| Welcome to The Snipers Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, voting in polls, and introducing yourself to our entire community. Registration is simple and fast! Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Question for Atheists | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:54 pm (1,925 Views) | |
| DeMuRe | Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:26 am Post #41 |
|
Level 25
|
Looked it up and started reading up on it, and it is pretty interesting. Looked around some more and found random videos about it like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyHQBrhE5Ys |
![]() |
|
| Tonic | Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:32 am Post #42 |
|
The Mambo King
|
Also, about KNOWING that God exists and SHOWING it through your faith...that's about as empty a claim you can make. You can "know" whatever you want, but unless you can "show" that what you "know" is true, then it needs to be in a way that' actually proves something. If you're postulating that God exists through virtue of faith, which is in itself the belief of something that's not based on proof, then that's cleaning windows with a dirty towel. Or taking the temperature of something with a broken thermometer. You're not making anything clearer. |
![]() |
|
| Tonic | Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:43 am Post #43 |
|
The Mambo King
|
He starts quoting Dawkins out of context (I have the book) after a while, which kind of reduces his credibility. Also, his video is full of equivocations. Pay attention to his quantification of Dawkin's argument with the use of variables. To be more specific, he claims that Dawkins states that his argument proves that God doesn't exist. Negative. Intelligent Design claims that the complexity of life is evident of design. All Dawkins is doing is claiming that the theory from design is false, which is exactly what his argument shows. And also, the video assumes that God exists, which is not proven, and interchanges the variable A with God (not proven to exist) with energy/matter (already proven to exist. Doesn't work. Edited by Tonic, Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:50 am.
|
![]() |
|
| DeMuRe | Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:48 am Post #44 |
|
Level 25
|
Ah, yeah, I didn't bother to verify the quotes or check to see if he was quoting out of context, so I guess I'll read up on that in a bit. Not agreeing or disagreeing with the video, just posting random things I find... which I suppose is kind of wasteful and I should probably stop. :X |
![]() |
|
| Tonic | Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:50 am Post #45 |
|
The Mambo King
|
To be more specific, he claims that Dawkins states that his argument proves that God doesn't exist. Negative. Intelligent Design claims that the complexity of life is evident of design. All Dawkins is doing is claiming that the theory from design is false, which is exactly what his argument shows. And also, the video assumes that God exists, which is not proven, and interchanges the variable A with God (not proven to exist) with energy/matter (already proven to exist. Doesn't work. |
![]() |
|
| FaZ- | Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:14 am Post #46 |
|
Level 39
|
Asking "Is religion a good explanation for the world?" obviously depends on your interpretation and understanding. Some say no, and thus conclude that there is no God. Religion is not God, and by making such a conclusion you've had a logical failing, as have so many Atheists I'm familiar with. The false dichotomy is one that you already pointed out. What about Agnostics or Deists? Where do they fit in? Ignostics? If you define God as a creator of the Universe, as you've done, you have labeled Deists as theists, but you have absolutely no logical or empirical backing. Science has made approximately zero progress towards explaining the origin of the universe. If you conclude that there is no God because of the lack of evidence for him, you're making an argument from ignorance. Again, the Judeo-Christian (or any other) view is not God. If you somehow prove Judaism and Christianity to be false, you haven't made even the slightest step towards disproving the existence of God. As for your reference to other hypothetical/supernatural beings, the same is true for them. The difference, obviously, is in ancient texts. Whether they are reliable or not is obviously disputable, but the faith of every religious person I'm familiar with rests strongly in the infallibility of such texts. These texts are logically irrelevant to the existence of a God, and yet people call themselves Atheists because they don't believe them to be true. |
![]() |
|
| Tonic | Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:10 pm Post #47 |
|
The Mambo King
|
