PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Question for creationists

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38,


You are like a person who is in a dark room and asks someone to prove that fire exists. When a person lights a match you immediately close your eyes and scream, "see, I told you fire doesn't exist!"

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

And of course, this can't be applied to God because you arbitrarily claim He always existed...  Yes, the universe had a cause, what evidence do you have that a magic sky man started it?

First, the point was to show a "proof" for the God of the Bible's existence. By your own admission you stated that this was indeed a "proof" I showed that supports God's existence:
"I'll agree that a god is a remote possibility and you choose to believe it's the God of the Bible, But I see no "proof" that ANY god exists, let alone created anything..."

The fact that you keep sounding like a broken record constantly asking where is the proof after I've already cited it and you agreed is rather annoying...

And just as obviously, there is NO evidence to support the existance of any god...

see above statement and the 3 numbered "proof" that I've listed already...

...what evidence do you have that a magic sky man started it?

...but God could because he's magic!

Your degrading titles for the God I serve are very telling of your poor debating skills. I could easily have said that your atheistic beliefs are merely, "irrational self-deception" but I was under the impression that name calling was uncalled for...

The God of the Bible is not "magical." In fact He condemns "magic" as well as all forms of the occult. God is supernatural, and if you'd like to show some respect (although from your posts I doubt you know what that means) then you would use that adjective to describe my God.

In any event my previous statements stand:

I never said that the conclusion could "only" mean the God of the Bible. I choose to believe that it is the God of the Bible. But in terms of GETREAL's request my "proof" most certainly satisfies the criterion that the God of the Bible exists.

Until you show me how this is not so, I expect you to agree and move on instead of displaying more of your sophmoric banter.

best wishes,


zerocool_12790


-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 06:18 AM on June 24, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are like a person who is in a dark room and asks someone to prove that fire exists. When a person lights a match you immediately close your eyes and scream, "see, I told you fire doesn't exist!"

Hey, that perfectly describes your understanding of science!

First, the point was to show a "proof" for the God of the Bible's existence.

Which you have repeatedly failed to do!  

By your own admission you stated that this was indeed a "proof" I showed that supports God's existence:
"I'll agree that a god is a remote possibility and you choose to believe it's the God of the Bible, But I see no "proof" that ANY god exists, let alone created anything..."


By my own admission, I did NOT state that this was proof!  I stated, as you posted, god is a remote possibility because the supernatural (magic) can not be verified by science.  Natural forces have explained a great deal of our universe, God has explained nothing.  Time and again, your god and other gods have been used to dieinely explain natural phenomenon, time after time they have been wrong.  The universe started, even though we don't fully understand how, it is much more likely that natural forces we don't yet fully understand are responsible.

The fact that you keep sounding like a broken record constantly asking where is the proof after I've already cited it and you agreed is rather annoying...

You're the only annoying one here.  I keep asking you for evidence that a supreme being created the universe, you keep failing to do so.

see above statement and the 3 numbered "proof" that I've listed already...

And what evidence do you have that god created the universe?  None, so far...

Your degrading titles for the God I serve are very telling of your poor debating skills.

Poor debating skills?  Your whole arguement is the universe started, it must have been god!  I ask you for evidence that it was god, and all you can do is play word games.  It's clear you can offer no evidence, no proof, to support your claim.

I could easily have said that your atheistic beliefs are merely, "irrational self-deception" but I was under the impression that name calling was uncalled for...

I'm not an atheist, so that kills your first point and I'd ask you to show my "irrational self-deception", which you wouldn't be able to do.

The God of the Bible is not "magical." In fact He condemns "magic" as well as all forms of the occult. God is supernatural,

Once again, when you've lost a point, you try to play word games to confuse the issue.  Supernatural and magic are the same thing.  If he isn't bound by the laws of nature, he's magic, simple as that.

Until you show me how this is not so, I expect you to agree and move on instead of displaying more of your sophmoric banter.

The universe started, what evidence do you have that a god, any god, started it....You still can't answer that question and until you do, your claim is unsupported.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:44 AM on July 4, 2006 | IP
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38,

"You are like a person who is in a dark room and asks someone to prove that fire exists. When a person lights a match you immediately close your eyes and scream, "see, I told you fire doesn't exist!""

