*Check out my videos "Religion is ridiculous" (specifically Christianity)...good stuff, rate it! Christians I CHALLENGE you to watch with an open mind. Atheists watch the videos and give them a thumbs up! Help spread the truth!!
Atheists think that if you can't prove to them that there is a God it gives them a free license to do whatever they want. If there is no God then who made the laws and rules that govern human society? People I suppose. So why would people around the world outlaw rape, murder, sodomy, and other crimes? Because to not do so would lead to civil war. Plantation owners used to encourage homosexual relationships among slave men and banned heterosexual marriage among slaves. Gay proponents are dupes.
@Rebbeccasays " If there is no God then who made the laws and rules that govern human society? People I suppose. So why would people around the world outlaw rape, murder, sodomy, and other crimes? Because to not do so would lead to civil war. " congratulations for demonstrating extreme ignorance over the internet now would you kindly go back to the kitchen
Are you fucking retarded, or just a troll? If you reply, I'll be more than happy to show you why you're wrong. Chances are though, your baseless, illogical comment will take alot of flack....so I'm not expecting a reply.
@PappeH No I'm not retarded, in fact I have a college degree. Do you? Like most gay marriage proponents you are probably under the age of 25,dropped out of high school and maybe have a GED. You are an ignorant uneducated beer swilling pothead who watches far too much T.V. and knows nothing about classical theology or philosophy. You think you area free thinker when in fact you walk in lock step with your favorite guru Hugh Hefner like a sad little sheep. Baa Baa. Sad little troll.
...I do have a college degree actually, it's not like they're overtly difficult to obtain. You have yet to explain what's so terrible about gay marriage. I'm gonna to take the safe route and assume you're a troll based on the drivel you just spewed forth. You've made plenty of bigoted, idiotic statements....so let's see them backed? I'm pretty sure you don't have a reasonable argument to explain what's so bad about a gay person getting married.
Oh, and before I forget.....if all those things you claim about me were true....wouldn't my opinion be the exact opposite...? Theology and Philosophy have NOTHING to do with gay rights, and anyone who thinks they do is still living in the bronze age. So yeah...you're a troll.
The problem is that those delusional nutty christians believe/interpret/hallucinate all the fairy tales in that bullshit book called the bible. And majority have been brainwashed their whole sheltered lives. Atheists are intelligent enough to think on their own. Christians love to preach that "god" forgives everyone unless you're atheist or gay. But that born again serial killer is going to heaven. LOL I guess we atheists are going to their "imaginary hell". I'm so scared. Fucking morons!
I don't think it's an 'ick factor' in the sense that I don't think the 'ick factor' is anything but a cultural construct.
Which I say because it does NOT pop up in every human culture. Some human cultures had no particular big bias against homosexuality and some even considered humans to be naturally at least somewhat bisexual.
I think this supposed 'ick factor' is a western cultural thing. You don't necessarily see it in places like Thailand or Polynesia in the same sort of way.
Well done Max, yet again a theist impresses with an inability to construct a rational argument. Ad hominems and threats seem to be all most of you can come up with. Matt is overweight and bald...hmm, strong argument for theism indeed. Why bother with what he has to say, focus on his physique instead, because there are no bald and overweight theists right?
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which famous atheist Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
When posed with logical, reasonable and simple concepts. Or proven facts. Or asked to actually read the Bible, Christians give you the Helen Keller response.
The reality and truth is this: Destruction and deception is coming, freewill is achieved by trusting in Jesus Christ for remission of sins and a new mind. All who stay in sin and do not accept Jesus Christ for remission of sins will burn forever. Today is the day to make that choice. Today is the day. This is not a joke nor game. Seek him today.
@GuacamoleKun Well it sounded like you were implying creationist are too stupid too read, I know MANY christians and who study a lot of atheist literature, findings, etc...
Half of the christians who call into this show are backwooded hicks, I know some really smart Christians who could give these people a good debate.
@littlebit19801 I'm not saying creationists CAN'T read, I'm saying they WON'T read. They always ask "where is the evidence?" and then you point them towards a bunch of books, and they just ignore it. Like, that's not the kind of evidence they're looking for. But THAT'S THE EVIDENCE.
Bonobo chimps are fuck happy. They'll hump anything that moves. Silly little sex maniacs. Atheists claim there's nothing that can't be explained by a god. When it's existence is questioned, they get real fucking defensive and start quoting the Bibblit like their life depended on it.
My son is gay, & I've known plenty of gay people. Never bothered me. It really bugs Theists though, mainly because it's something they can't control. And isn't Catholic priests and Alter Boys considered gay?
So what are most atheists beliefs on transgenderism? Like having the body of one sex but having the brain, mind-set, perception of yourself as the opposite sex?
@littlebit19801 Well, for one, I don't think people just make that up, why would they?
But I think it has been studied and confirmed, but don't quote me on that, I'm not sure. But science aside, I'll take those peoples word for it, so such instances seem to occur. Weird but true.
@hanspeterpitsch Well being one of them myself I KNOW it's true, but I just wonder what different people think. I know so many people think one can be born gay but think it's totally impossible to be born with the identity of the opposite sex.
@oknatora In most Pagan tradition, homosexuality is never really an issue. Why they, or anyone else would believe in a monotheistic god, is absolutely beyond me, since it's frowned upon in every monotheistic culture I know of.
@skywize Yeah, well I can understand why you could believe in a god, I think it's just so you feel like you have something at the end and you are to scared to go with anything else, but believing in something that says who you are is wrong... that is just absurd.
@oknatora Personally, I am an Atheist, so it wouldn't apply to me either way. However, I can see how someone would be attracted to it. You are right, though. There is no place in modern religion for homosexuality.... or science, apparently...
All that exists is contingent to something else. The origin of the matter in the universe needs to be explained by the matter creating abilities of a non-contingent power. This non contingent power needs to exist by it's own necessity. Energy is proven to be non-contingent. Therefore a form of energy must had created the universe. Energy has the same attributes we give God, therefore is plausible that God had created the universe.
The point of homosexuality in nature is a very good one. There are only a couple animals who EVER exhibit the behavior. And they're not only related to humans, but it's a rarity most likely brought about by environment. And they NEVER have long term relationships....no animal versions of gay marriage. All long term mates in the animal world are heterosexual.
@gvman3670 Really, since when are cephalopods 'related to humans'? Some of them have what you would call 'homosexual encounters', as a survival strategy.
@gvman3670:Bagemihl's research shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.Homosexuality in animals is seen as controversial by social conservatives because it asserts the naturalness of homosexuality in humans, while others counter that it has no implications and is nonsensical to equate animal behavior to morality.(taken from wikipedia,should look more into it).
@guayacan07 Perhaps you should reason and not Wiki. First, worms? Dual gender animals don't count as having gay sex, man. Geesh. Show me (don't Wiki, it's not reliable) a single gendered mammal who has a long-term, monogamous gay relationship. Go ahead.....I'll be waiting.
It really isn't natural for 99.999999% of mammals. That's a lame, lame argument.
@gvman3670:I said we should look more into it and see if it is true, I never asserted it is 100% true but is it a very interesting argument. I will double check it for sure.
@gvman3670 Nature is a place filled with incest, genocide and superstition. Why are these things 'not fine' when they are natural? Why would homosexuallity be fine if we found it in nature when incest is found in nature too?
@gvman3670 Lions. That's a species that fit your tight requirements. The reason there aren't many more examples that fit your criteria is because very few mammals are monogamous. Among mammals homosexuality is way more common than monogamy. Also we are possibly the only species that has weddings. So if you really want to be 'natural' don't get married.
I'm glad the church doesn't accept gay marriage. It serves as a reminder to any rational human being that religion is NOT divinely inspired, there is no God behind it, it's entirely man made, and made by primitive fearful bigots. If I were gay I wouldn't want the blessings of such an inhumane ideology anyway.
@OddityDK Well, I agree and disagree. I'm a hardcore atheist, and gay. I'd like to take my (future) relationship to the next level, but I don't want to do it religiously. I want the same rights as married couples, but I don't want it to be a "marriage" per say. Do you get what i'm saying?
Absolutely, and you should of course have the same rights and recognition as straight couples. That being said I think free religion is extremely important. People must have the right to consider the Bible the word of God. The question is whether Christianity has a place in a modern society. I don't think so, it's divisive, bigoted and morally inferior. Instead of trying to modernize it, we should simply reject it. It should buried in the mass grave of dead religions.
I respect homosexuals, and I want them to not be afraid to be out an open about it, but I think we should still be awera that it is a mistake (on a biological level). Its not a mistake to BE homosexuals. But there is a mistake that happens, and thats what makes you gay.
@gulbirk Be aware that its a mistake?? OK lets ASSUME for a moment that I agree with you.....what does "being aware that its a mistake" mean?? And why is it important to be aware of that?? I can come up with a long list of things that we could label as biological mistakes (my eyes are different colors for example) that are not a detriment to a person....should we go around and tell people with such effects to be aware that they are mistakes on a biological level?? Sounds mean/stupid.
@Tiptoetherat No I didnt say that, and if you would have read the top of my coment instead of just the middle you would have understood that. And btw, I never said we should go around bashing them for it either. All I said was that it is a mistake that happens on a biological level.
@gulbirk You said "we should be aware its that is is a mistake on a biological level" Like I asked before can you explain to me what you mean by that. And if you don't mean we should bash them...then what DO you mean? Explaination is all I'm asking for.
@Tiptoetherat Im might have mis spoke a bit. What I meant was that Homosexuality is something that goes "wrong", and that cause it. That was all. So it is natural, and its not a choice, thats my point.
I have no problem with gays and I am atheist. But there are secular reasons for not advocating gay marriage. Can anyone think what they are? Or are we atheists bogged down in a dogmatic approach to freedom? This guy seems a good example of what I am talking about
I'm from Canada, it's been legal for almost 10 years, and abortion is in our bill of rights.
Neither is a problem, and it keeps boggling our minds how America can be so blind to their actual problems.
That aside, you are objecting to what he is saying as to avoiding secular reasons against homosexuality, yet you are not explaining what they are nor that he is aware of them. He's not being dogmatic unless he is aware of the argument and does not examine it purely to avoid questioning.
@Harizl Well I slightly disagree with your definition of dogmatism. I would say that the dogmatist begins with an affirmation of principles. Therefore, to me a dogmatist can be aware of any argument but refutes it by reference to those affirmed principles.To say that everyone deserves the same freedoms seems obvious and requires no affirmation because it might be derived a priori. But at some point, even these principles must be critiqued. Just look to Marx to see why. I would base
I would only say that anyone can envision a negative reason, but it would have to be rather large to outweigh the social equality of rights to deny a level of happiness and legal equality to all.
You would have to make a very solid case for evolution, because our birthrate is not all that high for a small fraction of ~10% of the population to make much of an impact.
@Harizl Are you saying that 10% of the world's population are gay and therefore require IVF or adoption to have kids? And what about the percentage of infertile people? Add those together and what do you get? 15%? (infertility rates are climbing btw). Ok, so what happens when you pass on the infertility/gay gene (yes it exists)? 15% becomes 16%. 16% becomes 25% etc until 50% of the population cannot give birth naturally. That's reason #1. Reason #2 - think Gattica and an ethical slippery slope
I said nothing about that, I was merely guessing where you were going.
As for your scenario, Your numbers for your first objection are quite far off, they are nowhere close to accurate as far as in-practice IVF. There will never be a time where even 1% of the population will be taking part of IVF.
As for Objection Number 2 - you can claim anything is a slippery slope, reality isn't Glenn Beck nor is the world not* 80% impoverished.
@Harizl Actually, that wasn't my scenario. You came up with the 10% figure. I'm just saying, if that relates to gay people then that's 10% who cannot conceive naturally.
I don't know who Glen Beck is, nor do i care. But I think you missed the point. If you can IVF, then what's next? Choose the baby's gender? How about hair colour, strength, immunity, penis size. Then what? Designer babies with six legs, that would be cool huh! See my point now? That first step is the one that sets you down
the slippery slope. 6 legged people seems inconceivable, but it's not impossible. That first step is the most important one. Then again, why bother arguing. Usually I'd say "fuck it". Let them do what they want. But critique is important. I'm not really against man/man marriage. Just putting a sensible argument forward. You can disagree all you want. But my premises are sound. I'd rather you just said, "cool man, that's interesting" and then fuck off
@Harizl Something may be legal but unethical. There are many examples. You're from Canada, do you think abortion is ethical? How about selling a minority interest in a company while still maintaining control - that's legal, but may be unethical (depends on intent)
FF use IVF. MM use surrogates. Either way, the outcome points to what I refer to - the ethical slippery slope. Gay marriage is the legislative conduit for IVF/surrogate practice, which puts it within my parameters of dangerous ethics
Again, you don't seem to be against gay marriage but simply IVF.
I do think women having the choice to abort is ethical, it is up to her to decide if it is ethical to abort not myself.
I think that your objection to IVF is exaggerated and irrelevant, and the same could be said against any non-gay marriage using IVF or surrogates. Do you think men who are gay have not and do not live in marriages with woman and raise kids in them? shall we ignore the Kinsey scale?
@Harizl The objection may SEEM exaggerated or irrelevant (especially because the consequences are very long term). And yes IVF is the main object of concern - but like I said, gay marriage is the legislative means to access it. I can't explain it any more clearly, so despite any offsets, such as the Kinsey scale (whatever the fuck that is), the argument is still sound. You also missed the point about legal but unethical. Abortion is just 1 example (i too think
it's ethical btw). Try to think of another, there are plenty. Now, granted that this argument delves somewhat into sophistry, I will say that gay marriage is fine, and I do believe that. However, the argument does not emerge from my personal belief (although I came up with it), and although it seems like argument for argument's sake, it nonetheless presents a rational objection to same sex marriage.
I disagree that it is rational and I'm uncertain what you are referring to as ethical.
I would say it is not rational on the bounds of scale and the reality of population versus IVF use, but that is merely against the argument as a counter-IVF one.
For an anti-gay marriage it is no more valid then saying that more gay marriages would be weddings which would amount to a growth in carbon emissions. The logic follows but the scale is so off that it is irrational.
When if we took the max number of factors in all cases the effect would be next to nothing even if the effect was proven to be true.
For example, lets take 2 in 4 people in the world being in a relationship, 10% of those being homosexual ones, 20% of those being under consideration for legal marriages, 50% of those being W/W and 50% of those wanting kids.
Even if IVF was available to every possible W/W marriage it would be about .25% of the population effects, in reality .01% max
@Harizl Thanks for doing the math. It's a happy coincidence (probably purposeful - u don't seem a fool) for you that you added a qualifier too. I'm just glad that you see the point, however unlikely a negative outcome for humanity may be. Granted it's a long shot, but what if those numbers increase? Slippery slopes bud! Ever see that movie where the youngest person in the world is like 40? I forget the name and i never saw it, but wait, maybe that's an argument for IVF. To cure Earth of people!
Also, I would say the slipper slope is still irrelevant because:
a) we don't have an underpopulation problem and if we did the 2-child rule would be implimented long before your super-long-shot had any effect.
b) Coupled with b) As you said I am from Canada, where our elected officials actually pay attention to stats and census like a good society. If it ever got to the point where even 1% of the effect you claim, there would be changes made
When I compared it to a Glenn Beck level claim, I was not exaggerating.
Unlike things in Glenn becks world, not every idea or ideology lives in a bubble which inexorably leads to the very worst possible outcome, however improbable and easily preventable.
Gay marriage will never cause the population to have a sterility problem due to IVF use, in the same way it will not cause the moon to explode. People actually pay attention.
@Harizl You are implying that 'attention' refers to a teleology. But that contradicts your statement that gay marriage cannot cause sterility. I've demonstrated the causal link between gay marriage and IVF, moreover, I think it's obvious. I think you need to clarify that "pay attention" statement, otherwise the juxtaposition presents a hole in your argument
Aside from this logical flaw, the slippery slopes argument does not unequivocally say that X will happen. It says there is potential for X
@Harizl That's different. You're argument is: if not X (cannot cause sterility), and Y (people pay attention), then Z (gay marriage is ok). I am saying that the 2 premises are contradictory/mutually exclusive. The analogy does not apply. Your analogy is: if X (brakes) then not Y(no need to pay attention). You've inverted the scenario and missed a step. Meh, logic and semantics who cares.
This is more a test btw. I have nothing against gay marriage and IVF. They can
do what they want. But I am trying to construct a logical argument. So far it seems able to withstand attacks. I hope you can appreciate that I am pushing shit uphill here... pissing into the wind so to speak. It's not solid argument, but the best debater takes the side that he opposes to prove himself worthy
Even if your argument was not logically flawed (which it isn't at it's first premise), it would still not make it rational.
It is not a rational argument, and if you think it is a logical one then you need to prove your premises first.
You don't even get that a logical argument is not based upon "able to withstand attacks" it's about proving the premises. This is the same BS that people push with god-exist logical claims which aren't claims, lol.
@Harizl Well I'm glad we're back on the track we moved away from. To PROVE the slippery slopes argument's premises is difficult because there can be no a posteriori derivation because we haven't arrived there yet. Where empirics fail, logic takes its place. Unless you can poke holes in the premises or show that there is a fallacy or circular reasoning, then I don't see how it is anything like god claims. There are no great leaps being made, no absolutist claims. Just a philosophical quandary.
Yes, but you have yet to prove any of them as probable. Heck, you haven't even shown any evidence that gay people birth gay children or that IVF has had any genetic effect past or future upon populations.
Unless you think that even unmonitored unnoticed and without any kind of study that at the very very best odds that a 0.01% possible effect is justified as "probable", then I've got a bridge to sell you.
You haven't proven it to be logical and certainly not rational.
First, I am not interested in the science (suffice to say that there is a gay gene, they talked about it on this show), but I am interested in the math. If evolution favours the 'fittest', then the consequences are not benign if humans determine who is fit. By perpetuating genes that would otherwise be eliminated, those numbers (that refer to the conclusion, NOT the premises) that were previously recessive would be allowed to thrive.
First, I am not interested in the science (suffice to say that there is a gay gene, they talked about it on this show), but I am interested in the math. If evolution favours the 'fittest', then the consequences are not benign if humans determine who is fit. By perpetuating genes that would otherwise be eliminated, those numbers (that refer to the conclusion, NOT the premises) that were previously recessive would be allowed to thrive.
I am not Immanuel Kant. I do not present these premises as axiomatic and I cannot determine what is ethical and what is not. The slippery slopes argument merely points to a possibility that infertile (or unwilling) characteristics/genes are perpetuated and the possibility for questionable ethics in regards to designer babies. Passing on genes is not probable, we cannot choose the sex of our offspring? Well I am pretty sure those aren't true. The premises are sound.
In the same way you can make an argument that a butterfly in Japan causes tornadoes in Africa you can make one for anything. The argument is not rational until you have supporting evidence which takes it out of the possible to the probable*. Not only that, but it has to stand up against rational objections, which you simply ignore.
1) It's not a rational argument against Gay marriage.
@Harizl Logic/rational, I am telling you that the premises are sound. They should be granted as probable or true: Genes are passed on to offspring. IVF affects the natural order by determining who is 'fit'. Gay marriage is the legislative conduit for IVF. We can choose the sex of our offspring. Science improves. Soon we MIGHT be able to choose our baby's height, strength etc. Conclusion - unethical practice via slippery slope. You must be VERY specific to deny those (avoid science would be nice)
It will never be probable that it will effect population. Show me how it goes from possible to probable because until then it is irrational. There are hundreds of reasons it will never effect society to even a fraction of the amount which you don't claim.
Do you think all millions of steps on your slippery slope have no one to stop them even if it was shown that any of them will take place?
do you even understand it when I say that possibility does not equate to probability?
@Harizl Well, firstly it's not millions of steps, it only takes a few to get from step 0, IVF, to step n, designer babies. Choice of sex (people can choose to have twins too!) is only one step after IVF. It is not a step that anyone has objected to. If this can be justified, then in future some keen bean will come up with a justification for other traits too. Perhaps this next step will be the defining one in my argument (but it hasn't happened. Yet.) This is the ethical side of
The evolutionary side is the one you are stating is irrational. I am almost tempted to yield on this one because of the minuteness of the scale (as you showed), but it is not probable - it is fact. What's more it seems obvious to me. If you perpetuate an infertile or gay gene (yes they exist), then a recessive gene that would otherwise deteriorate is allowed to flourish. Whereas some people
would be mere carriers (i.e. F/I [fertile/infertile])), now there would be potentially many more infertile people (i.e. I/I). Any I/I person who then uses the same IVF treatment will perpetuate that gene which will increase the number of carriers (F/I) and infertiles (I/I). The number, 0.01%, grows. This is high school biology punnet squares. I had hoped not to go into this but you kinda forced my hand. The math is indisputable. It is nothing to do with possibility. It is fact.
@Harizl If it's a (legitimate/nontrivial) possibility then it must be critiqued. If the critique leads us to conclude that it is unlikely then so be it. I'll grant you the unlikeliness of the argument given the numbers. I have never argued otherwise. Nonetheless, I think it's a decent attempt at an argument. I'll tell you what, when the day arrives that a doco comes out about this topic then I will get back to you. For now I think the originality and debate has been very worthwhile so thank you
I would call it a trivial possibility and upon simple critique it is not just "unlikely" but is "vastly improbable" to the point of irrelevancy or nonexistence.
I would never use that argument, it's not a "good" one. I would say it's an effort but not a satisfactory consideration of the objections.
Christians can´t explain some things that happen in the world. But what can an atheist explain that a christian can´t? And maybe atheists are scared that there may be a God and life after death. There are experiences of people who were clinically dead which point strongly to afterlife. The explantation I heard is "evolution developed these hallucinations to make dying easier". But how can a dying person pass on genes or experiences? What use would that have for the maintenance of species?
@heythinkaboutit This isn't about what a christian or a non believer can explain. Scientific Theories R supported with crerdible evidence & continual testing. Claims of a god's existence aren't. Many people were clinically dead. That doesn't point 2 an afterlife. Genes R passed on thru procreation. What pt. R U trying 2 make ? Your hypothesis that non believers maybe afraid of a god & an Afterlife is an unsupported opinion . How many non believers have U surveyed ?
@heythinkaboutit Near death experiences give NO INDICATION of an afterlife. If you see visions when you're near death in a hospital, you know what that proves? It proves you can see visions when you're near death. Where does afterlife come into the equation?
@ninjajesus81 I saw a documentary about near death experiences. The "visions" came when the brain was clinically dead or very close to dead but were much more intense than any hallucination. One woman who experienced hallucinations due to medication and later had a near death experience confirmed that.
The most astonishing thing is that people went outta their body and could precisely tell things that happened at that time and were not perceivable for their physical eye.
@heythinkaboutit So people could explain things that they couldn't have seen while they were in their coma or whatever that made them unable to see. What does that prove? Well, it doesn't prove anything. There's quite a few possibilities of how that's possible. Why immediately jump to "They were out of their body"?
@ninjajesus81 If there is accurate perception without the physical ability, that proves that there is more to us than our body, something higher what I would call "soul" and since it can work independent of our physical state, it´s not far-fetched to say that this soul is immortal.
"There's quite a few possibilities of how that's possible" I can´t think of any, can you elaborate on that?
@heythinkaboutit You seriously can't think of a way someone who lacks the ability to witness something could talk about how they saw it?
You're pretty quick to give supernatural explanations to thing. That's because you WANT the supernatural explanation to be true.
You don't even seem to care what it is the person talks about. It doesn't matter to you. If that person talks about something they didn't witness, then automatically you believe that souls exist and they're immortal from that.
@heythinkaboutit Let me make up an example. If someone wakes up from a coma and says that he was out of his body and watching the doctors work on him, you would conclude that his soul escaped his body and his soul floated over his body and allowed him to see what was happening to his body.
WOW, are you serious?
It couldn't be that he just simply dreamed about being in a hospital WHILE he was in a hospital and doctors were working on him, which is what they do? You couldn't think of that?
@ninjajesus81 "couldn't be that he just simply dreamed...? " Dreams can confuse you but they don´t apply to at least some of the near death experiences.
1.For a usual dream you need brain activity which was not there or at least not measurable
2.A dream is no clear image of reality but the persons can often provide exactly that about what would be beyond their vision. A blind woman told which shape and even colour the instruments had and that the doctor was dressed blue (German Wiki)
@heythinkaboutit So they didn't have brain activity. Then their dream must have occurred during a time in which there was brain activity. How do you know that their "vision" happened when there was no brain activity?
So a blind woman told them what instruments they had and what color the doctor was wearing. Well, if she wasn't blind her whole life, she may have been to a hospital before and knew what shape the instruments were and what doctors wear.
@ninjajesus81 "they didn't have brain activity." No MEASURABLE activity, it´s possible that the devices we have today don´t recognize all of it.
"their dream must have occurred during a time in which there was brain activity"
Except there is a soul that doesn´t need a brain to exist.
"she may have been to a hospital before and knew what shape the instruments were and what doctors wear." She was blind for over 50 years and most of the instruments didn´t even exist before she became blind.
You said someone experienced something when he had no brain activity.
I said he could have experienced it at a time when there WAS brain activity.
And you actually responded with "except there's a soul that doesn't need a brain to exist."
Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously, did you just say that? The whole fucking point of this was for me to prove to you that a soul isn't required to explain these stories. WTF?
@ninjajesus81 "..for me to prove to you that a soul isn't required to explain.." It´s not my intention to drive you mad and I am aware of that. But from my understanding this case and others can be best explained by the existance of a soul. And that is the connection to my first comment on this video.
A soul is a good hint for a possible afterlife. Evidence from fields such as biology ,history and psychology are the intellectual fundament of my belief...(cont)
@heythinkaboutit Why don't you think we in no way deserve love and life? Are you such a horrible person that since you don't deserve it, no one else does?
I think I am a pretty nice guy, and I think I do stuff that makes me deserving of love and life.
@heythinkaboutit How can these cases be BEST explained by a soul? I was giving reasons for why a soul isn't required in the explanation, but you just wanted to ignore them and say that the problem with my explanation is that a soul exists. Period.
Bullshit. The whole point of this discussion was for me to prove that a soul isn't the only explanation for your stories. It's not the best explanation. I don't even consider it an explanation at all. It's a cop out. You just WANT the soul to exist.
@heythinkaboutit And now you start preaching about God. Obviously I don't believe in God, so what are you doing talking to me about God? You wouldn't respond to someone telling you how great Zeus is, because you don't believe in Zeus. So why the hell do you think your preaching means anything to me?
Before you start telling me what God wants, you have to prove he exists first. You're skipping that step.
I can't tell you details about bigfoot until I prove he exists. Same with God.
@1RadicalOne An unfortunate victim of a mucormycosis infection, which forced doctors to remove a majority of his face, from his eyebrows to his tongue. He lived without a face for FIVE YEARS (he died in '05 of unknown causes, though missing his face may have had something to do with it), and his wife stood by him every single step of the way.
Photos of the guy look like someone took an ice cream scoop to his skull.
lol..how does rape and murder in the past help benifit society? the divorce rate has nothing to do with religion..its based on our sinful nature, self control, obedience to God and his word....to any Christian that cant answer this, they need to dive into the Bible and read God's word. These questions are easy to address...Homosexuality is here because we are sinful people who have turned from the creator...your not born gay ,its a hudge lie and just makes the gay person feel better about him
What makes you think a simple book (the bible) contains the truth?
Do you think you are born a filthy human being?
Why is homosexuality wrong?
How do you base your life on an ancient fairytale book written by primitive self righteous savages that could hardly keep up a fire to heat themselves?
How do you know your imaginary friend (god) is the good guy and not satan (another fictional character) trying to deceive you?
@hellhammerz666 first off your comments brought great joy and laughter to me....secondly the Bible is not a simple book, if you tried at all to read it you will see it takes great understanding and descerning to comprehend, and i am sure of its truth as it has yet to be disproved with solid evidence and not just angry people who feel they should voice an opinion they know nothing about..a fool loves to speak but never listen or understand.
@hellhammerz666 and I do believe and know we are born into sin. we all lie, cheat, steal, cuss, worship/pursue other things we make our gods and that is from our nature as sinful people, no one has to teach us how it comes natural. homosexuality is wrong one because it was adam and eve, male and female made to reproduce and populate the earth and to be one in spirt and in the flesh...male and male cannot do that neither female and female..other wise God would have made adam and steve
@hellhammerz666 and secondly the Bible already states that God calls it an abomination to the way humans are suppost to be..the idea of primitive humans is insane..we see in Genesis (1st book of the bible) that adam and eve where talking with each other and with God, were farming, naming animals, and after the fall of man, they were herding animals, growing crops, building cities, playing harps and flutes, tubal-cain who made tools out of bronze and iron..this is all the begining of civilaztion
@hellhammerz666 ofcourse all of my answers and replys to you come from the Bible...if i didnt it would be like trying to talk about being a mechanic by quoting Shakespear's Hamlet...you think you are making a good point but all of what you have said is diarrhea of the head and mouth..what is a zombie? started by south africa voodoo superstitions..they are reanimated corpses bent on human fleash pretty much...Christ however died and rose agian because he was saving us from our sins..
@trocha419 A zombie is a dead person that raises from his grave, just like your Jesus, saving us from some made up bullshit. It's a scam. If the guy supposedly saved us, why the fuck are people still scared of sins? Was his job not complete? Or was he just slacking?
About your religion's story. There were religions older than christianity, from which it took bits and pieces to make up their own tale. It's not even original.
@trocha419 About science, religions held back it's progress for hundreds of years, simply because faithmongers knew that such knowledge conflicted with dogmatic bullshit, which would jeopardize their massive grasp of power. Nowadays, religions are forced to admit scientific facts that debunk their stupid fairytales. Religions simply limit themselves to adapt to scientific development, because it actually works, and denying them would make them look even more stupid than they already are.
@trocha419You say you use your religion to have joy and peace and a happy life. I say such objective is perfectly achievable by purely secular means, without the need of primitive fairytales or vain threats like hell, or scams like the blood sacrifice of an old god to himself, just to raise a few days after like nothing happened.
Oh and btw, My nickname merely reflects my musical taste, nothing else. I'm still amazed people refer to it like it was actually relevant.
@hellhammerz666 yes Christ did come die and raise agian...he completed what he came here to do, which is be the ultimate and fianl sacrifice so that people (including the Jews because he is thier promised savior) wouldnt have to make sacrifices anymore...so that all would be needed would be accepting christ as your personal savior thus saving you from hell and peopel arent scared of sin..dont know where you got that from...i have no fear of sin or death because Christ conqured it..
@hellhammerz666 yes religions have in the past long ago slowed science so has no religious people...aside from that being a Christian is not a religion...its a way of life...the threats are real...im not gonna force you to believe in Christ and accept his gift of eternal life...you can lead a horse to water but cant make him drink it..as i have told you science proves intellegent design and gives more conviction to a creater...but its a choice you have to make...im praying for you
This has been flagged as spam show
*Check out my videos "Religion is ridiculous" (specifically Christianity)...good stuff, rate it! Christians I CHALLENGE you to watch with an open mind. Atheists watch the videos and give them a thumbs up! Help spread the truth!!
gasmask4poop 3 days ago
Atheists think that if you can't prove to them that there is a God it gives them a free license to do whatever they want. If there is no God then who made the laws and rules that govern human society? People I suppose. So why would people around the world outlaw rape, murder, sodomy, and other crimes? Because to not do so would lead to civil war. Plantation owners used to encourage homosexual relationships among slave men and banned heterosexual marriage among slaves. Gay proponents are dupes.
Rebbeccasays 5 days ago
@Rebbeccasays That's a load of nonsense.
Midnight0Mistress 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rebbeccasays " If there is no God then who made the laws and rules that govern human society? People I suppose. So why would people around the world outlaw rape, murder, sodomy, and other crimes? Because to not do so would lead to civil war. " congratulations for demonstrating extreme ignorance over the internet now would you kindly go back to the kitchen
bardiche1989 4 days ago
Are you fucking retarded, or just a troll? If you reply, I'll be more than happy to show you why you're wrong. Chances are though, your baseless, illogical comment will take alot of flack....so I'm not expecting a reply.
PappeH 1 day ago
@PappeH No I'm not retarded, in fact I have a college degree. Do you? Like most gay marriage proponents you are probably under the age of 25,dropped out of high school and maybe have a GED. You are an ignorant uneducated beer swilling pothead who watches far too much T.V. and knows nothing about classical theology or philosophy. You think you area free thinker when in fact you walk in lock step with your favorite guru Hugh Hefner like a sad little sheep. Baa Baa. Sad little troll.
Rebbeccasays 1 day ago
...I do have a college degree actually, it's not like they're overtly difficult to obtain. You have yet to explain what's so terrible about gay marriage. I'm gonna to take the safe route and assume you're a troll based on the drivel you just spewed forth. You've made plenty of bigoted, idiotic statements....so let's see them backed? I'm pretty sure you don't have a reasonable argument to explain what's so bad about a gay person getting married.
PappeH 21 hours ago
Oh, and before I forget.....if all those things you claim about me were true....wouldn't my opinion be the exact opposite...? Theology and Philosophy have NOTHING to do with gay rights, and anyone who thinks they do is still living in the bronze age. So yeah...you're a troll.
PappeH 21 hours ago
If there is a god, he's an idiot. A petty, hateful, incompetent idiot.
mikefromwa 6 days ago
Christians are part of a cult. Of course they are too blind to see that.
DrugstoreCFH 4 weeks ago 2
The problem is that those delusional nutty christians believe/interpret/hallucinate all the fairy tales in that bullshit book called the bible. And majority have been brainwashed their whole sheltered lives. Atheists are intelligent enough to think on their own. Christians love to preach that "god" forgives everyone unless you're atheist or gay. But that born again serial killer is going to heaven. LOL I guess we atheists are going to their "imaginary hell". I'm so scared. Fucking morons!
DrugstoreCFH 4 weeks ago
That was one of the better episodes that hopefully put me closer to the truth.
neoman121 1 month ago
Gay christians are the most self hating people
dopeasfuckk 1 month ago 2
This explanation makes a lot of sense. They can't explain it, so they fight it. Reality is too scary, so they flail out at it.
Trillidotia 1 month ago
I don't think it's an 'ick factor' in the sense that I don't think the 'ick factor' is anything but a cultural construct.
Which I say because it does NOT pop up in every human culture. Some human cultures had no particular big bias against homosexuality and some even considered humans to be naturally at least somewhat bisexual.
I think this supposed 'ick factor' is a western cultural thing. You don't necessarily see it in places like Thailand or Polynesia in the same sort of way.
TheSkunkCat 1 month ago 3
Wow, look at that one bald fat ass. Really makes me want to be an atheist.
MaxamillianArturo 1 month ago
@MaxamillianArturo
Well done Max, yet again a theist impresses with an inability to construct a rational argument. Ad hominems and threats seem to be all most of you can come up with. Matt is overweight and bald...hmm, strong argument for theism indeed. Why bother with what he has to say, focus on his physique instead, because there are no bald and overweight theists right?
OddityDK 1 month ago
Comment removed
MaxamillianArturo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OddityDK Only a doucher would use a phrase like "ad hominems" in an attempt to sound sophisticated
MaxamillianArturo 1 month ago
@MaxamillianArturo The Pope is very old. If I become a Catholic, I too will be very old. Thus, I will not become a Catholic.
werebee 1 month ago
@werebee He also shits in the woods from what I understand. I wouldn't be Catholic either.
MaxamillianArturo 1 month ago
@MaxamillianArturo What? Where did you hear that? I would think he has a golden toilet that a saint once used or something.
werebee 1 month ago
@werebee Its just an old saying I once heard
MaxamillianArturo 1 month ago
The answer is yes.
Wordlaw12 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which famous atheist Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 1 month ago
Christopher Hitchens put it best: Why would god create so many homosexuals, only to destroy them? DO NOT CONDEMN PEOPLE FOR THEIR INBORN NATURE!
Johnf85 1 month ago
When posed with logical, reasonable and simple concepts. Or proven facts. Or asked to actually read the Bible, Christians give you the Helen Keller response.
paramattic70 1 month ago
The reality and truth is this: Destruction and deception is coming, freewill is achieved by trusting in Jesus Christ for remission of sins and a new mind. All who stay in sin and do not accept Jesus Christ for remission of sins will burn forever. Today is the day to make that choice. Today is the day. This is not a joke nor game. Seek him today.
boywhoy88 2 months ago
@boywhoy88 you are a joke.
Regardless whether a god exists or not, your claims are a joke.
MagnusNyborg 1 month ago
@boywhoy88 The only difference between you and Harold Camping is he had the balls to pick a day.
pchtermino1 1 month ago
@pchtermino1 Great. Have a nice day
boywhoy88 1 month ago
@boywhoy88 LOL!
dkthg 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing, or a belief that is not a fact.! google faith lol
flexbrat 2 months ago
This man wrote 60 pages and expected a Christian to read it?
GuacamoleKun 2 months ago
@GuacamoleKun HAHAHAHA THat's so funny!!....NOT!
littlebit19801 2 months ago
@littlebit19801 I kind of wasn't joking. But rather than "Christian" I should have said "creationist", so I'm sorry about that part.
GuacamoleKun 2 months ago
@GuacamoleKun Well it sounded like you were implying creationist are too stupid too read, I know MANY christians and who study a lot of atheist literature, findings, etc...
Half of the christians who call into this show are backwooded hicks, I know some really smart Christians who could give these people a good debate.
littlebit19801 2 months ago
@littlebit19801 I'm not saying creationists CAN'T read, I'm saying they WON'T read. They always ask "where is the evidence?" and then you point them towards a bunch of books, and they just ignore it. Like, that's not the kind of evidence they're looking for. But THAT'S THE EVIDENCE.
GuacamoleKun 2 months ago
Bonobo chimps are fuck happy. They'll hump anything that moves. Silly little sex maniacs. Atheists claim there's nothing that can't be explained by a god. When it's existence is questioned, they get real fucking defensive and start quoting the Bibblit like their life depended on it.
My son is gay, & I've known plenty of gay people. Never bothered me. It really bugs Theists though, mainly because it's something they can't control. And isn't Catholic priests and Alter Boys considered gay?
TheCrimsonification 2 months ago
So what are most atheists beliefs on transgenderism? Like having the body of one sex but having the brain, mind-set, perception of yourself as the opposite sex?
littlebit19801 2 months ago
@littlebit19801 Well, for one, I don't think people just make that up, why would they?
But I think it has been studied and confirmed, but don't quote me on that, I'm not sure. But science aside, I'll take those peoples word for it, so such instances seem to occur. Weird but true.
hanspeterpitsch 2 months ago
@hanspeterpitsch Well being one of them myself I KNOW it's true, but I just wonder what different people think. I know so many people think one can be born gay but think it's totally impossible to be born with the identity of the opposite sex.
littlebit19801 2 months ago
What I have trouble understanding is why homosexuals believe in a god.
oknatora 3 months ago
@oknatora In most Pagan tradition, homosexuality is never really an issue. Why they, or anyone else would believe in a monotheistic god, is absolutely beyond me, since it's frowned upon in every monotheistic culture I know of.
skywize 3 months ago
@skywize Yeah, well I can understand why you could believe in a god, I think it's just so you feel like you have something at the end and you are to scared to go with anything else, but believing in something that says who you are is wrong... that is just absurd.
oknatora 3 months ago
@oknatora Personally, I am an Atheist, so it wouldn't apply to me either way. However, I can see how someone would be attracted to it. You are right, though. There is no place in modern religion for homosexuality.... or science, apparently...
skywize 3 months ago
@skywize Agreed.
oknatora 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All that exists is contingent to something else. The origin of the matter in the universe needs to be explained by the matter creating abilities of a non-contingent power. This non contingent power needs to exist by it's own necessity. Energy is proven to be non-contingent. Therefore a form of energy must had created the universe. Energy has the same attributes we give God, therefore is plausible that God had created the universe.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
So... Who is winning the fight through comments? I am too lazy to check through them. Need sleep.
TheStoopad 4 months ago
The point of homosexuality in nature is a very good one. There are only a couple animals who EVER exhibit the behavior. And they're not only related to humans, but it's a rarity most likely brought about by environment. And they NEVER have long term relationships....no animal versions of gay marriage. All long term mates in the animal world are heterosexual.
gvman3670 4 months ago
@gvman3670 TYPO....is "not" a very good one.
gvman3670 4 months ago
@gvman3670 Regardless, there are no scientific or moral grounds for banning homosexuality, or denying them the same rights as heterosexuals.
TheGeneralCritic 4 months ago
@gvman3670 Really, since when are cephalopods 'related to humans'? Some of them have what you would call 'homosexual encounters', as a survival strategy.
JaytheOstrich 4 months ago
@gvman3670:Bagemihl's research shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.Homosexuality in animals is seen as controversial by social conservatives because it asserts the naturalness of homosexuality in humans, while others counter that it has no implications and is nonsensical to equate animal behavior to morality.(taken from wikipedia,should look more into it).
guayacan07 3 months ago 3
@guayacan07 Perhaps you should reason and not Wiki. First, worms? Dual gender animals don't count as having gay sex, man. Geesh. Show me (don't Wiki, it's not reliable) a single gendered mammal who has a long-term, monogamous gay relationship. Go ahead.....I'll be waiting.
It really isn't natural for 99.999999% of mammals. That's a lame, lame argument.
gvman3670 3 months ago
@gvman3670:I said we should look more into it and see if it is true, I never asserted it is 100% true but is it a very interesting argument. I will double check it for sure.
guayacan07 3 months ago
@gvman3670
If it isn't natural for any animals, why does it happen? If it happens, it's natural by definition.
NUTCASE71733 3 months ago
@gvman3670 Nature is a place filled with incest, genocide and superstition. Why are these things 'not fine' when they are natural? Why would homosexuallity be fine if we found it in nature when incest is found in nature too?
Nature is not a guide for morality.
IKillBabyKittensLOL 3 months ago
@gvman3670 Lions. That's a species that fit your tight requirements. The reason there aren't many more examples that fit your criteria is because very few mammals are monogamous. Among mammals homosexuality is way more common than monogamy. Also we are possibly the only species that has weddings. So if you really want to be 'natural' don't get married.
18booma 3 months ago 2
I'm glad the church doesn't accept gay marriage. It serves as a reminder to any rational human being that religion is NOT divinely inspired, there is no God behind it, it's entirely man made, and made by primitive fearful bigots. If I were gay I wouldn't want the blessings of such an inhumane ideology anyway.
OddityDK 5 months ago 63
@OddityDK It makes perfect sense, god creates gays and then he hates them for being gay (sarcasm, i totally agree with you)
DJafferiK 1 month ago
@OddityDK I'm not even gay, but I go to the rallies just to piss of the ol heartland racist conservatives lol
PageofLegend 1 month ago
@PageofLegend And not to help people get their rights? you don't have to be gay to help them
Joaking91 1 month ago
@OddityDK Well, I agree and disagree. I'm a hardcore atheist, and gay. I'd like to take my (future) relationship to the next level, but I don't want to do it religiously. I want the same rights as married couples, but I don't want it to be a "marriage" per say. Do you get what i'm saying?
PenIsland34567 1 month ago
Comment removed
OddityDK 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PenIsland34567
Absolutely, and you should of course have the same rights and recognition as straight couples. That being said I think free religion is extremely important. People must have the right to consider the Bible the word of God. The question is whether Christianity has a place in a modern society. I don't think so, it's divisive, bigoted and morally inferior. Instead of trying to modernize it, we should simply reject it. It should buried in the mass grave of dead religions.
OddityDK 1 month ago
@OddityDK
on the topic on gay marriage, it never made sense to me that they are waiting for OTHER people to tell them 'ok, you can get married now.'
just do it
infernalone666 1 month ago
@GrizzlyBloodclaw Moreover, who is going to make the sandwich?
pythor2 6 months ago 11
@GrizzlyBloodclaw lol :]
DexxterMorgan 6 months ago
whats with the song aobut Teresa not listening at the beggining? :D "Wont you listen Teresa"
86Corvus 7 months ago
@86Corvus Oh, you're so punny. :D
EbolaZidane 7 months ago
@EbolaZidane i kno
86Corvus 7 months ago
@86Corvus i thought it was "won't you listen to reason"
MrShadowz92 6 months ago
IF you're a true Christian then why are you one these videos? Either to argue,or because you aren't secure in your beliefs.
gzac95 7 months ago
@all christians
If you are really a "good christian", then why are you watching atheist videos?
Seriously, religious wars are stupid.
masterkeyify 9 months ago
I respect homosexuals, and I want them to not be afraid to be out an open about it, but I think we should still be awera that it is a mistake (on a biological level). Its not a mistake to BE homosexuals. But there is a mistake that happens, and thats what makes you gay.
gulbirk 9 months ago
@gulbirk Be aware that its a mistake?? OK lets ASSUME for a moment that I agree with you.....what does "being aware that its a mistake" mean?? And why is it important to be aware of that?? I can come up with a long list of things that we could label as biological mistakes (my eyes are different colors for example) that are not a detriment to a person....should we go around and tell people with such effects to be aware that they are mistakes on a biological level?? Sounds mean/stupid.
Tiptoetherat 9 months ago
@Tiptoetherat No I didnt say that, and if you would have read the top of my coment instead of just the middle you would have understood that. And btw, I never said we should go around bashing them for it either. All I said was that it is a mistake that happens on a biological level.
gulbirk 9 months ago
@gulbirk You said "we should be aware its that is is a mistake on a biological level" Like I asked before can you explain to me what you mean by that. And if you don't mean we should bash them...then what DO you mean? Explaination is all I'm asking for.
Tiptoetherat 9 months ago
@Tiptoetherat Im might have mis spoke a bit. What I meant was that Homosexuality is something that goes "wrong", and that cause it. That was all. So it is natural, and its not a choice, thats my point.
gulbirk 9 months ago
@gulbirk Thankyou for taking the time to explain your stance.
Tiptoetherat 9 months ago
@Tiptoetherat No problem.
gulbirk 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For anyone who desires the truth, please check out the scribd website that is listed on my channel.
DreamsofMajesty 10 months ago
I have no problem with gays and I am atheist. But there are secular reasons for not advocating gay marriage. Can anyone think what they are? Or are we atheists bogged down in a dogmatic approach to freedom? This guy seems a good example of what I am talking about
Pigroota 10 months ago
@Pigroota
I'm from Canada, it's been legal for almost 10 years, and abortion is in our bill of rights.
Neither is a problem, and it keeps boggling our minds how America can be so blind to their actual problems.
That aside, you are objecting to what he is saying as to avoiding secular reasons against homosexuality, yet you are not explaining what they are nor that he is aware of them. He's not being dogmatic unless he is aware of the argument and does not examine it purely to avoid questioning.
Harizl 10 months ago
@Harizl Well I slightly disagree with your definition of dogmatism. I would say that the dogmatist begins with an affirmation of principles. Therefore, to me a dogmatist can be aware of any argument but refutes it by reference to those affirmed principles.To say that everyone deserves the same freedoms seems obvious and requires no affirmation because it might be derived a priori. But at some point, even these principles must be critiqued. Just look to Marx to see why. I would base
Pigroota 9 months ago
@Harizl my argument against gay marriage and IVF on the grounds of evolution. See if you can figure it out, otherwise pm me and I'll explain more
Pigroota 9 months ago
@Pigroota
I would only say that anyone can envision a negative reason, but it would have to be rather large to outweigh the social equality of rights to deny a level of happiness and legal equality to all.
You would have to make a very solid case for evolution, because our birthrate is not all that high for a small fraction of ~10% of the population to make much of an impact.
Harizl 9 months ago
@Harizl Are you saying that 10% of the world's population are gay and therefore require IVF or adoption to have kids? And what about the percentage of infertile people? Add those together and what do you get? 15%? (infertility rates are climbing btw). Ok, so what happens when you pass on the infertility/gay gene (yes it exists)? 15% becomes 16%. 16% becomes 25% etc until 50% of the population cannot give birth naturally. That's reason #1. Reason #2 - think Gattica and an ethical slippery slope
Pigroota 9 months ago
@Pigroota
I said nothing about that, I was merely guessing where you were going.
As for your scenario, Your numbers for your first objection are quite far off, they are nowhere close to accurate as far as in-practice IVF. There will never be a time where even 1% of the population will be taking part of IVF.
As for Objection Number 2 - you can claim anything is a slippery slope, reality isn't Glenn Beck nor is the world not* 80% impoverished.
Why are you against Man/Man marriage? not covered
Harizl 9 months ago
@Harizl Actually, that wasn't my scenario. You came up with the 10% figure. I'm just saying, if that relates to gay people then that's 10% who cannot conceive naturally.
I don't know who Glen Beck is, nor do i care. But I think you missed the point. If you can IVF, then what's next? Choose the baby's gender? How about hair colour, strength, immunity, penis size. Then what? Designer babies with six legs, that would be cool huh! See my point now? That first step is the one that sets you down
Pigroota 9 months ago
the slippery slope. 6 legged people seems inconceivable, but it's not impossible. That first step is the most important one. Then again, why bother arguing. Usually I'd say "fuck it". Let them do what they want. But critique is important. I'm not really against man/man marriage. Just putting a sensible argument forward. You can disagree all you want. But my premises are sound. I'd rather you just said, "cool man, that's interesting" and then fuck off
Pigroota 9 months ago
@Pigroota
No, I'm just rather interested with how you justify not supporting gay marriage for men.
I do not see your IVF reasons as valid for anyone, but they have no standing for men getting married at all.
Honestly, you seem to be against IVF not gay marriage, which I'm actually guessing isn't illegal for unmarried people to get.
Harizl 9 months ago
@Harizl Something may be legal but unethical. There are many examples. You're from Canada, do you think abortion is ethical? How about selling a minority interest in a company while still maintaining control - that's legal, but may be unethical (depends on intent)
FF use IVF. MM use surrogates. Either way, the outcome points to what I refer to - the ethical slippery slope. Gay marriage is the legislative conduit for IVF/surrogate practice, which puts it within my parameters of dangerous ethics
Pigroota 9 months ago
@Pigroota
Again, you don't seem to be against gay marriage but simply IVF.
I do think women having the choice to abort is ethical, it is up to her to decide if it is ethical to abort not myself.
I think that your objection to IVF is exaggerated and irrelevant, and the same could be said against any non-gay marriage using IVF or surrogates. Do you think men who are gay have not and do not live in marriages with woman and raise kids in them? shall we ignore the Kinsey scale?
Harizl 9 months ago
@Harizl The objection may SEEM exaggerated or irrelevant (especially because the consequences are very long term). And yes IVF is the main object of concern - but like I said, gay marriage is the legislative means to access it. I can't explain it any more clearly, so despite any offsets, such as the Kinsey scale (whatever the fuck that is), the argument is still sound. You also missed the point about legal but unethical. Abortion is just 1 example (i too think
Pigroota 9 months ago
it's ethical btw). Try to think of another, there are plenty. Now, granted that this argument delves somewhat into sophistry, I will say that gay marriage is fine, and I do believe that. However, the argument does not emerge from my personal belief (although I came up with it), and although it seems like argument for argument's sake, it nonetheless presents a rational objection to same sex marriage.
Pigroota 9 months ago
@Pigroota
I disagree that it is rational and I'm uncertain what you are referring to as ethical.
I would say it is not rational on the bounds of scale and the reality of population versus IVF use, but that is merely against the argument as a counter-IVF one.
For an anti-gay marriage it is no more valid then saying that more gay marriages would be weddings which would amount to a growth in carbon emissions. The logic follows but the scale is so off that it is irrational.
Harizl 9 months ago
@Pigroota
When if we took the max number of factors in all cases the effect would be next to nothing even if the effect was proven to be true.
For example, lets take 2 in 4 people in the world being in a relationship, 10% of those being homosexual ones, 20% of those being under consideration for legal marriages, 50% of those being W/W and 50% of those wanting kids.
Even if IVF was available to every possible W/W marriage it would be about .25% of the population effects, in reality .01% max
Harizl 9 months ago
@Harizl Thanks for doing the math. It's a happy coincidence (probably purposeful - u don't seem a fool) for you that you added a qualifier too. I'm just glad that you see the point, however unlikely a negative outcome for humanity may be. Granted it's a long shot, but what if those numbers increase? Slippery slopes bud! Ever see that movie where the youngest person in the world is like 40? I forget the name and i never saw it, but wait, maybe that's an argument for IVF. To cure Earth of people!
Pigroota 9 months ago
@Pigroota
It was Logan's Run and/or Children of God.
Also, I would say the slipper slope is still irrelevant because:
a) we don't have an underpopulation problem and if we did the 2-child rule would be implimented long before your super-long-shot had any effect.
b) Coupled with b) As you said I am from Canada, where our elected officials actually pay attention to stats and census like a good society. If it ever got to the point where even 1% of the effect you claim, there would be changes made
Harizl 9 months ago
@Pigroota
When I compared it to a Glenn Beck level claim, I was not exaggerating.
Unlike things in Glenn becks world, not every idea or ideology lives in a bubble which inexorably leads to the very worst possible outcome, however improbable and easily preventable.
Gay marriage will never cause the population to have a sterility problem due to IVF use, in the same way it will not cause the moon to explode. People actually pay attention.
Harizl 9 months ago
@Harizl You are implying that 'attention' refers to a teleology. But that contradicts your statement that gay marriage cannot cause sterility. I've demonstrated the causal link between gay marriage and IVF, moreover, I think it's obvious. I think you need to clarify that "pay attention" statement, otherwise the juxtaposition presents a hole in your argument
Aside from this logical flaw, the slippery slopes argument does not unequivocally say that X will happen. It says there is potential for X
Pigroota 9 months ago
@Harizl In other words, why do people need to "pay attention" if IVF cannot cause sterility??
Pigroota 9 months ago
@Pigroota
Why do we need to pay attention if a car has brakes?
It's not that we need to, it's that people are always doing so. As I said, these things do not exist in a vacuum.
Harizl 9 months ago
@Harizl That's different. You're argument is: if not X (cannot cause sterility), and Y (people pay attention), then Z (gay marriage is ok). I am saying that the 2 premises are contradictory/mutually exclusive. The analogy does not apply. Your analogy is: if X (brakes) then not Y(no need to pay attention). You've inverted the scenario and missed a step. Meh, logic and semantics who cares.
This is more a test btw. I have nothing against gay marriage and IVF. They can
Pigroota 9 months ago
do what they want. But I am trying to construct a logical argument. So far it seems able to withstand attacks. I hope you can appreciate that I am pushing shit uphill here... pissing into the wind so to speak. It's not solid argument, but the best debater takes the side that he opposes to prove himself worthy
Pigroota 9 months ago
@Pigroota
Logical is not the same as rational.
Even if your argument was not logically flawed (which it isn't at it's first premise), it would still not make it rational.
It is not a rational argument, and if you think it is a logical one then you need to prove your premises first.
You don't even get that a logical argument is not based upon "able to withstand attacks" it's about proving the premises. This is the same BS that people push with god-exist logical claims which aren't claims, lol.
Harizl 9 months ago
@Harizl Well I'm glad we're back on the track we moved away from. To PROVE the slippery slopes argument's premises is difficult because there can be no a posteriori derivation because we haven't arrived there yet. Where empirics fail, logic takes its place. Unless you can poke holes in the premises or show that there is a fallacy or circular reasoning, then I don't see how it is anything like god claims. There are no great leaps being made, no absolutist claims. Just a philosophical quandary.
Pigroota 9 months ago
@Harizl And you don't have to prove premises for an argument to be logical btw. Premises can be granted as probable and this is sufficient.
Pigroota 9 months ago
@Pigroota
Yes, but you have yet to prove any of them as probable. Heck, you haven't even shown any evidence that gay people birth gay children or that IVF has had any genetic effect past or future upon populations.
Unless you think that even unmonitored unnoticed and without any kind of study that at the very very best odds that a 0.01% possible effect is justified as "probable", then I've got a bridge to sell you.
You haven't proven it to be logical and certainly not rational.
Harizl 9 months ago
@Harizl I can only respond by saying 2 things.
First, I am not interested in the science (suffice to say that there is a gay gene, they talked about it on this show), but I am interested in the math. If evolution favours the 'fittest', then the consequences are not benign if humans determine who is fit. By perpetuating genes that would otherwise be eliminated, those numbers (that refer to the conclusion, NOT the premises) that were previously recessive would be allowed to thrive.
Secondly,
Pigroota 9 months ago
@Pigroota
You don't understand evolution if you think that way.
Humans determine who is fit all the time, but unlike your skewed version it is done indirectly as IVF would be effecting your believed-in gay gene.
I'm well aware you aren't interested in science, nor reality at that, because when your model enters reality it is destroyed on ten different levels.
Possibilities do not equate to reality, in reality you have to show your work and people actually pay attention.
Harizl 9 months ago
@Harizl I can only respond by saying 2 things.
First, I am not interested in the science (suffice to say that there is a gay gene, they talked about it on this show), but I am interested in the math. If evolution favours the 'fittest', then the consequences are not benign if humans determine who is fit. By perpetuating genes that would otherwise be eliminated, those numbers (that refer to the conclusion, NOT the premises) that were previously recessive would be allowed to thrive.
Secondly,
Pigroota 9 months ago
I am not Immanuel Kant. I do not present these premises as axiomatic and I cannot determine what is ethical and what is not. The slippery slopes argument merely points to a possibility that infertile (or unwilling) characteristics/genes are perpetuated and the possibility for questionable ethics in regards to designer babies. Passing on genes is not probable, we cannot choose the sex of our offspring? Well I am pretty sure those aren't true. The premises are sound.
Pigroota 9 months ago
@Pigroota
You label your argument as rational*, it isn't.
In the same way you can make an argument that a butterfly in Japan causes tornadoes in Africa you can make one for anything. The argument is not rational until you have supporting evidence which takes it out of the possible to the probable*. Not only that, but it has to stand up against rational objections, which you simply ignore.
1) It's not a rational argument against Gay marriage.
2) It's not a rational argument against IVF.
Harizl 9 months ago
@Harizl Logic/rational, I am telling you that the premises are sound. They should be granted as probable or true: Genes are passed on to offspring. IVF affects the natural order by determining who is 'fit'. Gay marriage is the legislative conduit for IVF. We can choose the sex of our offspring. Science improves. Soon we MIGHT be able to choose our baby's height, strength etc. Conclusion - unethical practice via slippery slope. You must be VERY specific to deny those (avoid science would be nice)
Pigroota 9 months ago
@Pigroota
It will never be probable that it will effect population. Show me how it goes from possible to probable because until then it is irrational. There are hundreds of reasons it will never effect society to even a fraction of the amount which you don't claim.
Do you think all millions of steps on your slippery slope have no one to stop them even if it was shown that any of them will take place?
do you even understand it when I say that possibility does not equate to probability?
Harizl 9 months ago
@Harizl Well, firstly it's not millions of steps, it only takes a few to get from step 0, IVF, to step n, designer babies. Choice of sex (people can choose to have twins too!) is only one step after IVF. It is not a step that anyone has objected to. If this can be justified, then in future some keen bean will come up with a justification for other traits too. Perhaps this next step will be the defining one in my argument (but it hasn't happened. Yet.) This is the ethical side of
Pigroota 9 months ago
the argument
The evolutionary side is the one you are stating is irrational. I am almost tempted to yield on this one because of the minuteness of the scale (as you showed), but it is not probable - it is fact. What's more it seems obvious to me. If you perpetuate an infertile or gay gene (yes they exist), then a recessive gene that would otherwise deteriorate is allowed to flourish. Whereas some people
Pigroota 9 months ago
would be mere carriers (i.e. F/I [fertile/infertile])), now there would be potentially many more infertile people (i.e. I/I). Any I/I person who then uses the same IVF treatment will perpetuate that gene which will increase the number of carriers (F/I) and infertiles (I/I). The number, 0.01%, grows. This is high school biology punnet squares. I had hoped not to go into this but you kinda forced my hand. The math is indisputable. It is nothing to do with possibility. It is fact.
Pigroota 9 months ago
@Pigroota
Sure, the possibility is fact ,but the reality is not.
There are a million reasons that your possibility will never propagate in reality, thus it's irrational.
Again, this is a Glen Beck slippery-slope rationale-retarding situation.
Harizl 9 months ago
@Harizl If it's a (legitimate/nontrivial) possibility then it must be critiqued. If the critique leads us to conclude that it is unlikely then so be it. I'll grant you the unlikeliness of the argument given the numbers. I have never argued otherwise. Nonetheless, I think it's a decent attempt at an argument. I'll tell you what, when the day arrives that a doco comes out about this topic then I will get back to you. For now I think the originality and debate has been very worthwhile so thank you
Pigroota 9 months ago
@Pigroota
I would call it a trivial possibility and upon simple critique it is not just "unlikely" but is "vastly improbable" to the point of irrelevancy or nonexistence.
I would never use that argument, it's not a "good" one. I would say it's an effort but not a satisfactory consideration of the objections.
Cheers.
Harizl 9 months ago
@Harizl A trivial possibility - not a trivial matter. There's a difference
Pigroota 9 months ago
Christians can´t explain some things that happen in the world. But what can an atheist explain that a christian can´t? And maybe atheists are scared that there may be a God and life after death. There are experiences of people who were clinically dead which point strongly to afterlife. The explantation I heard is "evolution developed these hallucinations to make dying easier". But how can a dying person pass on genes or experiences? What use would that have for the maintenance of species?
heythinkaboutit 1 year ago
@heythinkaboutit This isn't about what a christian or a non believer can explain. Scientific Theories R supported with crerdible evidence & continual testing. Claims of a god's existence aren't. Many people were clinically dead. That doesn't point 2 an afterlife. Genes R passed on thru procreation. What pt. R U trying 2 make ? Your hypothesis that non believers maybe afraid of a god & an Afterlife is an unsupported opinion . How many non believers have U surveyed ?
tranquility4all 1 year ago
@heythinkaboutit Near death experiences give NO INDICATION of an afterlife. If you see visions when you're near death in a hospital, you know what that proves? It proves you can see visions when you're near death. Where does afterlife come into the equation?
ninjajesus81 1 year ago
@ninjajesus81 I saw a documentary about near death experiences. The "visions" came when the brain was clinically dead or very close to dead but were much more intense than any hallucination. One woman who experienced hallucinations due to medication and later had a near death experience confirmed that.
The most astonishing thing is that people went outta their body and could precisely tell things that happened at that time and were not perceivable for their physical eye.
heythinkaboutit 1 year ago
@heythinkaboutit So people could explain things that they couldn't have seen while they were in their coma or whatever that made them unable to see. What does that prove? Well, it doesn't prove anything. There's quite a few possibilities of how that's possible. Why immediately jump to "They were out of their body"?
ninjajesus81 1 year ago
@ninjajesus81 If there is accurate perception without the physical ability, that proves that there is more to us than our body, something higher what I would call "soul" and since it can work independent of our physical state, it´s not far-fetched to say that this soul is immortal.
"There's quite a few possibilities of how that's possible" I can´t think of any, can you elaborate on that?
heythinkaboutit 1 year ago
@heythinkaboutit You seriously can't think of a way someone who lacks the ability to witness something could talk about how they saw it?
You're pretty quick to give supernatural explanations to thing. That's because you WANT the supernatural explanation to be true.
You don't even seem to care what it is the person talks about. It doesn't matter to you. If that person talks about something they didn't witness, then automatically you believe that souls exist and they're immortal from that.
ninjajesus81 1 year ago
@heythinkaboutit Let me make up an example. If someone wakes up from a coma and says that he was out of his body and watching the doctors work on him, you would conclude that his soul escaped his body and his soul floated over his body and allowed him to see what was happening to his body.
WOW, are you serious?
It couldn't be that he just simply dreamed about being in a hospital WHILE he was in a hospital and doctors were working on him, which is what they do? You couldn't think of that?
ninjajesus81 1 year ago
@ninjajesus81 "couldn't be that he just simply dreamed...? " Dreams can confuse you but they don´t apply to at least some of the near death experiences.
1.For a usual dream you need brain activity which was not there or at least not measurable
2.A dream is no clear image of reality but the persons can often provide exactly that about what would be beyond their vision. A blind woman told which shape and even colour the instruments had and that the doctor was dressed blue (German Wiki)
heythinkaboutit 1 year ago
@heythinkaboutit So they didn't have brain activity. Then their dream must have occurred during a time in which there was brain activity. How do you know that their "vision" happened when there was no brain activity?
So a blind woman told them what instruments they had and what color the doctor was wearing. Well, if she wasn't blind her whole life, she may have been to a hospital before and knew what shape the instruments were and what doctors wear.
You couldn't think of that?
ninjajesus81 1 year ago
@ninjajesus81 "they didn't have brain activity." No MEASURABLE activity, it´s possible that the devices we have today don´t recognize all of it.
"their dream must have occurred during a time in which there was brain activity"
Except there is a soul that doesn´t need a brain to exist.
"she may have been to a hospital before and knew what shape the instruments were and what doctors wear." She was blind for over 50 years and most of the instruments didn´t even exist before she became blind.
heythinkaboutit 1 year ago
@heythinkaboutit
Let me just break down what happened here.
You said someone experienced something when he had no brain activity.
I said he could have experienced it at a time when there WAS brain activity.
And you actually responded with "except there's a soul that doesn't need a brain to exist."
Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously, did you just say that? The whole fucking point of this was for me to prove to you that a soul isn't required to explain these stories. WTF?
ninjajesus81 1 year ago
@ninjajesus81 "..for me to prove to you that a soul isn't required to explain.." It´s not my intention to drive you mad and I am aware of that. But from my understanding this case and others can be best explained by the existance of a soul. And that is the connection to my first comment on this video.
A soul is a good hint for a possible afterlife. Evidence from fields such as biology ,history and psychology are the intellectual fundament of my belief...(cont)
heythinkaboutit 1 year ago
@heythinkaboutit But I neither "felt it" nor did I receive healing before I actually humbled myself before him.
God is the one who loves us and wants to restore our body and soul, he even wants to give us eternal life
which we deserve in no way. But we have to turn back to him.
heythinkaboutit 1 year ago
@heythinkaboutit No evidence, no case, no discussion.
Pretty simple. right?
Or would you want me proselytizing my faith in the pink invisible elephant in my backyard?
88gertjan88 1 year ago
@heythinkaboutit Why don't you think we in no way deserve love and life? Are you such a horrible person that since you don't deserve it, no one else does?
I think I am a pretty nice guy, and I think I do stuff that makes me deserving of love and life.
Link0X 10 months ago
@heythinkaboutit religion wants you to be a sheep, good luck with that. Me myself i prefer a more truthfull existance.
ExcaliburClan 9 months ago
@heythinkaboutit How can these cases be BEST explained by a soul? I was giving reasons for why a soul isn't required in the explanation, but you just wanted to ignore them and say that the problem with my explanation is that a soul exists. Period.
Bullshit. The whole point of this discussion was for me to prove that a soul isn't the only explanation for your stories. It's not the best explanation. I don't even consider it an explanation at all. It's a cop out. You just WANT the soul to exist.
ninjajesus81 1 year ago
@heythinkaboutit And now you start preaching about God. Obviously I don't believe in God, so what are you doing talking to me about God? You wouldn't respond to someone telling you how great Zeus is, because you don't believe in Zeus. So why the hell do you think your preaching means anything to me?
Before you start telling me what God wants, you have to prove he exists first. You're skipping that step.
I can't tell you details about bigfoot until I prove he exists. Same with God.
ninjajesus81 1 year ago 34
The caller is wrong on one point:
Me and my wife married less than a year after meeting each other. We were both lucky enough to find true love. :)
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne Not to devalue you and your wife, but if you want to see TRUE love, look up Mark Tatum of Owensboro, Kentucky.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
Who is that?
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne An unfortunate victim of a mucormycosis infection, which forced doctors to remove a majority of his face, from his eyebrows to his tongue. He lived without a face for FIVE YEARS (he died in '05 of unknown causes, though missing his face may have had something to do with it), and his wife stood by him every single step of the way.
Photos of the guy look like someone took an ice cream scoop to his skull.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
Wow...
Yes, that is certainly an excellent example of devotion.
I would have demanded to be euthanized if I had such a disease.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
lol..how does rape and murder in the past help benifit society? the divorce rate has nothing to do with religion..its based on our sinful nature, self control, obedience to God and his word....to any Christian that cant answer this, they need to dive into the Bible and read God's word. These questions are easy to address...Homosexuality is here because we are sinful people who have turned from the creator...your not born gay ,its a hudge lie and just makes the gay person feel better about him
trocha419 1 year ago
@trocha419 Some questions:
What makes you think a simple book (the bible) contains the truth?
Do you think you are born a filthy human being?
Why is homosexuality wrong?
How do you base your life on an ancient fairytale book written by primitive self righteous savages that could hardly keep up a fire to heat themselves?
How do you know your imaginary friend (god) is the good guy and not satan (another fictional character) trying to deceive you?
Do you believe in zombies?
What is sin?
hellhammerz666 1 year ago
@hellhammerz666 first off your comments brought great joy and laughter to me....secondly the Bible is not a simple book, if you tried at all to read it you will see it takes great understanding and descerning to comprehend, and i am sure of its truth as it has yet to be disproved with solid evidence and not just angry people who feel they should voice an opinion they know nothing about..a fool loves to speak but never listen or understand.
trocha419 1 year ago
@hellhammerz666 and I do believe and know we are born into sin. we all lie, cheat, steal, cuss, worship/pursue other things we make our gods and that is from our nature as sinful people, no one has to teach us how it comes natural. homosexuality is wrong one because it was adam and eve, male and female made to reproduce and populate the earth and to be one in spirt and in the flesh...male and male cannot do that neither female and female..other wise God would have made adam and steve
trocha419 1 year ago
@hellhammerz666 and secondly the Bible already states that God calls it an abomination to the way humans are suppost to be..the idea of primitive humans is insane..we see in Genesis (1st book of the bible) that adam and eve where talking with each other and with God, were farming, naming animals, and after the fall of man, they were herding animals, growing crops, building cities, playing harps and flutes, tubal-cain who made tools out of bronze and iron..this is all the begining of civilaztion
trocha419 1 year ago
@trocha419 All your arguments come from the same fucked up set of stories that:
- Says it's ok to stone an unruly child to death.
- Condones mysogyny as a morally correct behaviour.
- Encourages slavery.
- Condones mass murder.
- Contains fantasy characters, like talking snakes, a girl who pops out of a guy's rib and zombies.
- Condones homophobia.
- Encourages pillaging and raiding people who think different, negating multicultural exhange.
And more delightful "moral" lessons.
hellhammerz666 1 year ago
@hellhammerz666 ofcourse all of my answers and replys to you come from the Bible...if i didnt it would be like trying to talk about being a mechanic by quoting Shakespear's Hamlet...you think you are making a good point but all of what you have said is diarrhea of the head and mouth..what is a zombie? started by south africa voodoo superstitions..they are reanimated corpses bent on human fleash pretty much...Christ however died and rose agian because he was saving us from our sins..
trocha419 1 year ago
@trocha419 A zombie is a dead person that raises from his grave, just like your Jesus, saving us from some made up bullshit. It's a scam. If the guy supposedly saved us, why the fuck are people still scared of sins? Was his job not complete? Or was he just slacking?
About your religion's story. There were religions older than christianity, from which it took bits and pieces to make up their own tale. It's not even original.
666, i believe it actually comes from the qur'an.
hellhammerz666 1 year ago
@trocha419 About science, religions held back it's progress for hundreds of years, simply because faithmongers knew that such knowledge conflicted with dogmatic bullshit, which would jeopardize their massive grasp of power. Nowadays, religions are forced to admit scientific facts that debunk their stupid fairytales. Religions simply limit themselves to adapt to scientific development, because it actually works, and denying them would make them look even more stupid than they already are.
hellhammerz666 1 year ago
@trocha419You say you use your religion to have joy and peace and a happy life. I say such objective is perfectly achievable by purely secular means, without the need of primitive fairytales or vain threats like hell, or scams like the blood sacrifice of an old god to himself, just to raise a few days after like nothing happened.
Oh and btw, My nickname merely reflects my musical taste, nothing else. I'm still amazed people refer to it like it was actually relevant.
hellhammerz666 1 year ago
@hellhammerz666 yes Christ did come die and raise agian...he completed what he came here to do, which is be the ultimate and fianl sacrifice so that people (including the Jews because he is thier promised savior) wouldnt have to make sacrifices anymore...so that all would be needed would be accepting christ as your personal savior thus saving you from hell and peopel arent scared of sin..dont know where you got that from...i have no fear of sin or death because Christ conqured it..
trocha419 1 year ago
@hellhammerz666 yes religions have in the past long ago slowed science so has no religious people...aside from that being a Christian is not a religion...its a way of life...the threats are real...im not gonna force you to believe in Christ and accept his gift of eternal life...you can lead a horse to water but cant make him drink it..as i have told you science proves intellegent design and gives more conviction to a creater...but its a choice you have to make...im praying for you
trocha419 1 year ago