him??? OR if they insist laws be made in favour of their beliefs in this God and that the rest of us "respect" their beliefs in this "God"??? |
| Loading... | |
ubi2002
Registered: 11/30/08
Posts: 486
|
| | 08/06/09 at 10:31 AM | Reply with quote | #6 |
|
wow... that's a lot of arguments harvey1  |
| Loading... | |
wonderer
Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,835
|
| | 08/06/09 at 04:04 PM | Reply with quote | #7 |
|
Since you seem to be jumping to the conclusion, that the relative silence of atheists on your list of arguments, reflects inability on the part of atheist to refute the arguments rather than disinterest in taking the time, I'll briefly point out fundamental flaws in them.
Quote: Originally Posted by harvey1
1. The universe is here either by some blind processes (atheism) or by some intentional acts to those processes (theism, deism, or pantheism depending on how we define "intention"). If the former, then there exist possible worlds where there could have been other blind processes (or algorithms) than the actual ones, or this is a necessary world. If this is a necessary world, then there exists a deist or pantheist God that brings order and structure as part of its underlying metaphysical nature.
You've mysteriously omitted the option of this being a necessary world which resulted from blind processes. You've simply declared as a baseless assertion, that if this is a necessary world then deism or pantheism must be true, even though you included the possibility of it being a nececessary result of blind processes in the first sentence above.
Quote: On the other hand, if there are possible worlds where a different ultimate reality with a different algorithm could have existed, then we ought to exist in an ultimate reality that was either simplest (i.e., requires the fewest lines of algorithmic code to describe that world) or the most typical (i.e., being a result obtained by a great many of these possible worlds).
You aren't in a position to know this, and it's just guesswork on your part in the face of lack of evidence. You are taking wild speculation from empirical evidence and simply declaring it as if it were fact, rather than speculation.
It makes no sense whatsoever to say that we ought to exist in world 'too simple' to support our existence. You simply don't have any basis for comparing our world to a hypothesized other world.
Quote: From the study of cellular automata we know both are not the case. There are many, many cellular automata that produce very dull worlds, and none of those worlds produce universes having any kind of sophisticated order as our own. Thus, we are justified in believing either that a theist God or pantheist God exists.
Since cellular automata based on speculation, which are practical to implement on our digital computers, are so far boring; God exists. This is just silly Harvey. The PC has really only been in existence for 30 years. (roughly 1 human generation) You know that today's computers are mere toys in comparison to what computers will be like another 30 years from now. This is just an argument from ignorance.
Quote: 2. The kalam argument. The universe had a beginning. The cause for its coming into existence is either personal (theism) or impersonal (pantheism or deism).
Even if Kalam were sound, all you get to is a cause. The Kalam doesn't provide a basis for knowing the nature of such a cause. This is just question begging.
Quote: 3. The world is mathematical. This is either a result of random luck, or it is because there is a metaphysical order that exists. It's very unlikely that it is due to random luck given the amount of predictive successes of mathematical physics, therefore there exists a metaphysical order that exists. This metaphysical order is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient as can be demonstrated by a few quantum experiments.
Define "omnipotent" and "omniscient" as used here. In any case, this looks like baseless assertion once again. On what basis do you assert that the metaphysical order that you hypothesize is necessarily omnipotent or omniscient. (Or for that matter omnipresent. Perhaps there is a metaphysical order with a limited domain, within a meta-metaphysical order.)
Quote: Hence, we are justified in identifying this metaphysical order as God (either theistic/pantheistic/deistic).
Not if you want to be consistent with the concept of God held by the majority of Christians. It seems that you are simply trying to say that whatever exists metaphysically is by definition a deity. If you want to avoid equivocation, it would be best not to conflate a presumed necessary metaphysical order, with God. You remind me of my thinking as an agnostic, when "God" just became "whatever is necessary for things to work". Now if you are willing to use such a definition of the word "God" consistently, then I'm not inclined to quibble with the existence of such, but of course you are going to want to tack other properties onto "God" as well.
Quote: 4. Either the world is caused by blind processes (atheism) or by intentional acts to those processes (i.e., theism, deism, or pantheism). If the former, and assuming the world is not necessary (see 1), then the ordering principles of nature is a brute fact. However, if it is a brute fact, then as the universe evolves it does so brute factly. However, if that's true, then there is no reason that there exist an innumerable number of opportunities to suddenly break from that stability, and evolve in a manner altogether different than its past by breaking whatever regularity was seen in previous epochs. Since the universe has not done so, we can be sure that we do not live in a brute fact world that is governed by "laws" that brute factly remain stable. Thus, we have very good reason to believe in God.
Sorry, this simply amount to saying that since we are here and know some history, God exists. There are gazillions of unfalsifiable possibilities for why we are here, which are equally as unfalsifiable as the God hypothesis. This is just an argument from ignorance, and question begging.
Quote: 5. We have no reason to believe that our place in the universe is special with respect to consciousness. That is, it seems that the universe could support and evolve intelligent life for many billions of years to come. However, based on our knowledge of the universe, the earliest supernovas did not start seeding the universe with heavier elements until a few billion years had passed. Let's say that on average the universe were not seeded with enough heavy elements for life to exist until it was 3-5 billion years old. That means that life originated on Earth within 4-6 billion years of when it could possibly have done so (i.e., on average). Hence, if we assume the universe is capable of evolving life for another 30 billion years (to be extremely conservative), that would mean that we are the firstborn of the universe. That is, the universe "child bearing" years are 3-5 billion years of age to 38-40 billion years of age. Life on earth was born when the universe was 8.5 billion years of age. Thus, of the 35-37 billion years the universe could have given birth to life, it did so here a few billion years into its child rearing years of life. By the Copernican principle, we have reasons to reject this is as random luck. Therefore, there must exist a reason for why this is the case.
The atheist answer is not very convincing. That is, there must exist a blind process for why this is so. Either we are just an extraordinarily odd phenomena, or there are possible worlds (i.e., not talking about a multiiverse) where the average age of those universes is about 8.5 billion years when life originates. However, both of these possibilities are unlikely. There is no reason to believe we are an extraordinary odd phenomena given the plentiful number of planets that are being discovered, and the processes for solar and planetary evolution appear to be stable processes that have been going on and will be going on for some time. As for the possible worlds where a 8.5 billion year age universe is when the typical universe has life originating throughout its child bearing years is not based on any observable phenomena. This would suggest that there is a natural phenomena that makes universes such as our own short lived. But, as we see, our universe has survived an additional 4.5 billion years since life originated on earth. So, there is no reason to believe that a blind process is responsible for our earth yielding life so very close to the time when our universe became a life bearing universe. Thus, the atheist view fails miserably to account for the special position that earth has in terms of bearing life. (Btw, while there could be extraterrestrial intelligence beyond our means to detect life, the lack thereof just increases the stakes of this argument to include intelligent life. Although, I specifically formulated this argument to not depend on those things which we cannot detect at the moment.)
Ok Harvey, show me all of the calculations you used to 'prove' this, and the explanations behind the calculations. I'm going to just chalk this up to an argument from incredulity/ignorance until you do so. The simple fact of the matter is that you don't have anywhere near the data necessary to do such a calculation, and your claims here aren't consistent with the claims of others who have attempted to analyze such probabilities. People who attempt to calculate such probabilities get results that are all over the place. For you to claim that your assessment on this matter is fact is just blowing smoke.
Quote: 6. Either the universe is completely filled with blind causes (atheism), or it contains some intentional causes (theism, deism, pantheism). Atheists are being closed minded by rejecting the latter. To ask for evidence to support the latter, while having no evidence to accept the former (or at least, not willing to usually cite this evidence), is being extremely irresponsible in one's epistemic stance.
This is silly. Do you consider an earthquake to be a blind cause? How about solar radiation? Show me evidence that solar radiation isn't a blind cause. It looks like you are just begging the question for theism/deism/pantheism. There is lots of reason to think that solar radiation occurs as the result of blind causes, unless you think that you can show that the sun has intentionality. The fact that the sun is scientifically understood to work in a deterministic way gives every reason to thing that it is a blind cause.
It's a simple fact that the only things which consistently demonstrate 'intentionality' have physical brains, and there is every reason to believe that that intentionality is dependent on the operation of those physical brains.
Quote: Hence, even by the flip of a coin, the most one can be is an agnostic if they are unwilling to put up evidence to counter pantheism (which I cite since it can skirt the problem of evil -- which a lazy atheist will sometimes cite as their argument for the non-existence of God). Thus, unless atheists can provide an argument for their atheism, we are justified in believing in theism, pantheism, deism; or, in the worst case, we ought to settle for agnosticism.
Pantheism is unfalsifiable, so it is simply a waste of time to put up evidence to counter it. Unless you wish to provide a criteria for falsifying pantheism, why should I waste time providing evidence. So far you haven't provided any good reason for me to assume some sort of metaphysical consciousness is a necessity, or even that some sort of metaphysical consciousness is a possibility.
Most fundamentally I am an agnostic, though I consider the probability of some sort of God existing to be very low. There wouldn't be any reason for me to refer to myself as an atheist if all theists became agnostics.
That's all I have time for now. I'll get to the rest later.
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman |
| Loading... | |
parklife
Registered: 04/17/08
Posts: 643
|
| | 08/06/09 at 05:43 PM | Reply with quote | #8 |
|
Quote: That's all I have time for now.
That's because you waste far too much time on a litany of baseless assertions.
__________________
I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie. |
| Loading... | |
traffer
Registered: 08/06/09
Posts: 5
|
| | 08/06/09 at 05:53 PM | Reply with quote | #9 |
|
Every Christian should have their own answer ready for you.
From 1 Peter 3:15 "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you"
The reason within will be quite different depending on the believer. Whether the reasons for their personal belief or their presentation style are compelling to you is another story.
Think about sitting back in one of your high school classes. Not this, but any subject. How many of the people in any given class would you have listened to where any story they had could have had considerable consequences to the way you lived your life? Okay, now take away any of those people who wouldn't have actually talked to you or those who simply wouldn't have convinced you.
Not only do they have to answer the question, they have to present it to you in a way which you find acceptable, with facts you find compelling, which fits in with your worldview at least somewhat while catching you with perfect timing. And if the message doesn't come out that way, we are ready to dismiss immediately even if our head keeps nodding out of politeness.
And of course, Christians are just people - smart, dumb, boring, fun. That part hasn't changed.
I'm curious. What kinds of laws or societal pressures are you as a non-Christian feeling from Christians? I haven't lived in the US for almost 20 years. The only problem I can remember was one county in Michigan which went dry on Sundays.
|
| Loading... | |
harvey1
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 3,598
|
| | 08/06/09 at 05:56 PM | Reply with quote | #10 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by parklife
That's because you waste far too much time on a litany of baseless assertions I'm still waiting for a serious reply from you. Until you can force me into contradiction as the Molinists are forced into contradiction by their arguments, then I see no reason why I shouldn't continue to post these arguments. |
| Loading... | |
wonderer
Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,835
|
| | 08/06/09 at 06:08 PM | Reply with quote | #11 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by parklifeQuote: That's all I have time for now.
That's because you waste far too much time on a litany of baseless assertions.
"Waste" is a subjective matter of course. 
It serves a purpose in line with my values, because I don't like feeling like I've given up on people.
What to a farmer is waste, to a dung beetle is bounty.
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman |
| Loading... | |
gtbarron
Registered: 06/16/09
Posts: 43
|
| | 08/06/09 at 07:08 PM | Reply with quote | #12 |
|
| Why don't we consider the OP's actual question rather than launching into the debate about God's existence which has forums specifically for that purpose?
First, the OP will need to clarify and defend a few things. Here is how he framed his question:
Quote: My question is: Exactly why should Christians not provide proof for this elusive God if they insist the rest of us believe on him???
The OP wants to know why don't Christians have to prove God exists if they insist that everyone else believe in God. The OP will have to prove that Christians as a group INSIST that everyone believe in God before the question is valid.
He will not be able to do that, so his question is moot.
He adds:
Quote: OR if they insist laws be made in favour of their beliefs in this God and that the rest of us "respect" their beliefs in this "God"???
This question doesn't really make sense because it is framed in relation to how laws are made, presumably in the US. As far as I can tell, no one has to prove anything when it comes to passing laws. All that is required is a vote and sometimes a decision by the Supreme Court. So why should Christians be held to a standard that no one else is held to? Of course they shouldn't be and aren't, so this question is also meaningless.
So if the OP would like a decent answer to whatever is puzzling him, he will need to frame his questions a little better. We can speculate on what he means but that would lead to assumptions that might be false. So until he clarifies things there isn't much left to say.
I am curious about his statement:
Quote: I realize the poster is from Canada where Christians have not yet taken quite so ridiculous a stand as in the American South
I live in the American South and always have. I am unaware of any "ridiculous stand". I am painfully aware of the lack of any appreciable stand at all by Southern Christians and I'd be quite proud to hear of any stands that the secular public might consider "ridiculous". Maybe the OP can be more specific?
|
| Loading... | |
billclute
Registered: 12/12/07
Posts: 1,941
|
| | 08/07/09 at 07:20 AM | Reply with quote | #13 |
|
Quote: Why don't we consider the OP's actual question
It's because those of us that have been in this forum for quite a while are all too familiar with this posters motivation and behavior.
Quote: Here is how he framed his question
He's a she.
__________________
"You can't be my boss! Nobody's my boss! I'm my own boss! I created myself!" - White Goodman
|
| Loading... | |
etiainen
Registered: 07/15/08
Posts: 531
|
| | 08/07/09 at 10:50 AM | Reply with quote | #14 |
|
man I love rs, I just wish she'd allow herself a little laugh here and there (at something that's not the supposed idiocy of theists :-D) |
| Loading... | |
gtbarron
Registered: 06/16/09
Posts: 43
|
| | 08/07/09 at 11:48 AM | Reply with quote | #15 |
|
Quote: It's because those of us that have been in this forum for quite a while are all too familiar with this posters motivation and behavior.
Oh, sorry about that. Does that mean discussing her actual questions is off limits? I didn't know.
How embarrassing. |
| Loading... | |
