All logic is inherently illogical due to the variety of subjective opinions throughout humans as a race. The same can be said of morality. No system is perfect. Due to different beliefs, all logical arguments are doomed from the start since logic is relatively nonexistent.
The agressive neo-atheist starts with the assumption that there is no objective moral standard by which we can correctly judge. The same person then spends their life judging and condemning the idea of a law-giver and the moral judgement of others who do not accept a godless universe. From what standard is this judgement rendered? From the personal, narrow-minded subjectivity of the same atheist who is denying any real basis for law while hypocritically posing as law-giver.
Plus, I think you missed the idea behind the video. He didn't ask you to agree that religion is correct, he just asked you to respect his belief, and not call him irrational.
Neither logic, nor science, nor religion provide the foundation for rationality. Faith - in general (!) - coupled with perception is the foundation of every reasoning framework.
In other words... there is not a reliably scientific foundation for a big bang... it's rather science fiction as much as all those confusing 'extremist' mathematical arguments that go along with it these days which simply don't understand that maths is only as valid as it's PROJECTION towards reality.
I am an atheist and I like your response, yet it is not as open minded as you might think it is. You are talking of logical fallacies? Name one scientific base unit you can trust in an absolute sence and then let's talk about science.
"While moderate atheists are not a direct threat, they serve as life support for atheism to survive from generation to generation until atheism is instilled into the wrong person, the extremist".
We all know that the twentieth century is full of examples of atheist dictators such as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot systematically murdering at least a hundred million people for their cause.
defenseattny --- Excellent points you make about the mass murders by atheists throughout the twentieth century. The bloodiest mass murderers, all atheists and from their godless worldview their is nothing to say they were wrong. No God, no morality, only preferences.
You can always expect personal attacks from the idiots here....when they cant battle you intellectually they find childish ways to insult people. You bring up very interesting points
Logic is just a set of rules applied to some axiomatic base. As has been pointed out may times, Mein Kampf is completely logically consistent... it just makes ridiculous assumptions. Similarly, it is possible and easy to justify religous views by simply choosing an appropriate "starting point". In short, they aren't mutually exclusive, and both can be dangerous. I suggest more aerobic exercise.
I never said you were fat. This country's obsession with weight is retarded. Your atttitude is sour and you look somewhat lacking in vibrance. Maybe some fresh air and physical exertion would improve the way your health and perspective? I think this issue is more complex than you have illustrated here. The idea that faith and peace cannot co-exist is silly. The idea that rationality and faith cannot co-exist is similarly silly.
a good measured response cold and calculating what to be expected from people who take themselves to seriously. (we can't control the world) and science has no hope in it the wolrd is dieing care for one another is good old romantic symbolism will be taken down by perfect form and function and then we can be a parody of Vulcans off of star trek
Excellent response. I admire all the people who made such reasonable and patient replies to listeningriffin's original video which has got to be one of the most idiotic rants I've ever heard.
Yes i get it. But im an agnostic, It doesnt really defend the atheists. Ginna describes the gap but saying that it cant be filled by gods or supernatural things is not rational.
What exactly makes it RATIONAL to take one god concept, one of thousands, and say "this is the explination"? There is NO good logical reason to do it. Not ONE.
Im not saying its rational to choose one, but im saying its irrational to say there cant be one. Religions probarly came into existance from cultural and natural origins and the belief that there specificly isnt a god also came from the same place.
Well some philosofers say that you cant know anything exist but your mind. However to know anything about the nature of the universe is pretty impossible for creatures that is part of the universe. So if there isnt one we it would be pretty impossible to know that there is one.
Hmm.. maybe I was wrong, perhaps we can scientifically disprove the existence of Santa and the Easter Bunny..
Anyway, I think you raise good points. I also get the feeling that a lot of the so called atheists are actually anti-religion, or agnostic. Most scientists are agnostic aswell. They can't proof or disproof God after all.
Well we are alot closer to dissproving santa. We have people trecking the north pole rigth now. Yeah the atheist movement seems like an anti religion movement gone horribly wrong.
i will say that i disagree with you on common attribute of those in faith. the loudest, most ignorant mouthpieces for "faith" are the people who you describe. i'm sorry for whatever foolish mob-speak has embittered you so, but not everyone who believes in a higher power has a god of the gaps mentality, and there are certainly individuals of faith who pointedly explore existence for the answers that you seem, also, to seek.
if it's not God who defines your moral code, then who else is worthy? who are you (or any other human)to decide what is moral for me to do and what isn't? what if my morality conflicts with your morality?
your only supporting my argument with this statement. in many islamic run countries women must often cover their heads and faces in a veil. going against this is considered immoral. sometimes they must cover the entire body. while in other places in the world you encounter nudist colonies. which one is right? which is moral or immoral?
Majority defines our perception of the truth since there is no objective truth.
You're talking about aspects of the Islamic culture which is seen as repression of peoples rights, by a majority of the world, and considered morally wrong.
Even the perception of the moral majority by concensus is subject to change with the passing of time. Hence, it has no inherent authority to define good and evil. Otherwise, good and evil simply become what is acceptable at the moment by any given number of people, regardless of the act.
That's almost exactly what it is. The only alteration I would make is that it does have authority to define good and evil within its given timeframe. Hence we can define good and evil within our lifetimes.
That's my point. As imperfect beings, humanity is incapable of defining good and evil adequately. The only being who can justifiably define morality with authority would have to be be a perfect divine being, ie. God.
ginna's interpretation vs matty's interpretation, its a celebrity deathmatch!
im not a believe but i learned morality from my speghetti monster believing family. not to toot my own horn, but i act WAY more responsibly than most/all of my atheists friends(not a respresentative sample).
*perks up* I'm a celebrity? *struts a wee bit* But anyway, coming from a Flying Spaghetti Monster believing family myself, I feel like my morality is 50% from them, 50%... not.
And on the subject of horn tooting, I see myself as being far more responsible than most (but certainly not all) of my believer friends. Then again you may mean something different by "responsible"... what DO you mean?
in the 3rd grade i had to write 'consideration' and its definition on the board more times than i can remember. its basically that, being aware of and taking into account the effect our actions have (on others, myself, the world at large, etc)
But doesnt denying a fact render your opinions invalid ? Because, it is a fact that its POSSIBLE isnt it ? (ps. I dont want to argue,im just interested in what you are saying)
Dawkins admits to being a 6 leaning very very close to 7. To quote him, "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden". He's saying he's an atheist & that the existence of gods is logically impossible, but he admits we cannot absolutely prove a negative. It's not narrow minded to acknowledge what is & isn't possible. And frankly, I don't care how I "look" in this regard.
What do you think the TITLE of his BOOK means? But yes, I know he said "almost". AGAIN, it's because he acknowledges that one cannot prove a negative. Just like you can't disprove Russell's Teapot, Dawkins can't disprove any gods. The god concept is a total logical impossibility & he STILL has to admit a negative cannot be proven.
I did reread it after you mentioned it to me. I'd still like you to point out to me what you think validates your claim.
Ah, I see condescension is part of the Christian love you SO exude, "honey"! Too bad you won't stick around to sneak in a little more snobbery... I'm SURE that could greatly improved my apparently miserable existence.
And I didn't see him holding out for the possibility of a god in the cargo cult section. If you saw something I didn't, quote if for me. By the way, you can tell me how I should feel?
Means to an end? You mean like a 'ticket to heaven'? i gotta admit i have heard people call it 'the final reward', which i imagine is for being 'good'. but nevertheless, following a moral code regardless of the motivation is still morality is it not?
I suppose in a technical sense yes, following the letter of the religious moral law like it's traffic laws is "morality" as defined by the first definition in the dictionary: "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct".
Then again I always thought of being "moral" as not just ACTING moral but actually BEING moral (adhering to rightness of principle or conduct; righteous, honest, or just).
like so many other godless criminals out there, i could care less about the mother f*ckin' law. i have often mused aloud to my friends jokingly that if it wasn't for my blasted morality (founded in religion), that I would start my own crime family.
That not taking full responsibility for 'ones own actions (because your doing a Gods bidding) might pursuade certain individuals of doing questionable things more easily. The human mind is pretty creative after all. Especially when it comes to the interpretation of written words.
Also, religion is a beliefs system that can always be used to hide behind. Therefore people attracted to such a system most likely have a lot to hide, thus morally questionable. Since Christianity has had a dominant moment in history and killed off those who opposed, one could deduce that the survivors are infact more criminal.
actually a lack of 'moderate believers' as you call them would be a higher threat than the occassional 'extremist believer'. you see, it is my religious morality which holds me in line, which stops me from illegal or immoral activity when i know i can get away with it.
It was my understanding that morality was meant to influence you to NOT WANT to get away with it. Then again religious morality has always struck me as "sanctions", kind of like traffic laws. People only obey to avoid the ticket, but otherwise wreckless, dangerous, break-neck speed isn't a problem.
My thoughts exactly. People need to come to the realization that while "moderate" believers do not pose a direct threat, they are the reason that the topic of faith is kept taboo. This allows dogmatic certainty to be left unchallenged. One need only visit the Nazi concentration camps in Poland to see what men can do when they are absolutely certain that they are right.
thanks for sharing your beliefs. i still dont see how your beliefs are anymore 'right' or 'wrong' than anyone elses. seems like you have lots evidence for them, so i agree you should be able to believe in them. video inc..
You're smart. Where do you live? Where can I meet more women like yourself??
Sepero1 3 years ago
Looking at your response thumbnail, I was sure you were a dude.
You were at one time at least, right?
Trollbaiter 3 years ago
All logic is inherently illogical due to the variety of subjective opinions throughout humans as a race. The same can be said of morality. No system is perfect. Due to different beliefs, all logical arguments are doomed from the start since logic is relatively nonexistent.
fattommy16 4 years ago
A+ on the video.
It seems like alot of the people in the video don't quite understand what you said, so they are saying stuff you have already talked about...
siredward800 4 years ago
The agressive neo-atheist starts with the assumption that there is no objective moral standard by which we can correctly judge. The same person then spends their life judging and condemning the idea of a law-giver and the moral judgement of others who do not accept a godless universe. From what standard is this judgement rendered? From the personal, narrow-minded subjectivity of the same atheist who is denying any real basis for law while hypocritically posing as law-giver.
defenseattny 4 years ago
Plus, I think you missed the idea behind the video. He didn't ask you to agree that religion is correct, he just asked you to respect his belief, and not call him irrational.
everythingisyou 4 years ago
The Big Bang is a THEORY, and evolution is also a THEORY. Neither have been proven. Religion, too has never been proven.
Both start with faith, and are widely accepted. I don't see why one is credited with logic while another isn't.
Once you start with faith, the cracks are filled in. Be it for a scientific theory or a religious belief.
everythingisyou 4 years ago
In fact, logic, science or religion all work on the same foundation: faith - coupled with an interpreted bit of limited perception.
tobibeer 4 years ago
Neither logic, nor science, nor religion provide the foundation for rationality. Faith - in general (!) - coupled with perception is the foundation of every reasoning framework.
tobibeer 4 years ago
In other words... there is not a reliably scientific foundation for a big bang... it's rather science fiction as much as all those confusing 'extremist' mathematical arguments that go along with it these days which simply don't understand that maths is only as valid as it's PROJECTION towards reality.
tobibeer 4 years ago
I am an atheist and I like your response, yet it is not as open minded as you might think it is. You are talking of logical fallacies? Name one scientific base unit you can trust in an absolute sence and then let's talk about science.
tobibeer 4 years ago
Ginnna, you could just as easily have said,
"While moderate atheists are not a direct threat, they serve as life support for atheism to survive from generation to generation until atheism is instilled into the wrong person, the extremist".
We all know that the twentieth century is full of examples of atheist dictators such as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot systematically murdering at least a hundred million people for their cause.
defenseattny 4 years ago
defenseattny --- Excellent points you make about the mass murders by atheists throughout the twentieth century. The bloodiest mass murderers, all atheists and from their godless worldview their is nothing to say they were wrong. No God, no morality, only preferences.
highlandbeauty 4 years ago
Try some make up.
Brimley666 4 years ago
"When the solution is simple, God is answering." by Albert Einstein
Faith is to believe Einstein, or... someone you trust. Do you trust anyone? Do you believe anyone? Is it faith?
benroeb 4 years ago
Ginnna could be the coolest ever.
stanpeal 4 years ago
Dude, if you run for president I promise I will do what it takes to become a US citizen and then vote for you!