Hey, that perfectly describes your understanding of science!

Sure, that made a lot of sense. Bravo...

"By your own admission you stated that this was indeed a "proof" I showed that supports God's existence:
"I'll agree that a god is a remote possibility and you choose to believe it's the God of the Bible, But I see no "proof" that ANY god exists, let alone created anything..."

Once again the point was that you "agreed" that what I wrote constituted a proof of His existence. I never said that you agreed that He did exist or that it was most likely, only that it was possible. That's much better than flatly denying it...

"...it is much more likely that natural forces we don't yet fully understand are responsible."

That's a lot of "if's" and "maybe's." Sounds a lot like faith...

"And what evidence do you have that god created the universe?  None, so far...",

"I keep asking you for evidence that a supreme being created the universe, you keep failing to do so.",

"It's clear you can offer no evidence, no proof, to support your claim.",

There's that broken record again. Look, my proof for the last time was the 3 point proof I offered. You agreed that this proof allows for the possibility that the God of the Bible was what created the universe.

"Supernatural and magic are the same thing.  If he isn't bound by the laws of nature, he's magic, simple as that."

Maybe if you were seven I'd let you get away with an explanation like that. Although I really don't know your real age anyway so it's possible. Regardless you are still making a mistake. The word magic is never used to describe God. "Magic" is condemned by God in the Bible and it is associated with the occult, witches, sorcerers, pagan spells, and demonic powers. Magic is used to describe the illusion of performing mystical feats which in reality were performed by demonic angels. This does not describe the God of the Bible. Since you're attempting to describe my God you are in serious error in referring to Him as being "magical." In fact the closest the Bible comes to describing God in terms of His "magical" powers, would be in calling Him omnipotent. Which simply means "all powerful" with no hint of magic. Don't get upset with me because you're equating my God with some silly term that was never used of Him. You're the one making the mistake, not me. The best way to describe God from the Bible (which is where we get almost all of our information about Him from) would be to refer to Him as "spirit."

"The universe started, what evidence do you have that a god, any god, started it....You still can't answer that question and until you do, your claim is unsupported."

Alright alright. Like I said in order to show the evidence for my God I have to build upon evidences. My first evidence was that the universe had a cause. My next evidence is the Anthropic principle which states that there are dozens of intricate properties of the universe that share nothing in common, except that if they did not have their exact value life wouldn't exist.

Now since as far as our most up-to-date information on science is concerned we are the only universe that exists. Meaning that we have thus no other physical evidence revealing that other universes' exist. That would mean that when our universe was created from inanimate energy source (as you claim) the universe just so happened to coincidentally get created with properties that just so happened to be the exact values needed for life. Now I know what you're thinking, "zerocool from the looks of things it appears that that's just too coincidental." I know demon38, but there happens to be people that think that that's just the way the dice were rolled.

So it appears we are at a crossroads. Which makes more sense:

1. The universe was created by a pre-existent inanimate energy source that began the universe with laws we have no clue about and sprung forth a universe that was intricately finely-tuned for life to exist but only appears that way because in reality it didn't choose that, it just so happened to be that way.

or

2. A pre-existent intelligent powerful being created the universe and the odds of it being finely tuned for life aren't just an astronomical conicidence but was planned by that being with a purpose.

Hmm. You know it's possible 1 is right. But it doesn't really fit well with the odds of our universe existing the way it does on the first shot of it's birth. 2 is looking more reasonable because it fits both evidences so far: That the universe was created, and that the universe is designed for life to exist.

Now I know how this will most likely turn out. I'm going to keep giving reasonable support for the existence of my God and you're going to not accept it and tell me how wrong it is citing your evidence to the contrary at which point I'll not accept it and cite my own evidence to the contrary. So let me just save us some time here seeing as it took several posts just to get you to admit that you agreed God was a reasonable possibility based on the supported premise that the universe was created (and it's still possible you will say you still don't agree with it).

So I'm pretty much done debating with you on this topic. It's not because I have no evidence for my God, because I do. It's not that I fear your evidence, because I assure you, I do not. It's not that I fear science. Because there's nothing to fear about it.

It's simply because I was right with my analogy that you were like a person who is blind to the truth. Except not only do you shut your eyes, you also shut your ears, as evidenced by the fact that it took several posts just to get you to admit that you agreed God was a reasonable possibility based on the supported premise that the universe was created.

You are a hard-hearted person. You start off with the assumption that God isn't real and go from there never even having the intention of accepting that He might be real based on credible evidence (because you assume there is none assuring that there won't be). I could debate you all day and it wouldn't make a difference. God could show up in your room right now and you still wouldn't believe.

It's because that I firmly believe based off what the Bible says, that a person could never come to the belief in Jesus as their savior based on "head knowledge" alone. It's not because the evidence isn't good or the logic, it's because people can rationalize anything away, as I'm sure you've done.

People can only come to belief in God if they are willing to believe, and if God convicts them of the truth. You seem to want to skip step one. Of course your rational is that you haven't seen any evidence to lead you to believe that God is real, but then you make sure that none could ever be considered "real" evidence.

In fact based on your past posts in this forum you state quite emphatically that science cannot be used to support God because science only deals with the natural. Yet you go right around and demand only amazing scientific evidence to prove God's existence. So you want Christians to prove God's existence with a tool that excludes Him from the start! Brilliant logic. It's no wonder God doesn't exist.

OK, now I want you to prove evolution using only the Bible. Oh, and by the way the Bible cannot be used to prove evolution since the Bible can only be used to prove the truth. Now let's see that evidence! Using this warped logic is how you justify being an agnostic (or whatever you want to call yourself). Pointing to you is all that is needed to prove that you are decieving yourself. I'm not interested in your reply post because I'm sure it will just consist of you saying how much I don't want to debate because I don't have evidence, or that I'm the irrational one, or that I'm the one that's blind. I'm sure you're going to respond anyway but whatever it is I'm sure it will  just include some to all of that. So for all the reasons I've written I'm done debating you on this topic because the Bible considers it to be unwise to debate a fool.

best wishes,



zerocool_12790


By the way, I didn't use the word "fool" in a negative offensive way. I used it to describe your reasons why you deny the God of the Bible.


-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 04:44 AM on July 6, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

zerocool,

Sorry I've taken so long to respond, been commuting back and forth to the NJ beach for vacation...

Once again the point was that you "agreed" that what I wrote constituted a proof of His existence. I never said that you agreed that He did exist or that it was most likely, only that it was possible. That's much better than flatly denying it...

No I didn't!  I admitted that there is a possibility that God created the universe because science doesn't know everything and it can't investigate a supernatural claim.  I said it was a remote possiblity because there is no evidence that a god even exists.  The supernatural has been used to explain many natural phenomenon in the past and these explanations have always been wrong.  So I stand by my statement, God is an extremely remote possibility for starting the universe.  This does not constitute proof, and you have been unable to produce even a shred of evidence to support this claim.

That's a lot of "if's" and "maybe's." Sounds a lot like faith...

Not at all, no supernatural explaination has ever been valid.  Apollo doesn't ride the sun across the sky, Zeus and Thor don't throw lightning bolts, God doesn't live in the sky, and on and on.  All natural phenomenon that we currently understand are explained by natural forces.  We have found nothing yet that can't be explained by natural processes and of the huge amount of supernatural explainations proposed, none of them have been valid.  Based on the fact that natural explainations have been spectacularly successful and supernatural explainations have all been wrong, I think you're the only one here relying on faith.

There's that broken record again. Look, my proof for the last time was the 3 point proof I offered.

Let's look at that "3 point proof" of yours.  I was ignoring in initially because your entire argument is seriously flawed, but your points aren't even correct!

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.


Point one is incorrect, everything that begins to exist does NOT need to have a cause.  I guess you've never heard of quantum physics.
From here:
UncausedEvents
"...the idea of a First Cause sounds somewhat fishy in light of the modern theory of quantum mechanics. According to the most commonly accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, individual subatomic particles can behave in unpredictable ways and there are numerous random, uncaused events. (Morris, 1997, 19)"

Numerous random, UNCAUSED events!  Your first point is invalid, so your entire argument is wrong!

