Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Do you believe there is a God?

profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
Do you believe in God? Do you believe there is one God, or many gods? Or no God at all.. Are we alone on earth?


If there is no God then everything is relative, which means morality is relative. If you don't believe in God then where do you gain your sense of right and wrong? From laws and rules created by the GOVERNMENT?


I want interesting discussion, but preferably no one getting mad and offended. I won't get offended if you won't.
POLL
Edit Poll
Votes:

Take care when editing a poll; Options should be similar to maintain vote integrity.

More options will be added automatically as you type. You must supply a question and at least two options. No HTML is allowed.

Jan 15 2015 10:07AM
1712 1038
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
.frenchytrolling is joking around to get a rise out of people.


I must be the ultimate troll then because I am actually serious







....or am I
Feb 2 2015 9:38PM
1 2
profile picture
SupremeDeity
Posts: 695 - Karma: 1,112
milk_manI must be the ultimate troll then because I am actually serious







....or am I


I'm starting to believe that it's mentally impossible to be as stupid as you are and that you're just a really good troll. In which case I applaud you. And if you're really this dumb I suppose Social Darwinism will eventually take care of you...
Feb 2 2015 9:43PM
0 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
SupremeDeityI'm starting to believe that it's mentally impossible to be as stupid as you are and that you're just a really good troll. In which case I applaud you. And if you're really this dumb I suppose Social Darwinism will eventually take care of you...


Anyone who thinks you can actually know a person over a thread on Newschoolers is a lot stupider than me.
Feb 2 2015 10:10PM
2 5
profile picture
Byron_tha_gr8
Posts: 4573 - Karma: 14,299
milk_manI believe in "Micro evolution" ... Because we can observe it happening...



In micro evolution the DNA of the organism isn't changing... In macro it is..


lol what pseudoscience website did you memorize this from.
Feb 3 2015 7:45AM
4 1
profile picture
saskskier
Posts: 4774 - Karma: 10,005
las.And you wonder why you're getting laughed at. You're essentially saying that verifiable scientific fact, which is supported by pretty much the entire scientific community, is wrong, and the real explanation for our existence is a magical wizard who lives in the sky, of whom we have absolutey no evidence of. It's pure, unadulterated insanity. You are deranged, and if you weren't making such claims under the protection and get-out-of-jail card of religion, you'd be thrown in the loony bin


I don't think any religious people (Christian or otherwise) have any misgivings about what their beliefs look like to those around them. If people are looking to impress others, becoming religious is not the way to do it.

These threads are the worst because it just turns into a barrage of personal attacks on what others may or may not believe. There are really only a two conclusions that are ever reached:

1. Christians (or other religious people) don't have any proof God exists, don't have great science, but don't care and continue believing

2. Atheists have better science, but don't have any proof God doesn't exist, but seem to care very deeply about what religious people believe
Feb 3 2015 10:52AM
0 0
profile picture
Utard
Posts: 2132 - Karma: 305
saskskier2. Atheists have better science, but don't have any proof God doesn't exist, but seem to care very deeply about what religious people believe


You're the one who started this thread fucking asking people what they believe. Don't be a whiny bitch boy when people make fun of you and your kind for having a secret imaginary friend. You brought this on yourself.
Feb 3 2015 12:29PM
1 1
profile picture
saskskier
Posts: 4774 - Karma: 10,005
UtardYou're the one who started this thread fucking asking people what they believe. Don't be a whiny bitch boy when people make fun of you and your kind for having a secret imaginary friend. You brought this on yourself.


Where did you get the idea that I started this thread?
Feb 3 2015 12:42PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
saskskierI don't think any religious people (Christian or otherwise) have any misgivings about what their beliefs look like to those around them. If people are looking to impress others, becoming religious is not the way to do it.

These threads are the worst because it just turns into a barrage of personal attacks on what others may or may not believe. There are really only a two conclusions that are ever reached:

1. Christians (or other religious people) don't have any proof God exists, don't have great science, but don't care and continue believing

2. Atheists have better science, but don't have any proof God doesn't exist, but seem to care very deeply about what religious people believe

Sweet fallacy, because we can't prove it doesn't exist therefore its a 50 50 shot. I can't prove dragons don't exist I can't prove fairies don't exist. therefore people can believe in those things and I should not be insensitive towards it. also op stop ignoring my posts.
Feb 3 2015 1:09PM
2 1
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
Why does the "you can't prove there's no God" thing even keep coming up? Are people just totally unaware of Russel's Teapot? This is basic.

The most annoying thing about this thread, this debate, and all similar debates that have preceded it, is that most of the arguments have already been dealt with in conclusive fashion REPEATEDLY, and if you deleted this thread and started it over again in a month, they'd just be brought up again.

If someone explains why X is wrong, and people keep repeating X over and over again anyway, what's the point of a discussion?
Feb 3 2015 1:18PM
4 1
profile picture
*DUMBCAN*
Posts: 2447 - Karma: 5,628
^ (JD's post, I forgot to quote)

It's effectively Russell's teapot vs Pascals wager.

Russell's teapot (RT) states that their is a teapot orbiting the sun, and it's true because how are you going to disprove it.

Pascals wager (PW) [effectively] states that you should believe in God because if he does exist you go to heaven, and if he doesn't little is lost.


Everyone will have a different response to those two statements. I agree with RT, but not with PW mainly because I think lots is lost if I believe in a God. The time taken to please a spiritual being is worth more than the benefits that would be gained if God exists multiplied by the probability that he does. I know people who enjoy worship, there are many reasons why one would, and to them Pascals Wager holds greater meaning.
Feb 3 2015 1:28PM
2 2
profile picture
saskskier
Posts: 4774 - Karma: 10,005
zzzskizzzSweet fallacy, because we can't prove it doesn't exist therefore its a 50 50 shot. I can't prove dragons don't exist I can't prove fairies don't exist. therefore people can believe in those things and I should not be insensitive towards it. also op stop ignoring my posts.


J.D.Why does the "you can't prove there's no God" thing even keep coming up? Are people just totally unaware of Russel's Teapot? This is basic.

The most annoying thing about this thread, this debate, and all similar debates that have preceded it, is that most of the arguments have already been dealt with in conclusive fashion REPEATEDLY, and if you deleted this thread and started it over again in a month, they'd just be brought up again.

If someone explains why X is wrong, and people keep repeating X over and over again anyway, what's the point of a discussion?


My observation was poorly worded. It wasn't intended to be an argument one way or another.

1. Christians (or other religious folk) will continue believing in a God or other deity(s) regardless of what evidence is presented to them. For the most part they recognize this is ridiculous and illogical, but don't care.

2. Atheists will continue to point out the ridiculousness of said believers faith
Feb 3 2015 1:49PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
*DUMBCAN*^ (JD's post, I forgot to quote)

It's effectively Russell's teapot vs Pascals wager.

Russell's teapot (RT) states that their is a teapot orbiting the sun, and it's true because how are you going to disprove it.

Pascals wager (PW) [effectively] states that you should believe in God because if he does exist you go to heaven, and if he doesn't little is lost.


Everyone will have a different response to those two statements. I agree with RT, but not with PW mainly because I think lots is lost if I believe in a God. The time taken to please a spiritual being is worth more than the benefits that would be gained if God exists multiplied by the probability that he does. I know people who enjoy worship, there are many reasons why one would, and to them Pascals Wager holds greater meaning.

I completely disagree with this.

I don't think many, if any, serious religious people hold their beliefs in God for purely pragmatic reasons. That suggests that their beliefs aren't honestly, held and they're just professing something because it gives them some advantage later. In essence, fawning fear-based subservience rather than actual faith or reverence. It's religious hucksterism. Say what you will about the beliefs of the religious, but at least give them enough credit to say that unless you have some good reason to think otherwise, they hold those beliefs honestly.

It's been quite elegantly said that any God worth believing in would prefer honest disbelief, to dishonest belief.
Feb 3 2015 1:58PM
4 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
Lord_Byronlol what pseudoscience website did you memorize this from.


lol I don't find my facts on the internet like a lot of you probably do.

UtardYou're the one who started this thread fucking asking people what they believe. Don't be a whiny bitch boy when people make fun of you and your kind for having a secret imaginary friend. You brought this on yourself.


You just made yourself look like an ultimate fool lol. That dude is legit. Don't blame my crappy thread on him
Feb 3 2015 8:08PM
1 2
profile picture
Plankton
Posts: 3226 - Karma: 6,840
I haven't read the rest of this thread but what could you guys possibly be talking about. No, I don't believe in God personally, but I'm not gonna argue it because theres no evidence whatsoever either way
Feb 3 2015 8:30PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
milk_manlol I don't find my facts on the internet like a lot of you probably do.



You just made yourself look like an ultimate fool lol. That dude is legit. Don't blame my crappy thread on him


literally none of your facts you said has been right. You said the earth is millions of years old, and we don't know how long a million actually is. Derrrrp keep ignoring my posts.
Feb 3 2015 11:19PM
1 1
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
zzzskizzzliterally none of your facts you said has been right. You said the earth is millions of years old, and we don't know how long a million actually is. Derrrrp keep ignoring my posts.


I did not say the earth is millions of years old, because I don't believe that
Feb 4 2015 9:24AM
1 1
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
milk_manDon't twist my words. 1 I said we can't wrap our mind around millions of years.


millions of years, did you even bother to learn how old we think the earth actually is?
Feb 4 2015 11:50AM
0 0
profile picture
jibberwookie22
Posts: 102 - Karma: 166
A simple use of the google machine tells me the earth is actually 4.5 billion years old
Feb 4 2015 1:51PM
2 1
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
jibberwookie22A simple use of the google machine tells me the earth is actually 4.5 billion years old


Feb 4 2015 8:52PM
1 1
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
milk_man


What does the counculater of Google have to do with this discussion. Google does not claim that the earth is that old. Scientists who work in laboratories qnd have done experiments claim that it's that old about 4.5ish billion.
Feb 4 2015 10:51PM
0 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
zzzskizzzWhat does the counculater of Google have to do with this discussion. Google does not claim that the earth is that old. Scientists who work in laboratories qnd have done experiments claim that it's that old about 4.5ish billion.


I was just kidding haha


Honestly I'm not very good with biology and earth science and stuff, that's why none of my arguments make sense. I regurgitate a smart persons' argument and jumble it up so that it sadly doesn't make as much sense as it should.
Feb 4 2015 11:05PM
1 5
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
milk_manI was just kidding haha


Honestly I'm not very good with biology and earth science and stuff, that's why none of my arguments make sense. I regurgitate a smart persons' argument and jumble it up so that it sadly doesn't make as much sense as it should.


It actually doesn't make any sense because there is ZERO scientific proof to those claims. I don't know why you don't understand something, yet you blindly believe a certain number that somebody tells you without bothering to learn why. That pretty sad that you don't even see how flawed you're thinking is.
Feb 4 2015 11:20PM
1 1
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
zzzskizzzIt actually doesn't make any sense because there is ZERO scientific proof to those claims.


I wouldn't say that..
Feb 4 2015 11:24PM
1 3
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
milk_manI wouldn't say that..


Well I have a better understanding of all these things you claim not to know, and I am saying that. Your religious proof from one organization that vows to disprove that the earth is no older than 12,000 years or whatever date they think. Is not accepted by any of the scientific community, and Its not an acceptable answer. So thank you for not answering any of my points, leaving an open ended statement, and downvoting my post. Read your last post you said you don't understand it, but one person said somthing smart so therefore you believe him and will not accept any other option. You're 2ND to last response was really sad.
Feb 4 2015 11:56PM
0 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
zzzskizzzand downvoting my post.


I haven't downvoted any posts in this thread. I never downvote. Just have to clarify this
Feb 5 2015 8:49AM
1 3
profile picture
DayMan
Posts: 4704 - Karma: 8,748
milk_manI haven't downvoted any posts in this thread. I never downvote. Just have to clarify this


I downvote most of your posts, because most of them deserve to be downvoted. Just have to clarify that.
Feb 5 2015 9:40AM
4 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
RedPandaI downvote most of your posts, because most of them deserve to be downvoted. Just have to clarify that.


That's cool
Feb 5 2015 9:50AM
1 2
profile picture
.frenchy
Posts: 18221 - Karma: 12,321
RedPandaI downvote most of your posts, because most of them deserve to be downvoted. Just have to clarify that.


just like 98% of the comments in this thread, this was stupid and not needed. why this thread hasn't been deleted is beyond me, maybe because JD thinks he's so wise and has to show off why he's superior to Christians.
Feb 5 2015 12:09PM
3 7
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
milk_manI haven't downvoted any posts in this thread. I never downvote. Just have to clarify this


Nice response to that entire paragraph, you highlighted five words. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and I have no idea how you don't see why you're thinking is wrong. it's pretty embarrassing for you at this point, to even keep posting.
Feb 5 2015 2:03PM
2 2
profile picture
roddy116
Posts: 10627 - Karma: 7,423
zzzskizzzNice response to that entire paragraph, you highlighted five words. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and I have no idea how you don't see why you're thinking is wrong. it's pretty embarrassing for you at this point, to even keep posting.


dude, drop it your not proving anything right or proving anyone wrong. If you want to have an actual intellectual conversation you should try it with someone who actually wants to have an intellectual conversation with you. Which might be hard for you to find at this point because your the great keyboard crusader and whatnot. But honestly no one in your arguments are making either side look smarter, just more obnoxious.
Feb 5 2015 2:56PM
2 3
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
Yeah, I don't get how this thread got to be about science.. I think we can all agree that science can neither prove or disprove that there is a God.
Feb 5 2015 5:12PM
1 3
profile picture
elinde
Posts: 1467 - Karma: 3,052
zzzskizzzWell I have a better understanding of all these things you claim not to know, and I am saying that. Your religious proof from one organization that vows to disprove that the earth is no older than 12,000 years or whatever date they think. Is not accepted by any of the scientific community, and Its not an acceptable answer. So thank you for not answering any of my points, leaving an open ended statement, and downvoting my post. Read your last post you said you don't understand it, but one person said somthing smart so therefore you believe him and will not accept any other option. You're 2ND to last response was really sad.


There are actually a surprising number of prominent creationist scientists. I'm not sure why, but it's true.
Feb 5 2015 7:26PM
2 1
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
roddy116dude, drop it your not proving anything right or proving anyone wrong. If you want to have an actual intellectual conversation you should try it with someone who actually wants to have an intellectual conversation with you. Which might be hard for you to find at this point because your the great keyboard crusader and whatnot. But honestly no one in your arguments are making either side look smarter, just more obnoxious.

I actually did prove him wrong, but shockingly you're just another religious person that has trouble reading. science 100% disproves that the earth is 12,000 years old that is literally undisputed with people who are not religious. There you go op show this to your smart churchgoers. http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating the problem is the creation scientists in their hypothesis are already starting from a date and if it doesn't fit in within that date they don't use the data unlike people in science who don't have a bias. I'd rather look obnoxious asshole than an uneducated asshole.
Feb 5 2015 10:47PM
3 0
profile picture
.frenchy
Posts: 18221 - Karma: 12,321
zzzskizzzI actually did prove him wrong, but shockingly you're just another religious person that has trouble reading. science 100% disproves that the earth is 12,000 years old that is literally undisputed with people who are not religious. There you go op show this to your smart churchgoers. http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating the problem is the creation scientists in their hypothesis are already starting from a date and if it doesn't fit in within that date they don't use the data unlike people in science who don't have a bias. I'd rather look obnoxious asshole than an uneducated asshole.


Just shut the hell up, nobody cares. go be a shit head in a different thread.
Feb 5 2015 11:04PM
1 4
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
zzzskizzzI'd rather look obnoxious asshole than an uneducated asshole.


If you're going to call yourself educated at least proofread your posts
Feb 5 2015 11:05PM
1 2
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
milk_manIf you're going to call yourself educated at least proofread your posts


Haven't addressed a single point in thread that I've made. You do however attack me what is a great way to sidetrack an argument when you have no argument to make.
Feb 5 2015 11:13PM
6 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
zzzskizzzHaven't addressed a single point in thread that I've made. You do however attack me what is a great way to sidetrack an argument when you have no argument to make.


I get laughed at when I do address them.


Ok give me a point. ONE point.
Feb 5 2015 11:16PM
1 4
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
milk_manI get laughed at when I do address them.


Ok give me a point. ONE point.


Carbon dating accurately shows that the earth is at least twenty thousand years old, almost double what you claim it to be.
Feb 5 2015 11:17PM
2 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
zzzskizzzCarbon dating accurately shows that the earth is at least twenty thousand years old, almost double what you claim it to be.


For carbon dating to be accurate, you have to know (or guess) how much carbon the organism started with. We assume that organisms started with as much carbon 20,000 years ago as they do today. But since the earth and its climate is always changing I don't think that's a very solid assumption. And the "older" it gets the less and less accurate it will get. Since we don't know how much carbon it actually started out with.


Just my thoughts
Feb 5 2015 11:27PM
0 4
profile picture
las.
Posts: 1959 - Karma: 1,455
.frenchyJust shut the hell up, nobody cares. go be a shit head in a different thread.


Oh, the irony
Feb 5 2015 11:31PM
2 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
milk_manFor carbon dating to be accurate, you have to know (or guess) how much carbon the organism started with. We assume that organisms started with as much carbon 20,000 years ago as they do today. But since the earth and its climate is always changing I don't think that's a very solid assumption. And the "older" it gets the less and less accurate it will get. Since we don't know how much carbon it actually started out with.


Just my thoughts


what you just said didn't make any sense no you do not need to know how much carbon the organism started with you just look at the carbons half life. you are also incorrect in stating that the older it gets the less accurate it becomes. organisms that are very new or very old (after 20,000 years) cannot be dated correctly. Items thousands of years older than 12,000 can be dated very accurately. we have dated living trees that are around 6000 years old and then counted the Rings inside them to confirm. you can also look at archaeological and geological evidence and match it to that time After we date it. also that's clearly not your thought somebody told you that.

Don't you ever wonder why people keep laughing at the things you post. like if I kept saying something and then people kept saying you're wrong while laughing at me. I would start to wonder why, and probably take the time to learn what I'm talking about.
Feb 6 2015 12:06AM
2 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
zzzskizzzwhat you just said didn't make any sense no you do not need to know how much carbon the organism started with you just look at the carbons half life.


Umm.. Yeah you do need to know how much it started out with. Otherwise you wouldn't know which half life it is on.. The organism either has 1/2, 1/4, or 1/8 the amount of carbon it started out with. That's how they determine how many half lives the carbon has gone through. How would you know it has half the amount of carbon it started out with, if you don't know how much it started out with??


"After one half life, the animal will have about half the amount of carbon-14 it started with."
The amount it started with is huge..
Feb 6 2015 9:14AM
0 2
profile picture
saskskier
Posts: 4774 - Karma: 10,005
milk_manUmm.. Yeah you do need to know how much it started out with. Otherwise you wouldn't know which half life it is on.. The organism either has 1/2, 1/4, or 1/8 the amount of carbon it started out with. That's how they determine how many half lives the carbon has gone through. How would you know it has half the amount of carbon it started out with, if you don't know how much it started out with??


"After one half life, the animal will have about half the amount of carbon-14 it started with."
The amount it started with is huge..


No.
Feb 6 2015 10:28AM
3 0
profile picture
Utard
Posts: 2132 - Karma: 305
milk_manI was just kidding haha


Honestly I'm not very good with biology and earth science and stuff, that's why none of my arguments make sense. I regurgitate a smart persons' argument and jumble it up so that it sadly doesn't make as much sense as it should.


William Lane Craig is not a smart person
Feb 6 2015 11:44AM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
milk_manUmm.. Yeah you do need to know how much it started out with. Otherwise you wouldn't know which half life it is on.. The organism either has 1/2, 1/4, or 1/8 the amount of carbon it started out with. That's how they determine how many half lives the carbon has gone through. How would you know it has half the amount of carbon it started out with, if you don't know how much it started out with??


"After one half life, the animal will have about half the amount of carbon-14 it started with."
The amount it started with is huge..


because we can check it with the atmosphere, and then match it chronologically through archaeology to that time period. we also use an equation to match the carbon 12 to the carbon 14 1 : 1.35x10-12 is the ratio, and by using that ratio we can figure out how many carbon 14 atoms the animal or person had right before they die since they stopped replenishing the carbon into their body. a very over simplification but you clearly don't know what you're talking about, and I'm not going to bother explaining it. You just clearly don't know what you're talking about, and you didn't take the time to learn it so you really have no validity and you have no right to be making an opinion about this.
Feb 6 2015 12:27PM
2 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
zzzskizzzbecause we can check it with the atmosphere, and then match it chronologically through archaeology to that time period. we also use an equation to match the carbon 12 to the carbon 14 1 : 1.35x10-12 is the ratio, and by using that ratio we can figure out how many carbon 14 atoms the animal or person had right before they die since they stopped replenishing the carbon into their body. a very over simplification but you clearly don't know what you're talking about, and I'm not going to bother explaining it. You just clearly don't know what you're talking about, and you didn't take the time to learn it so you really have no validity and you have no right to be making an opinion about this.


"You have no right to be making an opinion about this." Lolol you're one of those condescending people who thinks they're sooo smart, but in reality just believes everything scientists tell them. Because 'science above all!'
Feb 6 2015 1:17PM
1 2
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
milk_man"You have no right to be making an opinion about this." Lolol you're one of those condescending people who thinks they're sooo smart, but in reality just believes everything scientists tell them. Because 'science above all!'


Yes my opinion is more valid than yours because I took the time to learn the science and I've also read the Bible. I was raised Christian for 15 years, and I formed an opinion after learning about both sides. and yes science above all because science changes. If some proof comes out that shows the earth is 12,000 years old then I will change my stance and educate people on why the earth is 12,000 years old. Also you obviously live your life with your bullshit Bible above all so don't fucking lecture me.

Next why don't we talk about the fact that there's no written or archaeological record of Jewish people ever living in Egypt.
Feb 6 2015 1:27PM
3 1
profile picture
Blurst
Posts: 13577 - Karma: 10,169
.frenchyjust like 98% of the comments in this thread, this was stupid and not needed. why this thread hasn't been deleted is beyond me, maybe because JD thinks he's so wise and has to show off why he's superior to Christians.


JD is wise, just look at my sig.
Feb 6 2015 1:45PM
0 0
profile picture
SFB
Posts: 8895 - Karma: 26,352
so many euphoric atheists in here, you are all sheeple i am an enlightened atheist *tips fedora*
Feb 6 2015 8:26PM
0 3
profile picture
Shredsterr
Posts: 2090 - Karma: 6,930
.frenchyjust like 98% of the comments in this thread, this was stupid and not needed. why this thread hasn't been deleted is beyond me, maybe because JD thinks he's so wise and has to show off why he's superior to Christians.


I've only seen J.D. make sensical arguments in this thread. He's not showing off, you just feel bad because he's making you feel insecure about your beliefs.
Feb 8 2015 12:16PM
5 0
All times are Eastern (-5)