HowardFair 4 years ago
Bravo!
grimpeeper 4 years ago
You can always expect personal attacks from the idiots here....when they cant battle you intellectually they find childish ways to insult people. You bring up very interesting points
someone528 4 years ago
Logic is just a set of rules applied to some axiomatic base. As has been pointed out may times, Mein Kampf is completely logically consistent... it just makes ridiculous assumptions. Similarly, it is possible and easy to justify religous views by simply choosing an appropriate "starting point". In short, they aren't mutually exclusive, and both can be dangerous. I suggest more aerobic exercise.
noahdassat 4 years ago
You'll notice I spoke of not only logic but rationality. There may be a certain "logic" to Mein Kampf but I doubt many people would call it rational.
And..... *gasp* I'm FAT??? Holy crap, if you hadn't pointed that out, I may have never noticed!
Ginnna 4 years ago
I never said you were fat. This country's obsession with weight is retarded. Your atttitude is sour and you look somewhat lacking in vibrance. Maybe some fresh air and physical exertion would improve the way your health and perspective? I think this issue is more complex than you have illustrated here. The idea that faith and peace cannot co-exist is silly. The idea that rationality and faith cannot co-exist is similarly silly.
noahdassat 4 years ago
Greetings, enlightened one. Thanks for shining! Don't mind the Haters.
dzhaphaarI 4 years ago
Great video. Instant favorite.
HopefullyUnexpected 4 years ago
(a joy to watch!)
puzz912 5 years ago
what awesome articulation of your points!
puzz912 5 years ago
Why thank you! And I was worried that I came off sounding like a dweeb...
:-D
Ginnna 5 years ago
a good measured response cold and calculating what to be expected from people who take themselves to seriously. (we can't control the world) and science has no hope in it the wolrd is dieing care for one another is good old romantic symbolism will be taken down by perfect form and function and then we can be a parody of Vulcans off of star trek
retrognostic 5 years ago
I'm sorry... what??
Ginnna 5 years ago
Excellent response. I admire all the people who made such reasonable and patient replies to listeningriffin's original video which has got to be one of the most idiotic rants I've ever heard.
cantaloupe42 5 years ago
The life support analogy is apt...
OpenSaysamy 5 years ago
Very well spoken, totally wonderful!
clockworkhorrorshow 5 years ago
Right on sister but the sheep didnt understand what you just said;)I think you were making something a little more complicated then it needed to be.
jsnub303 5 years ago
Isnt beliving specificly that there is no god as unfounded as beliving there is one?
peranimo 5 years ago
no.. its not assuming that somethign's true without any proof, just cause its a possibility..
like it's possible that Allah exists, but most christians dont accept that it's possible he exists..
did thta make sense?
loopylorny 5 years ago
Yes i get it. But im an agnostic, It doesnt really defend the atheists. Ginna describes the gap but saying that it cant be filled by gods or supernatural things is not rational.
peranimo 5 years ago
What exactly makes it RATIONAL to take one god concept, one of thousands, and say "this is the explination"? There is NO good logical reason to do it. Not ONE.
Ginnna 5 years ago
Im not saying its rational to choose one, but im saying its irrational to say there cant be one. Religions probarly came into existance from cultural and natural origins and the belief that there specificly isnt a god also came from the same place.
peranimo 5 years ago
If you also apply that reasoning on the possibility that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny might be real or not.. then yes, most definately.
rattaplan 5 years ago
Well some philosofers say that you cant know anything exist but your mind. However to know anything about the nature of the universe is pretty impossible for creatures that is part of the universe. So if there isnt one we it would be pretty impossible to know that there is one.
peranimo 5 years ago
Hmm.. maybe I was wrong, perhaps we can scientifically disprove the existence of Santa and the Easter Bunny..
Anyway, I think you raise good points. I also get the feeling that a lot of the so called atheists are actually anti-religion, or agnostic. Most scientists are agnostic aswell. They can't proof or disproof God after all.
rattaplan 5 years ago
Well we are alot closer to dissproving santa. We have people trecking the north pole rigth now. Yeah the atheist movement seems like an anti religion movement gone horribly wrong.
peranimo 5 years ago
i will say that i disagree with you on common attribute of those in faith. the loudest, most ignorant mouthpieces for "faith" are the people who you describe. i'm sorry for whatever foolish mob-speak has embittered you so, but not everyone who believes in a higher power has a god of the gaps mentality, and there are certainly individuals of faith who pointedly explore existence for the answers that you seem, also, to seek.
ThingsPoo 5 years ago
Your so right and I'm with you on this one,Respect
ChristianityGod 5 years ago
if it's not God who defines your moral code, then who else is worthy? who are you (or any other human)to decide what is moral for me to do and what isn't? what if my morality conflicts with your morality?
MattyPasta 5 years ago
consensus of opinion. That is why laws are different from state to state or year to year.
gklr 5 years ago
Ain't that the truth! :)
rattaplan 5 years ago
your only supporting my argument with this statement. in many islamic run countries women must often cover their heads and faces in a veil. going against this is considered immoral. sometimes they must cover the entire body. while in other places in the world you encounter nudist colonies. which one is right? which is moral or immoral?
MattyPasta 5 years ago
Majority defines our perception of the truth since there is no objective truth.
You're talking about aspects of the Islamic culture which is seen as repression of peoples rights, by a majority of the world, and considered morally wrong.
rattaplan 5 years ago
Even the perception of the moral majority by concensus is subject to change with the passing of time. Hence, it has no inherent authority to define good and evil. Otherwise, good and evil simply become what is acceptable at the moment by any given number of people, regardless of the act.
MattyPasta 5 years ago
That's almost exactly what it is. The only alteration I would make is that it does have authority to define good and evil within its given timeframe. Hence we can define good and evil within our lifetimes.
rattaplan 5 years ago
I don't agree that good and evil are subjective. Only peoples perceptions (which can be misguided) of what is good and what is evil.
MattyPasta 5 years ago
How does one measure good and evil if not through (subjective) perception?
rattaplan 5 years ago
That's my point. As imperfect beings, humanity is incapable of defining good and evil adequately. The only being who can justifiably define morality with authority would have to be be a perfect divine being, ie. God.
MattyPasta 5 years ago
I'm sorry but no-one ever stated that morality was, or had to be perfect. Just functional. (nice straw man, though)
rattaplan 5 years ago
about your funny fallacy comment, and so while you give you fallacys to others...
your fallacy is... limiting alternatives! do not pass go, do not collect 200.
jumpingmattflash 5 years ago
ginna's interpretation vs matty's interpretation, its a celebrity deathmatch!
im not a believe but i learned morality from my speghetti monster believing family. not to toot my own horn, but i act WAY more responsibly than most/all of my atheists friends(not a respresentative sample).
listeningriffin 5 years ago
*perks up* I'm a celebrity? *struts a wee bit* But anyway, coming from a Flying Spaghetti Monster believing family myself, I feel like my morality is 50% from them, 50%... not.
Ginnna 5 years ago
And on the subject of horn tooting, I see myself as being far more responsible than most (but certainly not all) of my believer friends. Then again you may mean something different by "responsible"... what DO you mean?
Ginnna 5 years ago
in the 3rd grade i had to write 'consideration' and its definition on the board more times than i can remember. its basically that, being aware of and taking into account the effect our actions have (on others, myself, the world at large, etc)
listeningriffin 5 years ago
Would you agree that two FACTS apply ?
Fact 1 its possible that god is really there.
Fact 2 its possible he isnt.
So how can anyone "know" ?
PS. May I subscribe ?
flirtyfungirrl 5 years ago
No, I wouldn't agree to the possibility of god. I generally don't consider possible the logically IMpossible. Yeah... I'm one of THOSE atheists.
Ginnna 5 years ago
But doesnt denying a fact render your opinions invalid ? Because, it is a fact that its POSSIBLE isnt it ? (ps. I dont want to argue,im just interested in what you are saying)
flirtyfungirrl 5 years ago
No, it's not a FACT that it's possible. Quite the opposite. I'm saying it's a fact that is IMpossible.
Ginnna 5 years ago
Your last statement makes you look narrow minded. Even Dawkins admits its POSSIBLE that god exists, however far fetched you choose to believe it.
flirtyfungirrl 5 years ago
Dawkins admits to being a 6 leaning very very close to 7. To quote him, "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden". He's saying he's an atheist & that the existence of gods is logically impossible, but he admits we cannot absolutely prove a negative. It's not narrow minded to acknowledge what is & isn't possible. And frankly, I don't care how I "look" in this regard.
Ginnna 5 years ago
The main chapter in the book you quote is "why god almost certainly does not exist"
Almost.
All the way through that book he states its POSSIBLE.Even in the cargo cults section.
And you should care how you look.Always.
flirtyfungirrl 5 years ago
What do you think the TITLE of his BOOK means? But yes, I know he said "almost". AGAIN, it's because he acknowledges that one cannot prove a negative. Just like you can't disprove Russell's Teapot, Dawkins can't disprove any gods. The god concept is a total logical impossibility & he STILL has to admit a negative cannot be proven.
Ginnna 5 years ago
Sweetie, I think I see lots you dont see, I dont need quotes, re read it.
By the looks of your personality and diet problems, I think yes, someone should show you how to look and feel.
Bored of this (and you) now, seeya.
yorktowwn 5 years ago
I did reread it after you mentioned it to me. I'd still like you to point out to me what you think validates your claim.
Ah, I see condescension is part of the Christian love you SO exude, "honey"! Too bad you won't stick around to sneak in a little more snobbery... I'm SURE that could greatly improved my apparently miserable existence.
Ginnna 5 years ago
And I didn't see him holding out for the possibility of a god in the cargo cult section. If you saw something I didn't, quote if for me. By the way, you can tell me how I should feel?
Ginnna 5 years ago
Means to an end? You mean like a 'ticket to heaven'? i gotta admit i have heard people call it 'the final reward', which i imagine is for being 'good'. but nevertheless, following a moral code regardless of the motivation is still morality is it not?
MattyPasta 5 years ago
I suppose in a technical sense yes, following the letter of the religious moral law like it's traffic laws is "morality" as defined by the first definition in the dictionary: "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct".
Ginnna 5 years ago
Then again I always thought of being "moral" as not just ACTING moral but actually BEING moral (adhering to rightness of principle or conduct; righteous, honest, or just).
Ginnna 5 years ago
clockwork orange....
jumpingmattflash 5 years ago
Real horrorshow.
clockworkhorrorshow 5 years ago
like so many other godless criminals out there, i could care less about the mother f*ckin' law. i have often mused aloud to my friends jokingly that if it wasn't for my blasted morality (founded in religion), that I would start my own crime family.
MattyPasta 5 years ago
That's.... scary.
Ginnna 5 years ago
I'd hesitate to call it "morality" at all if it's merely a means to an end for you.
Ginnna 5 years ago
why do you think there are so many criminals in the world? you should be thankful I'm a God follower. LOL
MattyPasta 5 years ago
It's likely that religion cultivated criminal minds to begin with.
rattaplan 5 years ago
and whats the premise in that unlikely argument?
MattyPasta 5 years ago
That not taking full responsibility for 'ones own actions (because your doing a Gods bidding) might pursuade certain individuals of doing questionable things more easily. The human mind is pretty creative after all. Especially when it comes to the interpretation of written words.
rattaplan 5 years ago
Also, religion is a beliefs system that can always be used to hide behind. Therefore people attracted to such a system most likely have a lot to hide, thus morally questionable. Since Christianity has had a dominant moment in history and killed off those who opposed, one could deduce that the survivors are infact more criminal.
rattaplan 5 years ago
actually a lack of 'moderate believers' as you call them would be a higher threat than the occassional 'extremist believer'. you see, it is my religious morality which holds me in line, which stops me from illegal or immoral activity when i know i can get away with it.
MattyPasta 5 years ago
It was my understanding that morality was meant to influence you to NOT WANT to get away with it. Then again religious morality has always struck me as "sanctions", kind of like traffic laws. People only obey to avoid the ticket, but otherwise wreckless, dangerous, break-neck speed isn't a problem.
Ginnna 5 years ago
My thoughts exactly. People need to come to the realization that while "moderate" believers do not pose a direct threat, they are the reason that the topic of faith is kept taboo. This allows dogmatic certainty to be left unchallenged. One need only visit the Nazi concentration camps in Poland to see what men can do when they are absolutely certain that they are right.
OparinsBulldog 5 years ago
thanks for sharing your beliefs. i still dont see how your beliefs are anymore 'right' or 'wrong' than anyone elses. seems like you have lots evidence for them, so i agree you should be able to believe in them. video inc..
listeningriffin 5 years ago
Ownage.
DickJohnson3434 5 years ago