The only thing that should need to be said about theism

Humes fork · 11th July 2012, 01:32 PM

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Carl Sagan nails it!

Navigator · 11th July 2012, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Humes fork

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Carl Sagan nails it!

Carl say's in this vid:

"If the general picture however, of a big bang followed by an expanding universe is correct - what happened before that."

I assume then and now that this 'general picture' is the one accepted by scientists as being true.

"how did that happen" (the universe containing matter)

"In many cultures the customary answer is that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing"

The interesting thing here is that some can believe that the universe was formed out of nothing and others can believe that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing and that both beliefs agree that it came from nothing.

"but if we wish to pursue this question courageously
...we must pursue the next question "where did god come from"

"If we decide that this is an unanswerable question why not save a step and conclude":

"The origin of the universe is an an answerable question."

This is to say: "how did that happen" need not be known.

"Or if we say god always existed why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed?"

Would scientists simply say 'the universe always existed'?

It appears not.

Scientists want to know "how did that happen" and will not 'save a step'.

One question that intrigues me is "Are scientist going to find out before the world is completely ruined?"

Why not save a step and say "Why not redirect scientist into finding ways to halt and reverse the ruination of a fine planet?"

Once that task is done then science can resume the quest to find out "how did that happen" if anyone would even really think it still matters?

Lowpro · 11th July 2012, 06:13 PM

Navigator there's a massive difference between creation ex materia and creatio ex nihilo. Theists argue for the latter, and I, while not convinced of either, lean towards ex materia because of thermodynamics.

I DO think the Universe formed out of nothing but that's not ex nihilo either. Ex materia to give an example is 0 = 1 + (-1) that is an example of ex materia. That's what I personally think best explains the formation of the universe.

Now that you understand that, will you stop saying:

Originally Posted by Navigator

he interesting thing here is that some can believe that the universe was formed out of nothing and others can believe that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing and that both beliefs agree that it came from nothing.

That's inaccurate.

KlLLUMINATI · 11th July 2012, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Navigator there's a massive difference between creation ex materia and creatio ex nihilo. Theists argue for the latter, and I, while not convinced of either, lean towards ex materia because of thermodynamics.

I DO think the Universe formed out of nothing but that's not ex nihilo either. Ex materia to give an example is 0 = 1 + (-1) that is an example of ex materia. That's what I personally think best explains the formation of the universe.

Now that you understand that, will you stop saying:

That's inaccurate.

interesting thing here is that some can believe that the universe was formed out of nothing and others can believe that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing and that both beliefs agree that it came from nothing.

How is that the same?

Lowpro · 11th July 2012, 06:26 PM

Er, I'm not sure if you meant to say "How is that not the same".

If you really mean "how is it the same"? I'd contend they aren't the same. Formed out of nothing in a physical sense can be considered an ex materia process. My analogy again is similar to 0 = 1 + (-1) you have formed something from nothing, a zero value. To say it was created out of nothing would just be pulling a 1 without there being a 0 value in the first place.

I think of the Universe more like a state change than creation ex nihilo

KlLLUMINATI · 11th July 2012, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Er, I'm not sure if you meant to say "How is that not the same".

If you really mean "how is it the same"? I'd contend they aren't the same. Formed out of nothing in a physical sense can be considered an ex materia process. My analogy again is similar to 0 = 1 + (-1) you have formed something from nothing, a zero value. To say it was created out of nothing would just be pulling a 1 without there being a 0 value in the first place.

I think of the Universe more like a state change than creation ex nihilo

not trying to argue about it but to me God and out of nothing is not the same

Lowpro · 11th July 2012, 06:31 PM

Oh then if we're using my definition of "out of nothing" ex materia then I would agree with you. God is a miracle, creation ex materia is not.

Navigator · 11th July 2012, 07:59 PM

Lowpro and KlLLUMINATI

I was replying to the video - to what Carl was saying.

Do you understand what Carl is saying in the video?

Furthermore do you understand what the same Carl is saying in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PN5J...layer_embedded

We each are a 'thread' and what Carl is saying in both videos is connected and Carl is speaking about morality as well.

Carl is not taking sides or walking the path of the folly of human conceit

He is being Human.

There is no where else...like it or not...Earth is where we make our stand.

Lowpro · 12th July 2012, 12:45 AM

That's nice.

Originally Posted by Nagivator

The interesting thing here is that some can believe that the universe was formed out of nothing and others can believe that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing and that both beliefs agree that it came from nothing.

Stop saying wrong things like this though.

punshhh · 12th July 2012, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Oh then if we're using my definition of "out of nothing" ex materia then I would agree with you. God is a miracle, creation ex materia is not.

I also agree with ex materia.

What about the issue of regression?

Humes fork · 13th July 2012, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Once that task is done then science can resume the quest to find out "how did that happen" if anyone would even really think it still matters?

The question of how we (humanity) came to be has always fascinated humans. Religions and mythologies used to provide the answers, they are just made up. Science is slowly uncovering it. Evolution provides a very important part of the answer, but there are still unresolved questions.

MG1962 · 13th July 2012, 01:50 PM

I think this discussion forgets an important step. Science cant make any realistic prediction about conditions 1 second before the Big Bang. Until we find a way to step outside the phycical boundary of the universe there is absolutely no data that can be compiled

Bram Kaandorp · 13th July 2012, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Humes fork

The question of how we (humanity) came to be has always fascinated humans. Religions and mythologies used to provide the answers, they are just made up. Science is slowly uncovering it. Evolution provides a very important part of the answer, but there are still unresolved questions.

Totally agree.

And for those evolution deniers out there;

No, "But there are still unresolved questions" is not code for "So ID can still be right".

Navigator · 14th July 2012, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

I think this discussion forgets an important step. Science cant make any realistic prediction about conditions 1 second before the Big Bang. Until we find a way to step outside the phycical boundary of the universe there is absolutely no data that can be compiled

Another thing has to do with math.

With math, there is such a thing as -1, -2 etc...

In regards to the Big Bang +1 is that moment and the moment before is 0.

-1 apparently does not enter the equation. There is no -1,-2 etc...

I think the only thing which can step out of this universe is the imagination.

Even then in a very limited way.

I am continuing to see that the 'fight' against there being anything outside this universe which actually caused this universe to be is a mixture of detestably feeling toward all known human god-concepts - especially those ones which are used to 'explain' how this universe came to be - they are from an ancient source which was obviously intent on controlling humans.

The other motivation seems to be that if there is some kind of outside thing which caused this Universe to be, then there might be intelligence associated with 'whatever' that thing was and it will somehow lend support to those who argue for the human god-concepts.

There is also be the other motivation - that without reason, there is no reason. There are no need for morals that prevent others from lawfully taking advantage of those who are easy prey to whatever systems practice such behavior. There are no preventatives avaiable anyway except the laws which humans create. The law is not reflecting such preventatives to the point of eradicating this human hypocrisy.

Such behavior simply isn't restricted to those who practice beliefs systems involving old human god concepts. Even the ardent non believers can use their non belief as something to propel any moral reasoning into being mere background noise - if even that - conscience plays no part in the decisions to take advantage of others. The law which allows such practice is all the conscience necessary.

This is the one argument that is most often never replied to. The silence says a lot.

The thought that there could actually be more to life after death brings with it the possibility that one might have to give account for such behavior.

However, that is really not relevant - for who knows. Might - might not.

What is relevant is that Carl Sagan in the vid attached to the OP is not saying there is no cause to the Big Bang - but that bringing any god-concept into the understanding is not relevant.

In the vid I linked, Carl is saying that we have the option of nurturing our "small speck of dust" and again it is not relevant whether there is an outside cause to the Big Bang and the place we find ourselves or not. The argument is irrelevant....merely a distraction.

Legally ripping one another off or otherwise taking advantage of others for personal gain and lifestyle is provably not nurturing our place in this reality. Not as a species.

That is the real thing to focus upon. What we are all doing to support the nurturing of Life On Earth. This thing we all have in common with one another. All that other stuff is just distraction.

So it has first even got to matter to the individual. God-concepts don't make it matter and nor do the processes of non-belief.

Nail that. We have enough 'data' to do so. We just have to think it matters. Not as a romantic speculation. As a real and honorable possibility worthy of personal support.

Tricky · 14th July 2012, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by KlLLUMINATI

not trying to argue about it but to me God and out of nothing is not the same

Yet you postulate a God that is "out of nothing". You're just adding another turtle.

Lowpro · 14th July 2012, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Another thing has to do with math.

With math, there is such a thing as -1, -2 etc...

In regards to the Big Bang +1 is that moment and the moment before is 0.

-1 apparently does not enter the equation. There is no -1,-2 etc...

I think the only thing which can step out of this universe is the imagination.

Even then in a very limited way.

I am continuing to see that the 'fight' against there being anything outside this universe which actually caused this universe to be is a mixture of detestably feeling toward all known human god-concepts - especially those ones which are used to 'explain' how this universe came to be - they are from an ancient source which was obviously intent on controlling humans.

The other motivation seems to be that if there is some kind of outside thing which caused this Universe to be, then there might be intelligence associated with 'whatever' that thing was and it will somehow lend support to those who argue for the human god-concepts.

There is also be the other motivation - that without reason, there is no reason. There are no need for morals that prevent others from lawfully taking advantage of those who are easy prey to whatever systems practice such behavior. There are no preventatives avaiable anyway except the laws which humans create. The law is not reflecting such preventatives to the point of eradicating this human hypocrisy.

Such behavior simply isn't restricted to those who practice beliefs systems involving old human god concepts. Even the ardent non believers can use their non belief as something to propel any moral reasoning into being mere background noise - if even that - conscience plays no part in the decisions to take advantage of others. The law which allows such practice is all the conscience necessary.

This is the one argument that is most often never replied to. The silence says a lot.

The thought that there could actually be more to life after death brings with it the possibility that one might have to give account for such behavior.

However, that is really not relevant - for who knows. Might - might not.

What is relevant is that Carl Sagan in the vid attached to the OP is not saying there is no cause to the Big Bang - but that bringing any god-concept into the understanding is not relevant.

In the vid I linked, Carl is saying that we have the option of nurturing our "small speck of dust" and again it is not relevant whether there is an outside cause to the Big Bang and the place we find ourselves or not. The argument is irrelevant....merely a distraction.

Legally ripping one another off or otherwise taking advantage of others for personal gain and lifestyle is provably not nurturing our place in this reality. Not as a species.

That is the real thing to focus upon. What we are all doing to support the nurturing of Life On Earth. This thing we all have in common with one another. All that other stuff is just distraction.

So it has first even got to matter to the individual. God-concepts don't make it matter and nor do the processes of non-belief.

Nail that. We have enough 'data' to do so. We just have to think it matters. Not as a romantic speculation. As a real and honorable possibility worthy of personal support.

You'd make a great secular humanist. Like most atheists.

Halfcentaur · 14th July 2012, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by KlLLUMINATI

not trying to argue about it but to me God and out of nothing is not the same

If the universe never had a beginning than it's no different than your deity not having a beginning.
If you believe it's possible your deity never had a beginning, why do you insist that the universe does?
What makes you think a deity doesn't need a beginning but everything else does?

Navigator · 16th July 2012, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

You'd make a great secular humanist. Like most atheists.

I'm just a Human Being.

11th July 2012, 06:13 PM	#3
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,519	Navigator there's a massive difference between creation ex materia and creatio ex nihilo. Theists argue for the latter, and I, while not convinced of either, lean towards ex materia because of thermodynamics. I DO think the Universe formed out of nothing but that's not ex nihilo either. Ex materia to give an example is 0 = 1 + (-1) that is an example of ex materia. That's what I personally think best explains the formation of the universe. Now that you understand that, will you stop saying: Originally Posted by Navigator he interesting thing here is that some can believe that the universe was formed out of nothing and others can believe that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing and that both beliefs agree that it came from nothing. That's inaccurate.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

11th July 2012, 06:26 PM	#5
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,519	Er, I'm not sure if you meant to say "How is that not the same". If you really mean "how is it the same"? I'd contend they aren't the same. Formed out of nothing in a physical sense can be considered an ex materia process. My analogy again is similar to 0 = 1 + (-1) you have formed something from nothing, a zero value. To say it was created out of nothing would just be pulling a 1 without there being a 0 value in the first place. I think of the Universe more like a state change than creation ex nihilo
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

11th July 2012, 06:31 PM	#7
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,519	Oh then if we're using my definition of "out of nothing" ex materia then I would agree with you. God is a miracle, creation ex materia is not.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

11th July 2012, 07:59 PM	#8
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Lowpro and KlLLUMINATI I was replying to the video - to what Carl was saying. Do you understand what Carl is saying in the video? Furthermore do you understand what the same Carl is saying in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PN5J...layer_embedded We each are a 'thread' and what Carl is saying in both videos is connected and Carl is speaking about morality as well. Carl is not taking sides or walking the path of the folly of human conceit He is being Human. There is no where else...like it or not...Earth is where we make our stand.
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες

12th July 2012, 12:45 AM	#9
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,519	That's nice. Originally Posted by Nagivator The interesting thing here is that some can believe that the universe was formed out of nothing and others can believe that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing and that both beliefs agree that it came from nothing. Stop saying wrong things like this though.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

11th July 2012, 06:17 PM	#4
KlLLUMINATI Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 477	Originally Posted by Lowpro Navigator there's a massive difference between creation ex materia and creatio ex nihilo. Theists argue for the latter, and I, while not convinced of either, lean towards ex materia because of thermodynamics. I DO think the Universe formed out of nothing but that's not ex nihilo either. Ex materia to give an example is 0 = 1 + (-1) that is an example of ex materia. That's what I personally think best explains the formation of the universe. Now that you understand that, will you stop saying: That's inaccurate. interesting thing here is that some can believe that the universe was formed out of nothing and others can believe that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing and that both beliefs agree that it came from nothing. How is that the same?

11th July 2012, 06:29 PM	#6
KlLLUMINATI Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 477	Originally Posted by Lowpro Er, I'm not sure if you meant to say "How is that not the same". If you really mean "how is it the same"? I'd contend they aren't the same. Formed out of nothing in a physical sense can be considered an ex materia process. My analogy again is similar to 0 = 1 + (-1) you have formed something from nothing, a zero value. To say it was created out of nothing would just be pulling a 1 without there being a 0 value in the first place. I think of the Universe more like a state change than creation ex nihilo not trying to argue about it but to me God and out of nothing is not the same

12th July 2012, 01:44 AM	#10
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by Lowpro Oh then if we're using my definition of "out of nothing" ex materia then I would agree with you. God is a miracle, creation ex materia is not. I also agree with ex materia. What about the issue of regression?

13th July 2012, 01:40 PM	#11
Humes fork Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,352	Originally Posted by Navigator Once that task is done then science can resume the quest to find out "how did that happen" if anyone would even really think it still matters? The question of how we (humanity) came to be has always fascinated humans. Religions and mythologies used to provide the answers, they are just made up. Science is slowly uncovering it. Evolution provides a very important part of the answer, but there are still unresolved questions.
	__________________ "Faith is the surrender of the mind; it’s the surrender of reason, it’s the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It’s our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated." - Christopher Hitchens

13th July 2012, 01:50 PM	#12
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	I think this discussion forgets an important step. Science cant make any realistic prediction about conditions 1 second before the Big Bang. Until we find a way to step outside the phycical boundary of the universe there is absolutely no data that can be compiled

13th July 2012, 01:50 PM	#13
Bram Kaandorp Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Netherlands Posts: 2,240	Originally Posted by Humes fork The question of how we (humanity) came to be has always fascinated humans. Religions and mythologies used to provide the answers, they are just made up. Science is slowly uncovering it. Evolution provides a very important part of the answer, but there are still unresolved questions. Totally agree. And for those evolution deniers out there; No, "But there are still unresolved questions" is not code for "So ID can still be right".
	__________________ If autism is a "living death", does that make me a zombie? If so, that'd be great. Just don't get your brain in my general vicinity.

14th July 2012, 05:38 PM	#14
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Originally Posted by MG1962 I think this discussion forgets an important step. Science cant make any realistic prediction about conditions 1 second before the Big Bang. Until we find a way to step outside the phycical boundary of the universe there is absolutely no data that can be compiled Another thing has to do with math. With math, there is such a thing as -1, -2 etc... In regards to the Big Bang +1 is that moment and the moment before is 0. -1 apparently does not enter the equation. There is no -1,-2 etc... I think the only thing which can step out of this universe is the imagination. Even then in a very limited way. I am continuing to see that the 'fight' against there being anything outside this universe which actually caused this universe to be is a mixture of detestably feeling toward all known human god-concepts - especially those ones which are used to 'explain' how this universe came to be - they are from an ancient source which was obviously intent on controlling humans. The other motivation seems to be that if there is some kind of outside thing which caused this Universe to be, then there might be intelligence associated with 'whatever' that thing was and it will somehow lend support to those who argue for the human god-concepts. There is also be the other motivation - that without reason, there is no reason. There are no need for morals that prevent others from lawfully taking advantage of those who are easy prey to whatever systems practice such behavior. There are no preventatives avaiable anyway except the laws which humans create. The law is not reflecting such preventatives to the point of eradicating this human hypocrisy. Such behavior simply isn't restricted to those who practice beliefs systems involving old human god concepts. Even the ardent non believers can use their non belief as something to propel any moral reasoning into being mere background noise - if even that - conscience plays no part in the decisions to take advantage of others. The law which allows such practice is all the conscience necessary. This is the one argument that is most often never replied to. The silence says a lot. The thought that there could actually be more to life after death brings with it the possibility that one might have to give account for such behavior. However, that is really not relevant - for who knows. Might - might not. What is relevant is that Carl Sagan in the vid attached to the OP is not saying there is no cause to the Big Bang - but that bringing any god-concept into the understanding is not relevant. In the vid I linked, Carl is saying that we have the option of nurturing our "small speck of dust" and again it is not relevant whether there is an outside cause to the Big Bang and the place we find ourselves or not. The argument is irrelevant....merely a distraction. Legally ripping one another off or otherwise taking advantage of others for personal gain and lifestyle is provably not nurturing our place in this reality. Not as a species. That is the real thing to focus upon. What we are all doing to support the nurturing of Life On Earth. This thing we all have in common with one another. All that other stuff is just distraction. So it has first even got to matter to the individual. God-concepts don't make it matter and nor do the processes of non-belief. Nail that. We have enough 'data' to do so. We just have to think it matters. Not as a romantic speculation. As a real and honorable possibility worthy of personal support.
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες

14th July 2012, 06:05 PM	#15
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,358	Originally Posted by KlLLUMINATI not trying to argue about it but to me God and out of nothing is not the same Yet you postulate a God that is "out of nothing". You're just adding another turtle.

14th July 2012, 06:14 PM	#16
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,519	Originally Posted by Navigator Another thing has to do with math. With math, there is such a thing as -1, -2 etc... In regards to the Big Bang +1 is that moment and the moment before is 0. -1 apparently does not enter the equation. There is no -1,-2 etc... I think the only thing which can step out of this universe is the imagination. Even then in a very limited way. I am continuing to see that the 'fight' against there being anything outside this universe which actually caused this universe to be is a mixture of detestably feeling toward all known human god-concepts - especially those ones which are used to 'explain' how this universe came to be - they are from an ancient source which was obviously intent on controlling humans. The other motivation seems to be that if there is some kind of outside thing which caused this Universe to be, then there might be intelligence associated with 'whatever' that thing was and it will somehow lend support to those who argue for the human god-concepts. There is also be the other motivation - that without reason, there is no reason. There are no need for morals that prevent others from lawfully taking advantage of those who are easy prey to whatever systems practice such behavior. There are no preventatives avaiable anyway except the laws which humans create. The law is not reflecting such preventatives to the point of eradicating this human hypocrisy. Such behavior simply isn't restricted to those who practice beliefs systems involving old human god concepts. Even the ardent non believers can use their non belief as something to propel any moral reasoning into being mere background noise - if even that - conscience plays no part in the decisions to take advantage of others. The law which allows such practice is all the conscience necessary. This is the one argument that is most often never replied to. The silence says a lot. The thought that there could actually be more to life after death brings with it the possibility that one might have to give account for such behavior. However, that is really not relevant - for who knows. Might - might not. What is relevant is that Carl Sagan in the vid attached to the OP is not saying there is no cause to the Big Bang - but that bringing any god-concept into the understanding is not relevant. In the vid I linked, Carl is saying that we have the option of nurturing our "small speck of dust" and again it is not relevant whether there is an outside cause to the Big Bang and the place we find ourselves or not. The argument is irrelevant....merely a distraction. Legally ripping one another off or otherwise taking advantage of others for personal gain and lifestyle is provably not nurturing our place in this reality. Not as a species. That is the real thing to focus upon. What we are all doing to support the nurturing of Life On Earth. This thing we all have in common with one another. All that other stuff is just distraction. So it has first even got to matter to the individual. God-concepts don't make it matter and nor do the processes of non-belief. Nail that. We have enough 'data' to do so. We just have to think it matters. Not as a romantic speculation. As a real and honorable possibility worthy of personal support. You'd make a great secular humanist. Like most atheists.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

14th July 2012, 11:00 PM	#17
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,939	Originally Posted by KlLLUMINATI not trying to argue about it but to me God and out of nothing is not the same If the universe never had a beginning than it's no different than your deity not having a beginning. If you believe it's possible your deity never had a beginning, why do you insist that the universe does? What makes you think a deity doesn't need a beginning but everything else does?
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,939	Last edited by Halfcentaur; 14th July 2012 at 11:02 PM.

16th July 2012, 10:54 PM	#18
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Originally Posted by Lowpro You'd make a great secular humanist. Like most atheists. I'm just a Human Being.
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες