Go Back   Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums > General Discussion > Critical Thinking
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-19-2008, 12:12 AM   #41
gnr61
FFR Simfile Author
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
gnr61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: TOKYO STYLE SPEEDCORE, ohio
Age: 30
Posts: 7,251
Send a message via AIM to gnr61
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

unless you consider the Bible from a purely literalistic standpoint, which a larger portion of Christians than you seem to believe -do-, in which case you are by necessity making claims that can be put to scientific test and scrutiny (ex: noah's flood, literal creationist theory--which is what i was taught -in science class- to be a scientific truth for much of high school).
__________________
squirrel--it's whats for dinner.
gnr61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 12:31 AM   #42
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Quote:
which a larger portion of Christians than you seem to believe -do-,
Yes, because I believe, based on 15 years in catholic school, and association with a large number of christian, that not nearly as many people as you seem to think believe in a literal interpretation of the old testament.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 02:06 AM   #43
sumzup
(+ (- (/ (* 1 2) 3) 4) 5)
FFR Veteran
 
sumzup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle
Age: 29
Posts: 1,398
Send a message via AIM to sumzup Send a message via MSN to sumzup
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

As has been stated many times before, but seemingly ignored, religion and science are mutually exclusive and have no reason to overlap at all. Science deals with the realm of testable things; as religion, by definition, requires faith in something that is untestable, there's no way that science can attempt to do anything regarding religion. Science deals with facts, not faith.

By the same token, religion shouldn't try to interfere with science. Having ID taught as science in schools is ridiculous. Science is something that is proven with a reasonably degree of certainty, and continues to reinvent itself with the addition of new evidence. Religion assumes, and nothing further can be done about it. There's nothing wrong with having ID in schools; it should just never be discussed in a science class, because ID is not true science. It's merely a cover for creationism.

Now, to clear some things up. Someone earlier used the incredibly weak example (by their own admission) of gravity being something that is likely, but not 100% certain. Gravity is accepted fact; once something has been tested again and again and stands up to the rigor of every applicable test, it's safe to say that it is the truth. In fact, gravity is governed by a set of laws that cannot be broken. A law is a simple statement/description of what is happening; gravity is gravity, and that's that.

It's worth noting that the word "theory" as used in scientific circles means something incredibly different from its usage in common parlance. A scientific theory consists of an assertion that is backed up by a large body of evidence and is generally accepted as an accurate explanation of a natural phenomenon. "Theory" in common usage means a hypothesis...basically a guess. This confusion has resulted in ID proponents trying to put ID on the same lavel as evolution, with the rationale that both are just "theories."

Basically, by definition, science and religion should have nothing to do with each other, and indeed one should not attempt to try and examine one with the other. Doing so leads to nowhere. If both sides left each other alone, the world would be much better off.

One last thing, to address the original question. Religion cannot be subject to scrutiny beyond what is present in scripture (obviously there can be various interpretations of different statements, etc.); on the other hand, science should be subject to heavy scrutiny (and indeed thrives on it). The only way for science to be science is if there is continuous testing and attempts to discover more.
__________________
sumzup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 06:08 AM   #44
Afrobean
Admiral in the Red Army
FFR Veteran
 
Afrobean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the moon
Age: 32
Posts: 13,262
Send a message via Skype™ to Afrobean
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
To you, as a clearly non-religious person. To a religious person with faith, God has relevance, sense and a damn good reason to exist.
Being "relevent" doesn't matter. Thinking that it would be good for him to exist also doesn't matter. I think it would be good if I had telekineses, but does that mean I do?

Quote:
Just because you elect to not follow their belief system doesn't make their belief system irellevant, nonsensical and pointless, just irellevant, nonsensical and pointless TO YOU.
I pointed this out in that thread the other day. It is a logical fallacy to believe in something just because it can't be proven wrong. It is also, again, a logical fallacy to believe that something exists just because it would be good or feel "right" for it to exist. If there is no evidence why believe in it?

Yeah, faith, I know, but why place faith in that? Why not place faith in the stories of Oddyseus or Heracles? Peter Parker or Clark Kent? What makes that particular ancient religious texts worthy of being taken seriously while other ancient literature is scoffed as entirely fictional?

Quote:
You'd take the same general tack in answering objections to your belief system, but that doesn't make the system equally legitimate.
Wait.

Are you saying that people who believe in God are more likely to be right than those who believe in Russel's Teapot? Do you honestly think this is true? All are equally (un)likely due to the lack of any sort of evidence in either camp.

Quote:
You're pointing to a container of vanilla ice cream, clearly labelled "Vanilla Ice Cream" and criticizing it for not being chocolaty enough. If it was claiming to be chocolate ice cream, you'd have a really good and well-founded objection that it wasn't chocolatey enough, but since it never claimed to be chocolate, the degree to which it is or isn't chocolate is TOTALLY IRELLEVANT.
What about the pseudoscience of intelligent design and all the hogwash they try to concoct to "prove" religious things "scientifically"? Are we not allowed to talk ill of their ilk? "OMG LOOK AT THIS BANANA IT FITS MY HAND PERFECTLY there's no way the banana could have developed this characteristic through evolution"

Just to make things clear, I'm not wholly against believing in a divine presence. I just can't stand it when people try to act like it's rational or logical to believe in these things; it's not, that's why it's FAITH. I also can't stand organized religion, and frankly, if there is a god of any kind, I can assure you with great confidence that he is unlike any god in any religion or that anyone has ever thought of. This Great Creator everyone likes to talk of so much is defined as being outside the realm of human understanding, so why would you venture to think that you or anyone else on this planet could know what they're talking about when referring to him?