And from here:
UncausedEvents2
"There is a deeply ingrained intuition in us that every effect must have a cause and every creation must have a creator, but modern science has shown us that this is not true. On the most fundamental level—the quantum realm—events happen acausally. We have good evidence for this. Einstein, for one, disliked the uncertainty found in quantum theory, and with the help of two others—Podolsky and Rosen—devised an experiment that would force the causes to manifest. He called these hidden variables, and not only would they be responsible for the uncertainty, they would also be the causes of quantum events. These EPR experiments, named after their designers, could not be done with the technology available in Einstein's time, but in 1964 John Bell devised what have come to be known as Bell inequality experiments. And in the past few decades, a number of them have been conducted. The results are unequivocal. Hidden variables, the causes of quantum events, are found not to exist. Quantum events remain indeterminate and irreducibly random."

We observe uncaused events, like quantum fluctuations and radioactive decay, so your number one point is wrong, your third point is also wrong, the universe did NOT need a cause.  There you go, you are wrong, you need to do more research.

"Magic" is condemned by God in the Bible and it is associated with the occult, witches, sorcerers, pagan spells, and demonic
powers.


You can play all the silly word games you want, the common perception of god is that he is "magic".  Here's what the dictionary says about magic:
Magic
"1. The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural. "

If god is supernatural as you claim, he is magic, simple as that.  I don't care how you interpret it or what the bible says.  You are the one claiming that something beyond nature created the universe and you can show us no evidence that anything beyond nature exists, let alone a sentinent, all powerful being exists.  

Alright alright. Like I said in order to show the evidence for my God I have to build upon evidences. My first evidence was that the universe had a cause.

As shown above, the universe did not need a cause to begin.  Show us your evidence that it did need a cause...

My next evidence is the Anthropic principle which states that there are dozens of intricate properties of the universe that share nothing in common, except that if they did not have their exact value life wouldn't exist.

Ridiculous, the universe existed first, we evolved to live within the bounds of those "dozens of intricate properties"  which existed first.  If those properties were different, life would be different.  No evidence of "fine tuning".

Now since as far as our most up-to-date information on science is concerned we are the only universe that exists. Meaning that we have thus no other physical evidence revealing that other universes' exist.

Well, we do have some evidence that we are still studying, like quantum gravity, but you're right, we can't conclusively say there are any other universes, although it's looking more and more likely....

That would mean that when our universe was created from inanimate energy source (as you claim) the universe just so happened to coincidentally get created with properties that just so happened to be the exact values needed for life.

What's an "inanimate energy source"?  And again the universe existed first, life evolved to live in it, no fine tuning needed, no evidence for "exact values".  If the universe was "fined tuned" why did it take a billion years for life to form on earth?  For an all powerful being, that doesn't seem like "fine tuning" that looks more like extremely poor planning...

Now I know what you're thinking, "zerocool from the looks of things it appears that that's just too coincidental

Doesn't seem coincidental to me...

So it appears we are at a crossroads. Which makes more sense:

Not at all, your initial argument is flawed and invalid and you still haven't shown us any evidence to support your claim that god created the universe.

1. The universe was created by a pre-existent inanimate energy source that began the universe with laws we have no clue about and sprung forth a universe that was intricately finely-tuned for life to exist but only appears that way because in reality it didn't choose that, it just so happened to be that way.

Incredibly ignorant and incorrect statement....

2. A pre-existent intelligent powerful being created the universe and the odds of it being finely tuned for life aren't just an astronomical conicidence but was planned by that being with a purpose.

No evidence that there is a pre-existant intelligent powerful being, no evidence the universe needed a cause, no evidence that the universe is fined tuned and much evidence that it is not.  
So I stand by my statement, you have shown us no valid proof that there is a god, no valid proof that god started the universe, and no valid proof that the universe is fine tuned.  

Hmm. You know it's possible 1 is right. But it doesn't really fit well with the odds of our universe existing the way it does on the first shot of it's birth.

Why don't you show us those odds and how you calculated them, if you can't your premise is false.

2 is looking more reasonable because it fits both evidences so far: That the universe was created, and that the universe is designed for life to exist.

no it's not.  You've shown no evidence to support your claim and your initial claims are wrong.  And how can you say the universe was designed for life to exist??  Just the opposite appears to be true!  Vast, empty voids and the only life we've found so far is on our tiny speck!  Once again, if this was planned, the planner must be a moron!

Now I know how this will most likely turn out. I'm going to keep giving reasonable support for the existence of my God and you're going to not accept it and tell me how wrong it is citing your evidence to the contrary at which point I'll not accept it and cite my own evidence to the contrary.

But I showed that your initial premise was wrong, everthing that begins to exist does not need a cause.!  An honest man would either admit defeat or try to reformulate their argument, I doubt you'll do that...

So let me just save us some time here seeing as it took several posts just to get you to admit that you agreed God was a reasonable possibility based on the supported premise that the universe was created (and it's still possible you will say you still don't agree with it).

I admitted no such thing.  It certainly isn't reasonable, but because science doesn't know everthing, it is an extemely remote possiblility.

So I'm pretty much done debating with you on this topic. It's not because I have no evidence for my God, because I do.

Well, no evidence that you can show us, no empirical evidence, so I guess that means no real evidence whatsoever, just like I've been saying all along.

It's not that I fear your evidence, because I assure you, I do not. It's not that I fear science. Because there's nothing to fear about it.

Well, I'll kind of agree here, there's nothing to fear in science.  It is merely the best way to examine the natural world and so far, it's been incredibly successful.  Relying on the supernatural to explain our world has never, ever been right.

It's simply because I was right with my analogy that you were like a person who is blind to the truth

No, your analogy, along with your proof, was completely wrong.  You don't understand modern science.

Except not only do you shut your eyes, you also shut your ears, as evidenced by the fact that it took several posts just to get you to admit that you agreed God was a reasonable possibility based on the supported premise that the universe was created.

Your the one who can't face up to the facts, you ignore current scientific research because it contradicts your primitive superstitions.  And I never admitted god was a reasonable possibility.  Is that the only way you can massage your ego, by putting words in my mouth that I never said?

You are a hard-hearted person.

If that means I don't accept your silly superstitions, then I'm hard hearted.  If you mean anything else by it, then you are dead wrong.  You, on the other hand, are a hard-headed person.  You refuse to accept reality because it makes you feel bad.

You start off with the assumption that God isn't real and go from there never even having the intention of accepting that He might be real based on credible evidence (because you assume there is none assuring that there won't be).

Nope, completely wrong.  Try again...

I could debate you all day and it wouldn't make a difference.

You're right again, it wouldn't make a difference because you don't understand science or logic and in the end you close your eyes and ears and just repeat over and over "Goddidit!Goddidit! Goddidit!".

It's because that I firmly believe based off what the Bible says, that a person could never come to the belief in Jesus as their savior based on "head knowledge" alone. It's not because the evidence isn't good or the logic, it's because people can rationalize anything away, as I'm sure you've done.

Your the only one rationalizing anything away, real scientific research.  Since it doesn't support your primitive myths, IT JUST CAN"T BE RIGHT!  How pathetic...

People can only come to belief in God if they are willing to believe, and if God convicts them of the truth.

What does this have to do with the origins of the universe?  

You seem to want to skip step one.

And you want to ignore real data, real evidence, real facts.  Once again, everything that comes to exist doesn't need a cause.

Of course your rational is that you haven't seen any evidence to lead you to believe that God is real, but then you make sure that none could ever be considered "real"
evidence.


And you have yet to show us any evidence!  Supernatural explainations are worthless.  If God is real, why would he limit our ability to learn by using the supernatural?  By using natural means to create, God would have given us the means to fully study and utilize the natural world.  If he created using supernatural means, we can not fully understand how the universe works and we can't fully utilize it.  God and science don't mix, have faith in whatever you want, doesn't bother me, but when you try to stick your god down the throat of science, you diminsh your god and diminsh science.

In fact based on your past posts in this forum you state quite emphatically that science cannot be used to support God because science only deals with the natural. Yet you go right around and demand only amazing scientific evidence to prove God's existence. So you want Christians to prove God's existence with a tool that excludes Him from the start! Brilliant logic. It's no wonder God doesn't exist.

But there is no evidence of the supernatural!  It doesn't exist!  You can pretend it does, it it makes you feel better, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence for it!
Nothing that can't be explained by natural processes.  Show us something that can't and I'll agree with you.

OK, now I want you to prove evolution using only the Bible. Oh, and by the way the Bible cannot be used to prove evolution since the Bible can only be used to prove the truth. Now let's see that evidence! Using this warped logic is how you justify being an agnostic (or whatever you want to call yourself).

You're the one trying to use the Bible as scientific evidence!  Science is used to explain natural processes, whether god is behind them or not doesn't matter to science.  As long as we can explain natural phenomenon by natural processes, god is irrelevant to the scientific method.  And you have no idea why I'm agnostic.  I can just as easily say you are a mindless sheep who needs some mythic authority figure to give your life purpose and that's why you're a christian, you don't have the guts to face reality.  Judge not lest ye be judged, sound familiar?

Pointing to you is all that is needed to prove that you are decieving yourself.

Well, Ive shown that you're the only one deceiving yourself, you refuse to face reality.

I'm not interested in your reply post because I'm sure it will just consist of you saying how much I don't want to debate because I don't have evidence, or that I'm the irrational one, or that I'm the one that's blind. I'm sure you're going to respond anyway but whatever it is I'm sure it will  just include some to all of that. So for all the reasons I've written I'm done debating you on this topic because the Bible considers it to be unwise to debate a fool.

Yes, I guess it's best (for you, at least) to stop debating.  I've completely destroyed your "proof" and an intellectually dishonest person like you doesn't have the guts to admit they were wrong...
And we're still waiting for any evidence you have to support your claims.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:10 AM on July 12, 2006 | IP
the_general

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me explain this to the idiots that keep saying we cant be this way due to evolution. if earth was in any way different say a degree on the axis lower or higher than wed have been different. its not pure chance, we r this way becuz we need to b. evolution is necessary changes to fill in a nich or adapt to what living conditions need you to b for u to survive. animals have different types, ie: dogs, becuz thats what the living conditions there needed and becuz we've breed them in ways to mix them, ever seen one of those creepy labradoodles?

P.S. Demon38 Thanks for silencing the fool

(Edited by the_general 7/17/2006 at 06:22 AM).


-------
Religon=Opium of the Masses, except for Buddhism, thats about inner peace.

F.Y.I. to the Catholics/Christians...JESUS SAID LOVE ALL EQUALLY, HE NEVER SAID GAY PEOPLE ARE THE EXCEPTION!!!

IN AMERICA RELIGON IS NOT A GOOD REASON FOR ANY LAW!!! Period.

The idea of marriage was made in a time where being gay would be a good reason to torture you to death.

Before you say it im straight, but believe it or not im also, God forbid, tolerant.

If being gay is a choice then you accept being straight is too.

If God existed and couldn't accept gay people because he doesn't like them (guess where sins come from!) then he's imposing HIS beliefs on YOU!

If you aren't religous you can still be moral.

Where in the Bible does it say being gay is wrong, cuz if it wasnt in the first draft whats the big deal. Yes the Bible HAS been revised.

Race-does not matter
Religon-does not matter
Sex-does not matter
Sexuality-shouldn't have to matter, cuz it's not like whites don't befriend blacks , Christians don't befriend aetheists, and Men dont befriend Women, so...why make being straight or gay matter? Wanna know what does matter? We're alive. Shouldn't that be more than enough?
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 06:01 AM on July 17, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The_General:

While I appreciate your insight and I agree with your position for the most part, I believe your comments were uncalled for. Zerocool manages to contribute his sentiments without bashing the other members on this board, and you should, too.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 09:52 AM on July 17, 2006 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.