You're forcing more alternatives by treating different variations of religion and non-religion as fundamentally different things. Deists, Theists, or whatever you care you name are different interpretations of one underlying concept: the existence of a supernatural being as the definitive explanation of our universe. Atheists believe that our universe needs not such an explanation, one conveniently grounded outside of the realm of science and reason and inherently unfalsifiable. We can sit here an argue semantics, but I simply think you're stretching because you have nothing to work with other than linguistic technicalities. Which is understandable, considering there is and will never be any tangible evidence you can contribute to a discussion. The fact that you bring up agnostics shows your desperation. Agnosticism is a non-stance. They believe that there will never be adequate evidence to prove or disprove God, which is essentially the stance you're taking. However, this has absolutely no bearing on the truth value of the issue at hand, which is whether God exists or not. Deists are in the believer camp, but they have different ideas as to God's motives and purpose. Ignostics believe in a God, but believe too much is assumed on his part. Whatever. To quote Wiki on Agnosticism: "though it is not a religious declaration in itself and the terms are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism refers to knowledge, while atheism and theism refer to belief." Let me paint you a simple analogy to illustrate my point. There is a black box on a table. Atheists, Deists, Agnostics, and Theists (to use your examples) gather around to ascertain the contents of the box. They cannot open it. Atheists don't believe the box contains anything, because there is no evidence to show that something resides in the box. The Agnostic doesn't want to believe anything, since there is no way to open the box. Both the Theist and Deist believe something is in the box. However, the Theist believes there's an apple in the box, while the Deist has faith that there is a pear in the box. Both believe that there IS something in the box. Superficially different beliefs, fundamentally similar. That was a purposely oversimple analogy which I only use to show that essentially there really are only two alternatives. There are many different apples in this world, red, yellow, green, pink. But they are all apples. Now you make a weighty claim as to religion not being God, so I think it's imperative that I define what I mean by "God". I'm using God in the sense of there being a divine being who created the universe as we know it. This is where the competing beliefs diverge, the theists believing that this divine being continued and shaped our reality and is ever present in the affairs of humanity (a personal God), and the deist believing that after creating the universe, God left it its own devices and happenings. At the root of both of these beliefs, however, is a Creator, a Designer. And that's who I'm referring to as God. Now it's your turn to elaborate what you mean by Religion is not God. If you're going to argue for the existence of something, then it's required of you to be more specific. I don't see how arguing for the general truth of religion is acceptable. Admittedly, Deism is probably the most initially convincing ism based around the belief in an ultimate creator, but it is quite useless, even more than the other beliefs, as an explanation. And explanation is what we are ultimately seeking.
You're using evidence in terms of God, who believers insist lies outside of the spectrum of evidence and reason. Therefore, "God" has absolutely no explanatory value for the answers we are seeking, which absolutely do lie within the spectrum of evidence and reason. Invoking God for answers to problems which we do not yet have an answer for has been popular since the dawn of religion itself. As the problems for which we have no answer grow narrower, so does the use of God as an explanation. Problems which were once attributed to God, or whatever supernatural being to believe in, are now know to have explanations within the natural realm. The last crevice of human ignorance from which God cannot yet be ruled out is the origin of existence. Atheists don't believe that this too was the work of "God", but of natural intrinsic forces of the universe. Now you can say that these natural intrinsic forces are God himself, which would actually be similar to Einstein's view of God, but that's not the God being argued for or against in this case. And it's puzzling to me how you can say atheism is an argument from ignorance, yet not see the similar and more troublesome implications of this for religion itself. Therefore, God or a similar being must be responsible, right? And this isn't even technically true, for there are theories which are supported by at least some evidence. but I'll leave that for another time.
You're not making yourself clear. You're saying the difference between my hypothetical beings and the being present in mainstream religions is the belief in the infallibility of ancient texts, yet you postulate that this is irrelevant to the existence of God. Then what is relevant, might I ask? if not the texts, then what separates "God" with the spaghetti monster? I can easily see a spaghetti monster enthusiast writing a holy book for his own deity. What then would the difference be? Edited by Tonic, Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:19 pm.
|
![]() |
|
| Pew | Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:27 pm Post #48 |
|
Level 4
|
Move this to serious discussion. |
![]() |
|
| FaZ- | Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:34 pm Post #49 |
|
Level 39
|
Let me frame my argument in another way using your analogy. Fundamentally, what would an intelligent scientific conclude is in the box? As Richard Dawkins so often says, and astonishes me every time by saying so and yet remaining an atheist: "We don't yet know." How then are you possibly going to logically conclude that the box is empty? Doing so is equally as foolish as assuming that there is an apple in the box. Maybe there were other boxes called Creationism or Geocentrism that did turn out to be (probably) empty, so must this one box, "God," be as well? To decide such is a complete and utter failure of logic, because while there is no evidence that the box does have an apple in it except maybe a paper next to it that says it does, there is also no evidence that the box is empty. It puzzles me that so many prominent figures are intellectual atheists and yet I've never seen one encounter this argument, probably because the majority of opposition comes from those who don't understand the scientific method. You may be seeking an answer, but assuming your hypothesis to be true before you have evidence for it is foolish. All I've ever seen from atheists are various disproofs of religion. While interesting, they are also completely irrelevant to proving their stance, "God does not exist." To quote the wiki on "Argument from ignorance": "Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven." False. Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for the Judeo-Christian God, God does not exist. Still false. To counter rAmen : I don't know that there isn't a spaghetti monster. I also don't know that there is. Why would I presume to make an assumption without evidence? That would be blatantly unscientific. Edited by FaZ-, Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:42 pm.
|
![]() |
|
| Tonic | Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:18 pm Post #50 |
|
The Mambo King
|
I'll take the fact that you're only responding to portions of my post as a concession of argument. I don't see a response to my statement as to why the existence of deism, theism, and agnosticism do not invalidate my use of a dichotomy. This seemed to be an important concept in your first two posts that you just seem to drop altogether. You also don't elaborate on your statement, "Religion is not God". Considering that you're assigning this to be a categoric logical flaw among Atheists, then it's important that you clarify. Because as I pointed out, the base concept of religion is indeed what I term as "God". I didn't specifically mention the Judeo-Christian God, which you have invoked several times as if it was a standard to which all atheists compare the concept of God. Similarly, you don't answer my charge that you're claim that atheism is argument from ignorance doesn't similarly apply to religion. Nor do you respond to my question of how the religious texts don't have relevance to the existence of God, when you stated that the crucial difference between a silly monster and God was in fact these texts. If the "infallibility" of these texts serves as the foundation of the belief among the religious, then why wouldn't they be relevant to the existence of God? Now, if you want to say say that the ancient texts have no bearing on the existence of God, then you cannot use them in justifying the belief of one possible deity over another. Now, as for your actual post: What you're doing in the first paragraph is assuming two concepts are analogous when they are in fact, not. I made that analogy to demonstrate that while there might be competing views, there are only two possible outcomes, regardless of the amount of viewpoints existing. I did not intend for the analogy to be applied in the sense that you applied it, but I guess I should expect as much. For the analogy to hold, it must be altered. In that analogy, there is a box visible by all, and the question is merely whether there is anything inside. This is not the case for a God, since there is no box to be guessed about. In actuality, we are searching for answers as to the cause or origins of something, which is in a general sense the universe, and in a more relevant sense, life. Now, a more appropriate analogy would be us waking one morning to discover a tree had fallen in our backyard. The theist postulates that a hovering giant came during the night and felled the tree. An atheist would not accept such an explanation, and search for a more plausible one. At this point we have not yet found the true cause, but let's say that at this point we have observed split branches on neighboring trees. Now we are pushed towards an explanation that isn't inherently preclusive of an inability to investigate. While the atheist is not conclusively deciding that the giant did not fell the tree, they are concluding that a giant is not a satisfactory answer, and that there are better explanations to explain the fallen tree. You seem to be asking why the giant, or God, isn't included in the atheist mind as possible causers of the incident, and that's because there is no evidence to support that conclusion. Like I said before, if we were to stumble upon evidence indicating a giant, then we would drop our other theories and accept that conclusion. Now, you're mishandling Dawkin's answer of, "We don't yet know" to bolster your own argument when in fact his answer is very much in line which an atheist viewpoint. He's not concluding that any box is empty, since that is an erroneous analogy to begin with, but that we don't the answer to certain questions. He acknowledges, as most intelligent atheists do, that we don't yet have all the answers. Due to the nature of atheism, we cannot make any claims unless we have evidence for the claims. To use his own favorite comparison, evolution is a theory for the question of the complexity and variation of life supported by considerable amounts of evidence. God would be another theory of the answer to this question, but there is NO evidence supporting it. We're not saying with absolute confidence that God doesn't exist, which is what you seem to think atheism is, but that the available evidence favors evolution as the cause. Where Dawkins answer of "We don't know yet" comes in is in the question "How did life begin?" We have formulated theories that attempt to explain, but we really don't know yet. That doesn't mean we can attribute it to God and call it a day. We can gather evidence and continue testing theories. For a theory to be considered, it has to meet the falsification requirement. Evolution meets this requirement, as do the theories of the origin of life. God does not meet this requirement. So therefore, while we don't pretend to know with absolute confidence that God does not exist, we cannot accept God as a valid explanation to a question since it cannot be proven or disproven. THAT is Atheism.
Both of your claims are indeed both false, but unfortunately have no relevance to atheism. Let me restate it to make it true: "Because there is a lack of evidence for one hypothesis (God), which is by nature untestable and unknowable, then that hypothesis cannot be held true until evidence is found." See the distinction? You're creating the argument from ignorance, not us. Without evidence, we don't accept that hypothesis as a valid conclusion. We're not holding any other theory as true until there is evidence.
So judging by this statement you're definitely agnostic. Because it should be painfully clear to you were you religious that the one making assumptions is you. Assuming God exists, without any evidence. This is different from saying I don't acknowledge his existence because I have no evidence. At its simplest, this is the argument: An atheist is saying, "I don't believe the tooth fairy leaves money under my pillow because there's no evidence to show that yet."(not saying it's not true). The theist is saying, "I believe the tooth fairy leaves money under my pillow, even if I can't prove it." Edited by Tonic, Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:22 pm.
|
![]() |
|
| SOLAR | Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:56 pm Post #51 |
|
Level 9
|
Firsly, the year is simply a convenient way of keeping track of things. Also, Jesus did not die during the year 0 anyways, even christian historians have discovered it to be several years after. Another things is a lot of atheists do believe in jesus, but not that he had any supernatural powers, or that he came back from the dead. Next, the pledge of allegiance did not even have the words "under god" in it until the middle of the 20th century. It was added during the red scare. Next, there is no faith involved in atheism. An atheist doesn't need any faith to say "I don't believe that the superstitious iron age ignoramuses rolling around in the dirt shrieking prophecy know more about the universe than me" |
![]() |
|
| Relieve | Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:11 pm Post #52 |
|
SoniC
|
Our founding fathers were not religious. They had no intention of making the country under religious rule. |
![]() |
|
| Princess | Mon Oct 12, 2009 2:55 am Post #53 |
|
Banned
|
If this is the most hardball question you can ask when deciding the existance of God, you must fall under the not-so-smart category of Atheists. |
![]() |
|
| FaZ- | Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:34 pm Post #54 |
|
Level 39
|
I watched a debate the other day between the Reverend Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens, and I saw the same argument that I've been using in this thread from Sharpton. Christopher Hitchens does a brilliant job of explaining how religion is misused/likely false, but is rebuked by the obvious argument that disproving any or even all religions gets you no closer to disproving the existence of God. Also, Christopher Hitchens conceded both Deism and (in another debate) Agnosticism as viable, which is basically the point that I've made. I'm not going to address your massive argument because I don't really feel like spending an hour doing so. You can take that as a victory if you like, but considering probably the best Atheist mind in the world already accepted my point of a false dichotomy as valid, I don't really think I have to. I do suggest watching the debate, both are very good speakers and the arguments from Reverend Sharpton are not what one would expect. It is pretty long, though. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=891776135764757633# |
![]() |
|
| Tonic | Mon Oct 12, 2009 2:06 pm Post #55 |
|
The Mambo King
|
Since I'm quite familiar with Christopher Hitchens, I'm inclined to belive that you're either deliberately or unintentionally misinterpretating his argument and/or his conclusions, but I'll check that debate later. To be honest, your viewpoint isn't a viewpoint at all. It's the absence of a viewpoint, which is what many people, relgious and irreligious alike, find unpalatable. "but is rebuked by the obvious argument that disproving any or even all religions gets you no closer to disproving the existence of God." Nobody is trying to disprove the existence of God since God is inherently unfalsifiable. I've said numerous times that this is not what is being debated, nor the intention of atheists anywhere. You've tossed this strawman around one too many times already. Also, Deism is viable insofar as to explain the origin of the universe, but the main area of contention is the origin and development of life. In that respect, it is irrelevant, as is agnosticism. |
![]() |
|
| FaZ- | Mon Oct 12, 2009 2:59 pm Post #56 |
|
Level 39
|
In either of those areas: Atheism is fully irrelevant because it doesn't even posit an explanation.The main area of contention to this discussion to me is "does God exist?" I think the point I have a problem with is that I consider Atheism to be saying "God does not exist" and apparently that's not what you do.
My viewpoint is the simple truth: we don't know if God exists, and it doesn't really matter whether he does or not because we can't prove it to anyone. You can have faith that God exists or you can have faith that he does not exist, but you're not going to get anywhere with that claim logically. Edited by FaZ-, Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:07 pm.
|
![]() |
|
| Tonic | Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:38 pm Post #57 |
|
The Mambo King
|
"In either of those areas: Atheism is fully irrelevant because it doesn't even posit an explanation.The main area of contention to this discussion to me is "does God exist?" Atheism isn't a stand-alone belief. Atheists point to evidence for explanations that don't involve a supernatural being, such as the big bang theory or evolution. They do not pursue direct evidence for the nonexistence of God. That would be an exercise in futility. This is even the way an average person with common sense works, much less elite academics and our society in general. If you have (incomplete perhaps) evidence that points towards one conclusion, such as tracks near your overturned trash bins, then it's logical to conclude that an animal was the purpetrator, even if it can't be proved directly. You can prove or disprove that a racoon did it by comparing the tracks to a racoon's, but you can't prove or disprove that a 60 foot beaver with small racoon feet didn't do it. God falls under the 60 foot beaver category, which are things that cannot be proven false, and which is why atheists don't believe in God any more than they believe in a flying garbage monster. "My viewpoint is the simple truth: we don't know if God exists, and it doesn't really matter whether he does or not because we can't prove it to anyone." Your viewpoint can be extended to include anything imaginable, from mythical cyclops to mermaids to dragons. I don't see an applicability of this viewpoint that would be practical or beneficial to society. You should take issue with the people who invoke something unfalsifiable to explain things. Do atheists do that? What exactly does agnosticism advocate? Don't belive in God, but don't disbelieve in God since you can't prove/disprove God? What are the advantages of this viewpoint, other than being neutral and not having to work to support any conclusion? Also, why does the question "Does God exist?" carry any more signifance with agnostics than "Does the chupacabra exist?" or similar questions, since all cannot be proven or disproven? |
![]() |
|
| FaZ- | Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:55 pm Post #58 |
|
Level 39
|
"Atheism isn't a stand-alone belief." Neither is theism? Or agnosticism? "What exactly does agnosticism advocate?" I can't be wrong. You can be. There's a pretty obvious advantage. I think it's pretty stupid to try to spread or even to hold a view that you're not sure is right. Is it likely, yes. That's not the point. Agnosticism encourages open-mindedness and research, leading (theoretically) to a more knowledgeable and well-informed society. Atheism on the other hand is a direct cause of closed-mindedness because of their "you're with us or you're against us" attitude. I've yet to encounter any atheist who doesn't automatically treat theists with disdain for that simple belief. Do you really think that's the best way to have someone abandon something they value? I'd like to think reason will win in the end, but it seems pretty damned obvious to me that most atheists aren't helping. Your struggle is a blind one and will never lead anywhere or convert anyone. Attacking people's theories does work well to convince them to see things your way, and that's all atheists ever try to do. Are the attacks warranted? Yes, absolutely, but again: that's not the damned point. I think you need to stop seeing agnosticism less as my religious stance and more as my societal one; it should be very evident why I favor agnosticism over atheism, even though we share many of the same values. "Also, why does the question "Does God exist?" carry any more signifance with agnostics than "Does the chupacabra exist?" or similar questions, since all cannot be proven or disproven?" People believe in God. People don't believe in the chupacabra. Let me turn the question back to you. If I ask you can the speed of light be broken, you're essentially required to say no. The theories that support breaking the speed of light are chastised probably more than religion in the scientific community, and little to no evidence points to it being possible. Similarly, how do you think an atheistic scientific community would have responded to it being possible to put someone on the moon 100 years ago? As the magic 8-ball says: "All signs point to no." TLDR: Atheism stalls societal intellectual progress. |
![]() |
|
| Tonic | Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:05 pm Post #59 |
|
The Mambo King
|
If your position can't be wrong, then it's not a position at all. It's a lack of position.
Exactly what research directly results from agnosticism. I'd be interested to hear.
There are your own personal conjectures and they are irrelevant to the what atheists actually represent. Having said that, I don't treat anyone with disdain, and it's sad that your view of atheism is so narrow. If any disdain at all is shown towards religion, it's because of the pseudoscience and the deliberate distortion of scientific knowledge that many religious authorities and followers use in order to discredit the scientific methodology.
You're a one trick pony FaZ-. What exactly is my struggle, and who exactly am I trying to convert? Atheism is not a religion to convert to. I've yet to meet the equivalent of Jehovah's witness for Atheism. Atheists simply disbelieve that a supernatural being is responsible for natural phenomena in our world. Atheists look for alternative explanations. It's really that simple.
Argumentum ad populum my friend. "Well, people believe in God." You're saying that because many people believe something, then it's possibly true? How many children believe in Santa Claus? In the tooth fairy? In Krishna? How many people believed in Zeus? Thor? Hades? Apollo? What is the minimum number of people needed to believe in something in order for it to begin its existence as "possibly true"? This is a silly argument.
Weak...your analogy is facetious. All of the things you mention lie inside the natural world. You're inquiring whether one known entity (us) can travel to another known entity (the moon). The problem in question is the means of travel. 100 years ago, it really was impossible to travel to the moon, given our current technology at the time. The ability for men to travel to the moon did not exist. It came into existence later as the corresponding technology was developed. How does God fit into this analogy of yours? "Does the technology exist to travel to the moon?" would be equivalent with "Does God exist"? The answer to the former would be no at the time of the scientists. "Will the technology exist?" is a valid question, but can you ask, "Will God exist?" No, the two scenarios are not equivalent. You can ask "Will we have the technology to prove the existence of God?", but that's taking for granted that God exists. It would be exactly like asking "Will we have the technology to prove the shoebox demon exists?" It's facetious analogy. Proving or disproving that something that possibly does or doesn't exist? Are we ever going to prove or disprove the existence of a magical dragon or a a giant spaghetti monster? Is is illogical of us to conclude that these things don't exist? At least at this moment in time? Ask any atheist and they'll tell you that if evidence of God were to present itself, then they would immediately believe. If God one day were to say "I exist", then everyone would acknowledge his existence. Similarly, if a magical flying dragon were captured, then everyone would acknowledge their existence as well. The point is, why believe in something that is unfalsifiable and that hasn't been shown evidence for? We cannot completely disprove the existence of anything, which is what you're resting your argument on, and in that sense you're right. We cannot disprove the existence of God. Nor anything other mythical creature you care to name. If you would have asked the question, "Does a giant invisible portal exist that takes you to the center of the Earth instantaneously exist?", then it might be a more accurate analogy. Edited by Tonic, Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm.
|
![]() |
|
| FaZ- | Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:33 pm Post #60 |
|
Level 39
|
You aren't even remotely getting the point, and you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Congrats, you win. Feel better now? You can re-read my last post, I pretty much already countered everything you said. PS:
You don't get out much. I'm sorry I can't find a reputable source that says that atheists try to convert you, so you can pretend that it's not the truth as if this is a formal debate, sure. Edited by FaZ-, Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:34 pm.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Serious Discussions · Next Topic » |







3:06 PM Jul 11