Quote:
intelligent design, definitely fall within the scientific method to test.
There are plenty of things we don't know and likely never will about the specific origins of life on Earth, nor the specific way in which evolution went down the paths that it has. There was a spark that initiated life from essentially nothing. What is this spark? Where did it come from? Can you prove that an extradimensional intelligence did not cause it? I don't personally believe it myself, but I don't think science will ever definitively be able to say, at least not as far as it being a good enough answer to make the godfreaks give in to the possibility of there being no God and no afterlife.

Quote:
Many theories still hold significant weight just because they are widely accepted as true, but not proven factual. E.G. gravity.
Gravity is not "widely accepted as true, but not proven factual". You are a fool if you think otherwise.

Quote:
Is sounds like your agreeing with me. Are you agreeing with me?
In that section you quoted, I was saying that this potential divine presence definitely does not exist within our Realm, if he exists at all. Because of this, I feel it is more than reasonable to say "God does not exist", because speaking purely literally, he is not real if he does not exist within this realm that we call the Universe. Semantics, a little I suppose, but I think it's perfectly reasonable logic. I'm willing to admit that it's possible that there is some sort of divine intelligence, they just don't exist within our Universe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dev
the unliklihood of the universe existing by pure chance
The unlikeliness of said chance is irrelevant. The Universe and life exist, so the intensely small chance of it happening randomly doesn't matter. It's like... if someone had a one in a million chance at winning the lottery, and won it. You wouldn't look at this guy's winnings and think "wow, there's no way he won the lottery; he must have gotten that money in some other way because the chances of him winning are simply too low!"

It's like, throughout the entire Universe, we're here to observe what we have. We wouldn't even be here to think of questioning how small the chance is unless the small chance goes through. I just don't understand how people can think like that. How can it matter how small a chance there is of you physically existing if there is actually a chance and given potentially infinite time and chance?

And it's not random either. The first spark of microbial life was random chance, but evolution, mutation, and survival of the fittest took us the rest of the way to what we are. That's why the watch example is a poor one. We didn't start out as a watch. We started out as a microscopic living cog, and that cog met other mutated cogs and the cogs worked together in a way that helped them survive and procreate and millions of years later, they were a timepiece.

Quote:
religion and science are mutually exclusive and have no reason to overlap at all.
Religion says: god created man in his image from dirt
Science says: we evolved from apes

Religion says: Jesus was crucified, died, then rose from the dead.
Science says: It is not possible to be dead for that long of a time, then miraculously revive for "no reason".

Religions attempt to define the physicial world in one way or another. That's where it overlaps with science.
__________________
Afrobean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 10:10 AM   #45
Synexi-XI
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Irishtown NB
Age: 28
Posts: 89
Send a message via AIM to Synexi-XI
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

why was my post deleted?



people nowadays need proof for everything, mostly atheists towards creationism and god.

The old testament was written by a king so that he could control his kingdom better by telling them he was a representative of god. What actually happened over 2000 years ago was probably entirely different from what was written. Maybe Jesus did in fact exist, but perhaps he wasn't as miraculous as people believed him to be.
Synexi-XI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 11:12 AM   #46
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Quote:
Being "relevent" doesn't matter. Thinking that it would be good for him to exist also doesn't matter. I think it would be good if I had telekineses, but does that mean I do?
The statement to which I was responding claimed that belief in God was irellevant, nonsensical and pointless. Thus my response that to some people it is actually relevant, sensical and pointful. Your objection here gets the same response. I'd also suggest that the religious arguments in support of there being a God are actually more valid than any arguments you might put forward that you have telekenesis, especially since it is much more clear and obvious when you fail to demonstrate your power when called upon.

Quote:
It is a logical fallacy to believe in something just because it can't be proven wrong. It is also, again, a logical fallacy to believe that something exists just because it would be good or feel "right" for it to exist. If there is no evidence why believe in it?
It is not a logical fallacy to believe in something on the grounds that it hasn't been disproven. It is a logical fallacy to claim your belief is -correct- solely because it has not been proven incorrect. I can believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, and even though that has not been proven correct, I'm not committing a fallacy to say "I believe there is intelligent life on other planets" It would only be a fallacy if I said "You can't prove there is NO life on other planets, therefore there IS life on other planets"

The whole point of having -faith- in the existance of God is that you are only claiming to believe it, you are not claiming that you know for a fact it is true. if you claimed to know for a fact it was true, you woudln't be demonstrating faith.

Quote:
Are you saying that people who believe in God are more likely to be right than those who believe in Russel's Teapot? Do you honestly think this is true? All are equally (un)likely due to the lack of any sort of evidence in either camp.
I'm saying that generally speaking, intelligent religious people have reasoning and logic behind their belief in God. You can and many do disagree with their logic, but very few people believe in God "Because, and you can't prove otherwise" whereas with Russell's Teapot, the whole basis for claiming it is just as likely to exist is because it is just as impossible to disprove. And that's far less by way of reasoning.

Quote:
What about the pseudoscience of intelligent design and all the hogwash they try to concoct to "prove" religious things "scientifically"? Are we not allowed to talk ill of their ilk? "OMG LOOK AT THIS BANANA IT FITS MY HAND PERFECTLY there's no way the banana could have developed this characteristic through evolution"
For what now, the fourth time? I direct you to the disparity in usage in my posts of the phrases "Intelligent religious people" and "religious people" Anybody who is religious and tries to "prove" their faith through science is doing it wrong.

Quote:
The unlikeliness of said chance is irrelevant. The Universe and life exist, so the intensely small chance of it happening randomly doesn't matter. It's like... if someone had a one in a million chance at winning the lottery, and won it. You wouldn't look at this guy's winnings and think "wow, there's no way he won the lottery; he must have gotten that money in some other way because the chances of him winning are simply too low!"
You really love this line of reasoning, and unfortunately it doesn't actually work. For one, the odds of winning a lottery are so dramatically better, that if you reduced the odds of the universe forming in this exact way by pure chance to the same odds as winning the lottery, the odds of winning the lottery would probably be somewhere on the order of 1 in 2. For two, the more accurate comparison would be something like "If he won ten seperate lotteries, ten weeks in a row. Would you be more likely to think "Wow, what a lucky person to randomly select the correct numbers that frequently" or would you be more likely to think "He's cheating or otherwise doing something outside the bounds of the game"?"

Which is actually the Occam's Razor brand simplest explanation for someone winning the lottery 10 weeks consecutively? Is it "What a lucky stiff" or "He has inside info" What if he wins 20 seperate lotteries consecutively? At some point the sheer unlikihood of the accomplishment lends credence to the idea that an outside agent is at work.

Quote:
Religion says: god created man in his image from dirt
Science says: we evolved from apes
I'd suggest that most intelligent religious people understand that Genesis and other old testament stories are allegorical and don't refer to literal events. When the Catholic Pope freely suggests that evolution is almost certainly correct, though guided by God's Divine Plan, you really can't insist that "religion says" man==dirt.

Quote:
Religion says: Jesus was crucified, died, then rose from the dead.
Science says: It is not possible to be dead for that long of a time, then miraculously revive for "no reason".
They could even agree that you can't miraculously revive for no reason. The reason this particular person miraculously revived was that he was the Son of God. So I don't see a fundamental issue with these statements either.

Quote:
Religions attempt to define the physicial world in one way or another. That's where it overlaps with science.
Religions tend more to want to explain the way the world is, rather than define the things in the world.

Quote:
why was my post deleted?
Because it failed to meet the standards of posting in this forum. You made one random, off-topic unsupported statement, and then said that you like to stay out of these discussions, so I granted your preference.

Quote:
The old testament was written by a king so that he could control his kingdom better by telling them he was a representative of god.
That's actually not true at all. The Old testament, at least according to those who believe in it, was written by th Anshei Knesset HaGedolah which was a group of several dozen scribes, rabbis, theologians and sages.

Quote:
Maybe Jesus did in fact exist, but perhaps he wasn't as miraculous as people believed him to be.
There is absolutely no question at all that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. There's also absolutely no question at all that he was a prophet who spent much of his life travelling and preaching to people. Really the only question is about the validity of his claims.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 11:59 AM   #47
Synexi-XI
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Irishtown NB
Age: 28
Posts: 89
Send a message via AIM to Synexi-XI
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Around which time would this old testament be written?
Synexi-XI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 12:20 PM   #48
Afrobean
Admiral in the Red Army
FFR Veteran
 
Afrobean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the moon
Age: 32
Posts: 13,262
Send a message via Skype™ to Afrobean
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Hi, this one is a little long. Contained herein are comments and replies to Devonin's recent similar response to a previous post of mine, and a cut-em-up response to Synexi-XI's much shorter post. You kiddies out there might just want to skip it, but for those adventurous enough to dig in, I suggest you make a bathroom break before getting into it. For those with weak constitutions, I'll give you a brief summary of the essential points I'm trying to make: why have faith in one piece of ancient writing and scoff at another? Why believe in ancient writing with no other evidence of proof? Why believe that any person- yourself or myself included- could ever come close to identifying the core identity of this divine creator that is so heavily worshiped across the world? Why attempt to claim that your beliefs are based in logic or reason when they are in fact merely you taking faith in the words of long dead anonymous writers and nothing more?
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synexi-XI View Post
why was my post deleted?
If your previous post contained the things that this one did, I'll go out on a limb and say it's because you're talking a lot about things you don't know a thing about.

Quote:
people nowadays need proof for everything, mostly atheists towards creationism and god.
No. People need proof because to believe in something without any reason is asinine. At least religious folks can fall back on the "it feels right" reason, even if it is a logical fallacy. But there must be a reason. To buy into bull**** without reason is something no good person would ever do, atheist or not.

Quote:
The old testament was written by a king
Can you prove this? The authors of the bible are largely forgotten through the sands of time, particularly the old Jewish scripts.

Quote:
so that he could control his kingdom better by telling them he was a representative of god.
I'll go ahead and say now that I agree in principle even though your "kingdom" thing is a little off-mark. All stories in the ancient world were told to teach lessons and such. The lessons of the stories in the bible are especially morality driven, even to a fault. This is why, even though I don't believe that the texts deserve to be taken literally by any means, I still feel that they're worthy of study, along with everything the other areas of the ancient world have given us. You don't have to actually believe that the vengeful hand of God would flood the world to learn a thing or two about morality; it's just good imagery to convey a message.

After all, I don't believe that there was actually a man named Orpheus who ventured into the Underworld to reclaim his fallen love from Hades. But it's still a worthwhile story to know of.

Quote:
What actually happened over 2000 years ago was probably entirely different from what was written
The Old Testament is a lot older than that. It was old already when Jesus was alive a little over 2000 years ago. I believe the first writings that would become the New Testament were first penned a couple hundred years after Jesus died, although I might be mistaken in this regard.

Quote:
Maybe Jesus did in fact exist, but perhaps he wasn't as miraculous as people believed him to be.
It's essentially historical fact that there was a man named Jesus who hailed from Nazareth who was crucified. The question isn't whether the man existed, but rather whether he is the son of this God and whether the apparent miracles detailed in the Bible are as accurately detailed as they claim.

Personally, I don't know how anyone could take it as fact. For me, it'd be like looking at the recent Tim Burton flick about Sweeney Todd and thinking that's how it really was.

AND NOW FOR THE FUN STUFF YEE HAWWWWWW

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
The statement to which I was responding claimed that belief in God was irellevant, nonsensical and pointless.
Hey, buddy, I don't appreciate you clumping me in with the nihilists. All I said was that it wasn't rational or logical, not that it was irrelevant or pointless. I have used the word "irrelevant", but never to identify the value that an individual person has in their faith.

Quote:
Thus my response that to some people it is actually relevant, sensical and pointful.
If by "relevant, sensical and pointful" you mean to say "rational" or "logical", I have to disagree. Any person who thinks believing in these things is logical is a fool. If it was logical, it would be science; a matter of fact, not faith.

Quote:
Your objection here gets the same response. I'd also suggest that the religious arguments in support of there being a God are actually more valid than any arguments you might put forward that you have telekenesis, especially since it is much more clear and obvious when you fail to demonstrate your power when called upon.
Poor justification, because people call on God everyday and he fails to prove himself. As far as evidence stands, my claiming to have telekinesis shouldn't have any less weight than the tall tales people hear in church every Sunday. Both are unproven- both are only evidenced by a person's claimed witness of it. Aside from the claimed witnessing, there is nothing pointing to this being true; if the witnessed claim cannot be verified or debunked, both should hold the same logical value.

Oh, and by the way, before you try it, I've decided not to show my telekinesis to anyone. A little trick I learned from God-- see, it'd be a gross display of my power to show actual evidence of it.

Quote:
It is not a logical fallacy to believe in something on the grounds that it hasn't been disproven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

Just because something cannot be proven false does not mean that it's any more reasonable to believe in it regardless. There are plenty of things which can never be proven false, but do you see people going around believing in such silly things?

Can you prove that no one on the Earth has telekinesis? No...? Then I guess there must be someone, RIGHT?

Quote:
It is a logical fallacy to claim your belief is -correct- solely because it has not been proven incorrect. I can believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, and even though that has not been proven correct, I'm not committing a fallacy to say "I believe there is intelligent life on other planets" It would only be a fallacy if I said "You can't prove there is NO life on other planets, therefore there IS life on other planets"
This is just a spinning of words, good chap. To say that "you believe" should be no different than saying "there must be". Existence is a binary value; either something exists or it doesn't. To say "there is" without absolute objective proof of it (hint: doesn't exist) should carry the same value as "I think there is".

Essentially, I'm saying that "truth in your mind" and "truth" (as defined by your subjective perception) are the same.

But again, this is just spinning words to avoid the real situation-

That it is a fallacy to use lack of evidence as evidence. All the lack of evidence proves is that it's possible, but we already knew it was "possible" based on the very simple ideal of "God works in mysterious ways"; God not providing evidence of his existence is just a test of our faith.

Quote:
The whole point of having -faith- in the existance of God is that you are only claiming to believe it, you are not claiming that you know for a fact it is true. if you claimed to know for a fact it was true, you woudln't be demonstrating faith.
I get the feeling that you don't know too many overtly religious people. They don't just believe it; they KNOW it. They're unwilling to admit any possibility that does not include their specific beliefs. After all, the bible tells them not to entertain such notions that there might not be a god.

Quote:
I'm saying that generally speaking, intelligent religious people have reasoning and logic behind their belief in God.
NOOOOOOOOOO

They cannot. Any reason any intelligent person could put forward as a reason to believe can be spat back at them as a logical fallacy.

"it feels right"
"it's not proven wrong"
"look at this banana HOLY **** MY HAND FITS IT PERFECTLY LOL"


Quote:
You can and many do disagree with their logic, but very few people believe in God "Because, and you can't prove otherwise" whereas with Russell's Teapot, the whole basis for claiming it is just as likely to exist is because it is just as impossible to disprove.
Are you seriously setting aside the point of Russell's Teapot just because people don't have Faith in its existence? What kind of **** is that?

The point of it is to point out how illogical it is to believe in something without proof. The point is to show that just because something hasn't been proven false, does not mean that it is MORE worthy of being believed in. Yes, that's right, it hasn't been proven that God does not exist, BUT YOU CANNOT USE THAT AS A LOGICAL FOUNDATION FOR FAITH. I mean, I guess you could, but you'd be relying on a logical fallacy to claim your beliefs to be based in reason rather than faith.

If you're going to have faith in this ****, just have faith in it. Don't try to bull**** everyone and say that there is logic or reason to it.

Quote:
For what now, the fourth time? I direct you to the disparity in usage in my posts of the phrases "Intelligent religious people" and "religious people" Anybody who is religious and tries to "prove" their faith through science is doing it wrong.
And what about you? Claiming that the lack of false evidence is a justifiable logical foundation for belief? You don't think that's wrong either?

Quote:
You really love this line of reasoning, and unfortunately it doesn't actually work. For one, the odds of winning a lottery are so dramatically better
Odds are irrelevant. The odds could be 1/2 and my example would stand just the same. It doesn't matter if the specific likelihood is 1/2 or one in a million. The idea behind it is that the small chance of success doesn't matter because we already know that the chance succeeded.

Quote:
that if you reduced the odds of the universe forming in this exact way by pure chance to the same odds as winning the lottery, the odds of winning the lottery would probably be somewhere on the order of 1 in 2.
I was going to look up a picture of the Strawman from the Wizard of Oz, but I think the meta comment here is enough for you to get my meaning.

Quote:
For two, the more accurate comparison would be something like "If he won ten seperate lotteries, ten weeks in a row. Would you be more likely to think "Wow, what a lucky person to randomly select the correct numbers that frequently" or would you be more likely to think "He's cheating or otherwise doing something outside the bounds of the game"?"
Again, you're overlooking the point and jumping on an irrelevant part. The chance could be one in a googolplex and the idea still holds; we're here, so we know the small chance succeeded regardless.

Quote:
Which is actually the Occam's Razor brand simplest explanation for someone winning the lottery 10 weeks consecutively? Is it "What a lucky stiff" or "He has inside info" What if he wins 20 seperate lotteries consecutively? At some point the sheer unlikihood of the accomplishment lends credence to the idea that an outside agent is at work.
Ok, BUT that's substantive. To come to a LOGICAL conclusion at that end, more evidence than that would be needed, such as, say, ACTUALLY knowing that there is an "outside agent" to begin with. If a person is the only person in the world and he "wins the lottery" a hundred times in a week, who would you point to as the "outside agent"? Where is the actual evidence of this "outside agent"?

All of the evidence in this situation would be one man saying what he'd done and nothing else. It would be his word against NOTHING. Why would you say that Occam's Razor would implicate an outside agent when there is no actual evidence to support such a claim (and yet, there is evidence of the contrary in the one man's eyewitness)?

Quote:
I'd suggest that most intelligent religious people understand that Genesis and other old testament stories are allegorical and don't refer to literal events.
Genesis doesn't matter. Actually, I would say nothing in the Old Testament matters. I don't know if there's a shred in there that a reasonable person could actually believe in the modern world.

It's the New Testament that people believe that bugs me. These miracles in the parables; this man rising from the dead. AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN THESE. It's not like with Genesis where a reasonable person goes "oh, well, it's just a metaphor, see?" They actually believe that this Jewish son of a carpenter was crucified, died, then came back to life a few days later.

Quote:
When the Catholic Pope freely suggests that evolution is almost certainly correct, though guided by God's Divine Plan, you really can't insist that "religion says" man==dirt.
I was just trying to point out an easy to identify instance of religion attempting (and failing) to define the physical world. "Science and religion don't overlap"... except that whenever religion tries to define the physical world, they do. Don't give me malarkey about it being a metaphor, because the whole lot of stories are riddled with that as far as I can tell. People actually believe it (or have believed in the past), and in doing so have tread on the ground that science is supposed to lay claim to.

Quote:
They could even agree that you can't miraculously revive for no reason. The reason this particular person miraculously revived was that he was the Son of God. So I don't see a fundamental issue with these statements either.
You don't see a fundamental issue with the idea that this mine is supposed to have risen from the dead, something we know to be scientifically impossible? I mean, if there was a single documented case or even a justifiable reason to believe it, I'd understand, but it's all words in a book. I could write words on a piece of paper, does that make them any more right for it? How about if I write it anonymously? Does that lend any credence to the nonsense I might write? How about if my writing is discovered 2000 years from now? Should they believe what I've written? What if the first thing I write is "you have to believe this"? Should they then?

What makes these writings worthy of worship, of faith, of belief? I really want to know, because I think it is absurd that you think it's a good idea to believe in this, yet would laugh in the face of someone who worshiped Zeus and believed the stories of his Sons of that God. That's what I don't get about this organized religion stuff; why is it that one ancient book is regarded as Holy and True while another is simply fictional literature to be studied by high school students.

Quote:
Religions tend more to want to explain the way the world is, rather than define the things in the world.
No... there are plenty of definitions of things, you just SELECTIVELY ignore them by calling them metaphors and things. Yeah, they are metaphors, I'd say, but then, I'd also say that "rising from the dead" is a metaphor, and that "miraculously healing lepers" is a metaphor, and that "walking on water" is a metaphor.

Quote:
Really the only question is about the validity of his claims.
I heard in one of those fancy pants specials on the History Channel that it's possible that Jesus never actually claimed much of the things said about him in the bible and that he was merely a profit in his times and little more. They said it was only after he was dead and that the church of his teachings was being established that his story transitioned from that of a martyred profit to that of a miraculous Son of the God identified in Jewish scripts.
__________________
Afrobean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 12:28 PM   #49
~kitty~
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
~kitty~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Age: 28
Posts: 988
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

I feel as if the motivation of this thread isn't substantial enough to have anyone use it for any particular reason other than to debate about a debate which leads to the debate itself, then you get confused and that would be the whole purpose of making this thread of reverse psychology, just to self-gratify yourself rather than ask the question out of literal curiosity...

If not, then I just prefer not to get into this myself...
I also didn't read even half of what people have been saying in this, but it's not something worth reading in my opinion... but I still believe getting worked up about this thread isn't worth it, lol.
~kitty~ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 03:36 PM   #50
dore
caveman pornstar
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Music ProducerFFR Veteran
 
dore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: ridin on a unicorn
Age: 30
Posts: 6,317
Send a message via AIM to dore
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Afro
This is just a spinning of words, good chap. To say that "you believe" should be no different than saying "there must be". Existence is a binary value; either something exists or it doesn't. To say "there is" without absolute objective proof of it (hint: doesn't exist) should carry the same value as "I think there is".

Essentially, I'm saying that "truth in your mind" and "truth" (as defined by your subjective perception) are the same.

But again, this is just spinning words to avoid the real situation-

That it is a fallacy to use lack of evidence as evidence. All the lack of evidence proves is that it's possible, but we already knew it was "possible" based on the very simple ideal of "God works in mysterious ways"; God not providing evidence of his existence is just a test of our faith.
That's just not true for things that you cannot personally observe. Yes, for things you can readily observe and test existence is a binary value but for things for which there is no evidence (either for or against its existence) then there is an element of uncertainty. Saying "I believe this to be true" means that you recognize that there is no evidence to prove or disprove your claim but that, if evidence ever became available, it would point to your beliefs.

I believe in a god (not in the Christian sense) because I think that it is arrogant for humans to assume that they are the highest form of consciousness when, by the very fabric of their higher being, something greater than us would not be observable to us. I'm not saying, however, that there is a god or any specific definition of god, just that there is something out there bigger than us who probably doesn't affect our trivial daily lives but probably has affected our development as a society and species.

By saying that, I am not saying that "There is a god," I'm saying that "There is a god in my conception of the world." Shown evidence otherwise, sure, I'll change my view to not include a god. But when the very fabric of the being you're trying to debate is (presumably) beyond our observation, you can't suggest that people who believe in said being are trying to propose their ideas as truth.

PS I know that many Christians try to propose their ideas as truth but that is because they accept the Bible as truth in an almost scientific way. And I think they're wrong. I'm merely defending religion and spirituality as a whole because it's possible to be religious and not be a part of a major/organized religion.
dore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 04:20 PM   #51
Synexi-XI
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Irishtown NB
Age: 28
Posts: 89
Send a message via AIM to Synexi-XI
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

debating about religion is a debate that can never be ended. this thread could go on for pages upon pages.



and as far as proof is concerned of the events during jesus' era, there were far more specific details about hundreds of events besides jesus' story. We have historical facts about things far older than jesus yet this is one story that has almost no decisive proof at all.
Synexi-XI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 05:19 PM   #52
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Quote:
Hey, buddy, I don't appreciate you clumping me in with the nihilists. All I said was that it wasn't rational or logical, not that it was irrelevant or pointless. I have used the word "irrelevant", but never to identify the value that an individual person has in their faith.
L2Read Pokey, the person I quoted and responded to was Necros who used those exact terms, you're the one who jumped in to respond to an interplay between other people.

Quote:
If by "relevant, sensical and pointful" you mean to say "rational" or "logical", I have to disagree. Any person who thinks believing in these things is logical is a fool. If it was logical, it would be science; a matter of fact, not faith.
No, if by "relevant, sensical and pointful" I meant "Rational or logical" I'd have said "Rational or logical" I said "relevant, sensical and pointful" because I meant "Relevant, sensical and pointful"

Quote:
Poor justification, because people call on God everyday and he fails to prove himself.
God's covanant with humanity after the flood was that He gave humans free will to do with what we pleased. If He constantly interceded any time someone asked Him nicely, he would be breaking that promise. Makes perfect sense to me that God isn't all the time interfering.

Quote:
Oh, and by the way, before you try it, I've decided not to show my telekinesis to anyone. A little trick I learned from God-- see, it'd be a gross display of my power to show actual evidence of it.
Fair enough. And if you can give me any kind of compelling reason why I ought to treat you as though you have telekenises, maybe I'll even have faith that you do.

Quote:
Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."
Dude I'm a philosopher, I understand how the fallacies work. As I pointed out in the post you're quoting, to claim X is true because there is no proof that X is false is absolutely a fallacy, and I never once said otherwise, so I don't see the point of this statement by you.

Quote:
Just because something cannot be proven false does not mean that it's any more reasonable to believe in it regardless. There are plenty of things which can never be proven false, but do you see people going around believing in such silly things?
All the time. What's your point?

Quote:
This is just a spinning of words, good chap. To say that "you believe" should be no different than saying "there must be".
I disagree completely. "I believe that there is one perfect person out there for me to be with forever." I can believe that, and live my life according to the belief that it is so, and have that turn out to be false. I've committed no logical fallacy to express a belief that something is so. So no, "I believe" is demonstrably different from "There must be" In fact, "I believe" is what you say when you feel something is so, but are unable to test or prove that it is so...so you know...the exact opposite of making a claim that something -is-.

Quote:
That it is a fallacy to use lack of evidence as evidence. All the lack of evidence proves is that it's possible, but we already knew it was "possible" based on the very simple ideal of "God works in mysterious ways"; God not providing evidence of his existence is just a test of our faith.
And as I said, at length, repeatedly, which you seem to just be ignoring or failing to understand, let me use some clearer text: People who claim that God is proven to exist on the grounds that God has not been disproven are morons, and imbiciles who need to be beaten with sticks. Just because some, even many if you want to be cynical, religious people claim to have proof that their beliefs are correct does not mean that all religious people feel that way, nor does your ability to point out when the stupid people are stupid count as any kind of evidence against the original claim, which is namely "I have faith, without a need or desire for proof, that X is so"

Quote:
I get the feeling that you don't know too many overtly religious people. They don't just believe it; they KNOW it. They're unwilling to admit any possibility that does not include their specific beliefs. After all, the bible tells them not to entertain such notions that there might not be a god.
I know and am friends with a great many overly religious people, including people so overly religious and zealous that they did things like refuse to take the 'world religions' class in highschool because they 'shoudln't be made to learn about religions that are wrong' SO yes, I'm perfectly familiar with overly religious people. And once again, anybody saying that they know for a proven fact that articles of faith are true, then they simply don't understand what faith is.

Quote:
They cannot. Any reason any intelligent person could put forward as a reason to believe can be spat back at them as a logical fallacy.

"it feels right"
"it's not proven wrong"
"look at this banana HOLY **** MY HAND FITS IT PERFECTLY LOL"
Stop straw manning please, and we can actually have this discussion meaningfully. Nobody except six years old children and idiots who don't understand the world try to use your examples as support for why they believe. Learn what the other side actually says before you try and disprove them. Not that you can disprove the claims made by reasonable or intelligent religious people, because they don't claim to have proven anything for you to disprove.

Quote:
Are you seriously setting aside the point of Russell's Teapot just because people don't have Faith in its existence? What kind of **** is that?
No, perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough: If you ask someone religious who is also intelligent and reasonable why they believe, they will give you many answers besides "Because nobody has proven it wrong" Conversely, with the example of Russell's Teapot, the reason why you are supposed to grant the potential existance of Russell's Teapot is solely "Because you can't prove it wrong"

Quote:
If you're going to have faith in this ****, just have faith in it. Don't try to bull**** everyone and say that there is logic or reason to it.
Have you read anything I've said this whole time? Sometimes I wonder.


Quote:
And what about you? Claiming that the lack of false evidence is a justifiable logical foundation for belief? You don't think that's wrong either?
I never once said that a lack of evidence against the existance of God was a logical foundation for belief in God. In fact, I believe I said the exact opposite of that, that people who claim that the lack of evidence against the existance of God is a logical foundation for belief in God were idiots.

Quote:
Again, you're overlooking the point and jumping on an irrelevant part. The chance could be one in a googolplex and the idea still holds; we're here, so we know the small chance succeeded regardless.
We KNOW that the small chance succeeded? Wait wait wait...you're claiming something is TRUE without actual PROOF? You have FAITH that your statement is correct? If you could prove that the existance of the universe demonstrated that the odds of everything happening randomly had actually been met, thus that the universe occurred randomly, you'd have single-handedly disproven the existance of god! Man, you should go on tour with that.

The whole reason there's a disagrement between people over whether the universe just happened, or whether it was caused to happen is because there is no proof either way. So no, the fact that we exist does not PROVE that the random chance occured. it just proves that the necessary alignment FOR WHATEVER AS YET UNPROVEN REASON happened.
Quote:
Odds are irrelevant. The odds could be 1/2 and my example would stand just the same.
So if someone won 20 lotteries consecutively 20 weeks in a row, you would still claim as true fact, that they were simply lucky, and guessed well? It would never begin to occur to you that perhaps the chances were slim enough that it became more likely that they were cheating, or otherwise rigging the contest? Man, you should never be allowed to be in charge of money, you're a patsy for all kinds of scam.

Quote:
To come to a LOGICAL conclusion at that end, more evidence than that would be needed, such as, say, ACTUALLY knowing that there is an "outside agent" to begin with. If a person is the only person in the world and he "wins the lottery" a hundred times in a week, who would you point to as the "outside agent"? Where is the actual evidence of this "outside agent"?
I would say that in the actual world as we know it to exist, it would be perfectly logical, given an understanding of odds, probability and the functioning of a lottery system, to suspect that someone winning 20 lotteries in a row could well have been cheating. No, I don't have proof either way at that stage, but I have what I would define as a logical reason to suspect that they might be. You'll notice that I'm not concluding that he DID or DID NOT cheat any more than a religious person is concluding that God DOES or DOES NOT exist.

They are looking at the circumstances, and making what I consider a logical claim to say "You know, there's at least a basis for considering the idea that a God is responsible for creating the universe, and pending further evidence or investigation, I'm going to decide that I personally think this version is more likely"

Quote:
It's the New Testament that people believe that bugs me. These miracles in the parables; this man rising from the dead. AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN THESE. It's not like with Genesis where a reasonable person goes "oh, well, it's just a metaphor, see?" They actually believe that this Jewish son of a carpenter was crucified, died, then came back to life a few days later.
Yes they do, and I'm sorry that it bugs you, but something "bugging you" doesn't make it untrue any more than their believing it makes it true. They -think- it is true, and yes, it isn't the strongest logical claim ever, but while it is a fallacy to claim it is TRUE because it hasn't been disproven, that doesn't mean that the lack of evidence against it doesn't help justify believing it. It just doesn't act as anything CONCLUSIVE.

Quote:
I was just trying to point out an easy to identify instance of religion attempting (and failing) to define the physical world.
So yeah, about that straw man.

Quote:
Don't give me malarkey about it being a metaphor, because the whole lot of stories are riddled with that as far as I can tell. People actually believe it (or have believed in the past), and in doing so have tread on the ground that science is supposed to lay claim to.
It's malarky to claim that a metaphor is a metaphor? Sure some people probably believed it to be factual, there are, so far as I know, several branches of Christianity that DO believe it is factual, but again, suggesting that this makes it true of all religions is just idiotic, and I'm freely claiming that I also consider such people as pretty dumb.


Quote:
That's what I don't get about this organized religion stuff; why is it that one ancient book is regarded as Holy and True while another is simply fictional literature to be studied by high school students.
Have you ever met someone who claims to have had a personal religious experience? The reason why an organized religion will point to one book as holy and true and another as not is that their book describes things that were witnessed and personally experienced by the people who wrote them. Yes you could write a book similar to the bible, bury it and hope it got found 2000 years later, but uh...hate to break it to you, but that's not how christianity or the bible came to be.

I mean, there's a continuous sequence of people who knew each other for reals here. The contemporaries of Christ himself are the ones who first put down the stories in the new testament, from their own firsthand accounts, and passed those along to other people who came after, who added their own stories, who passed them along to other people who came after etc etc etc.

nobody FOUND the bible and went "Hey, let's treat this like sacred fact and build a religion around it!" The faith traces back to Jesus and people who knew him in person. That's the difference between the bible and the AfroBible.

Quote:
Yeah, they are metaphors, I'd say, but then, I'd also say that "rising from the dead" is a metaphor, and that "miraculously healing lepers" is a metaphor, and that "walking on water" is a metaphor.
The point here is that Christ is viewed by the followers of Christianity to be possessed of powers beyond those of mortal men. Several of the laws that constrain us didn't necessarily constrain him all the time. Yes, there's no proof for THAT either, but once again, it's an article of faith, and they don't require that proof even if you do.

Quote:
I heard in one of those fancy pants specials on the History Channel that it's possible that Jesus never actually claimed much of the things said about him in the bible and that he was merely a profit in his times and little more. They said it was only after he was dead and that the church of his teachings was being established that his story transitioned from that of a martyred profit to that of a miraculous Son of the God identified in Jewish scripts.
Certainly a possibility. There's not even anything explicitly stated IN THE BIBLE that Jesus wanted anyone to be anything other than a devout Jew. All he ever proposed in his life were fairly modest reforms to the orthodoxy, and an actual "Christian Church" wasn't founded for quite a while later, by as I recall, someone who didn't even know Christ personally. However, he did know the apostles personally, and they continued to preach the teachings of Christ well after he died.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 05:22 PM   #53
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Double post for great justice. And also so people who aren't Afrobean can just skip our back and forth longposts.

Quote:
debating about religion is a debate that can never be ended. this thread could go on for pages upon pages.
We aren't debating about religion, we're debating about the basis for a belief in religion. Not at all the same thing.


Quote:
We have historical facts about things far older than jesus yet this is one story that has almost no decisive proof at all.
Um...no. There is 100% historically accurate proof of the existance of a preacher named Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified. The Romans were incredibly meticulous keepers of records, and among other things, you may recall from the Christmas story that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem because a census had been ordered by the Roman government and they had to go to his hometown to be counted. Those records survived.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 05:37 PM   #54
Synexi-XI
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Irishtown NB
Age: 28
Posts: 89
Send a message via AIM to Synexi-XI
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

i meant religion in general. this discussion includes the belief of religion.

i'd like to see where they got these proofs since records of such is complete news to me.

i would much like to be proven wrong on this since i've been reading up on lots of history during that era.
Synexi-XI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 06:10 PM   #55
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Quote:
i'd like to see where they got these proofs since records of such is complete news to me.

i would much like to be proven wrong on this since i've been reading up on lots of history during that era.
Take your history classes at a slightly higher level than highschool.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 06:30 PM   #56
qqwref
stepmania archaeologist
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
qqwref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Age: 31
Posts: 4,079
Send a message via AIM to qqwref Send a message via Skype™ to qqwref
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

I feel that it is difficult to talk about religions simply because there are so many and each one believes so many things. No common religion just says "God exists" and ends at that; if that was the case, then yes, I do agree that religion and science would not overlap.

But that isn't the case, and (from personal experience) it seems that many people have beliefs which imply testable predictions in the real world. devonin has repeatedly said that intelligent religious people would never follow a belief that predicts testable (and scientifically false) things, but the simple fact is that not everyone is intelligent, and people really do believe things that can be scientifically tested. Unfortunately, when religion and science actually conflict on a testable proposition, and they do, religion sometimes ends up winning. Back in the time of Galileo the prevailing belief in Europe was that the Sun orbited the Earth, a belief which was backed by scripture, and when Galileo came into the scene with evidence that it was the other way around, he ended up being forced to recant his beliefs and put under house arrest! You can say only idiots would do this to him, and I agree, but stupidity happens.

Perhaps the best we can say is this: if a certain belief directly implies a testable prediction about the real world, and experiment shows that that prediction is false, then the belief is false. This is just logic, nothing more. And although many beliefs, like the "God exists" belief, do not overlap with science/logic and cannot be proved or disproved, not all beliefs are like this. Look at prayer: some Christians believe that if you pray for something it will be answered, a significant amount of the time. You can actually test this. Say you do a scientific experiment with a large number of people in the same situation (with cancer, say), some of whom pray and some of whom do not. Look at the recovery rate in the two groups. This has been done and I believe the result was that prayer had no effect. In this case, whether you believe in God or not, you would have to conclude that the belief that prayers are granted a significant portion of the time is at best flawed.
__________________
Stepmania Song Search - 1518 packs and counting!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimerax View Post
Repeating, please no retarded files that aren't even going with the song
qqwref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 06:45 PM   #57
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Quote:
In this case, whether you believe in God or not, you would have to conclude that the belief that prayers are granted a significant portion of the time is at best flawed.
God granting prayers would violate his pact to give humanity free will, it comes as no surprise to me that prayers aren't granted.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 10:04 PM   #58
Grandiagod
FFR Player
 
Grandiagod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Feaefaw
Age: 32
Posts: 6,122
Send a message via AIM to Grandiagod Send a message via MSN to Grandiagod
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Quote:
Um...no. There is 100% historically accurate proof of the existance of a preacher named Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified

Bull****, citation needed.


As far as I know there is no proof that Jesus existed except for documents written decades after his death.
Grandiagod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 10:55 PM   #59
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

I don't have some texts laying around to give you some quotes, but every historian of that period or of christianity that I've ever spoken with tells me that there is plenty of evidence that the man actually existed.

Last edited by devonin; 12-19-2008 at 11:02 PM..
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 11:05 PM   #60
Grandiagod
FFR Player
 
Grandiagod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Feaefaw
Age: 32
Posts: 6,122
Send a message via AIM to Grandiagod Send a message via MSN to Grandiagod
Default Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
I don't have some texts laying around to give you some quotes, but every historian of that period or of christianity that I've ever spoken with tells me that there is plenty of evidence that the man actually existed.
I'm sorry but http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
If you're CT mod you should know you can't randomly state claims with no proof because "I SPOEK WIFF SOME HISTORIANZ AN THEY TOLD ME SO HURR"

gtfo my house son, no one can out religious fact grandi
Grandiagod is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution