|
|
|
|
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/18/2008 1:01:07 AM |
mccullough64 wrote:
the way I hear it galileo in his works went out of his way to make the church's position look foolish and stupid and dumb. It was poor politic's to write a book for general consumption and entertainment full of jibes jokes and put downs that made those that held to the church's position -and therefore the church- like a bunch of dunces.
Something like that. It was actually Galileo who approached the Pope in Rome for the green light to publish a book about heliocentrism. When his friend Barberini became elected Pope Urban VIII, Galileo got his permission to publish the book, but Urban said he could write about it as a theory alongside the geocentric model. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he took an argument that Urban VIII offered for the geocentric model and put it in the words of a caricature named "Simplicio". It was taken as a personal disgrace of a friend, not to mention the Pope. Galileo also attacked the Jesuit priest-astronomers who had originally supported him. Those unfortunate fiascos led to his encounter with the Roman Inquisition, which condemned his position. However, he wasn't tortured, and Pope Urban saw to it that he would only get a house arrest and receive the care of one of his servants.
Again, the whole question about what the Bible says on the issue is ultimately a red herring, even though that's the "official" reason for Galileo's condemnation. The real reason was that the guy couldn't prove his model at the time against the accepted science of the time, and was a jerk about it. People tend to forget that at the same time, many of the western world's scientists and inventors were either on the Church's payroll or were actually priests themselves. Until the Victorian era, the Church was western civilization's greatest and most important patron of the arts and sciences, and actually had every reason to want the most accurate astronomical data possible in order to properly calculate the feasting and fasting days of the year. The calendar system we use today, the Gregorian calendar, of course comes from Pope Gregory XIII. I think that as time goes on, the whole "Church vs. science" false dichotomy will eventually die out in favor of a more balanced view; just as today, the myth of the so-called "dark ages" of medieval Europe is all but dead outside of some secularist and old-fashioned Protestant apologetics. Deo gratias for that. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/18/2008 11:31:23 AM | MMcCoy3
This is my last post on this one. Feel free to have the last word
I think I'm going to bow out on this one. Feel free to have the last word. We're trying to but you keep posting 
mccullough64
I have seen some posts on this site and others equating all gods with the Christian god . You can point it out but the next time God is mentioned the invective makes it clear that the atheist is beating that straw man of Christianity to death again. Yes because the only ones on this forum who assume the Christian god when someone refers to their deity as 'God' are atheists.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
You accuse us of generalizations then make your own. And you do it again.
and it does nothing to promote teir cause as informed, rational, and logical. That's our 'cause'? tsk tsk.
Jacobus101
The Church has always known and recognized that the earth is round, from the ancient Roman era, through the Middle Ages and to the present time. Some of the Christian theologians that taught a flat earth are Lactantius, Cosmas Indicopleustes, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim Syrus, Athanasius of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Hilary of Poitiers, and Severianus of Gabala.
At any rate, the problem with Galileo was that he couldn't prove the heliocentric model Nobody can. We can only provide evidence, its up to others if they're willing to accept it.
Ironically, the Galileo case is one of the Church defending good science at the time What science were they following - the science of read the bible and ignore the observations of the universe around them?
Your attempt to portray the church as a supporter of science is...entertaining.
However, he wasn't tortured He was threatened with torture to recant his views - and so he did recant. So I agree with you on this one.
The real reason was that the guy couldn't prove his model at the time against the accepted science of the time, and was a jerk about it. So since they ignored the evidence, and he was apparently a jerk, I guess its okay to imprison him in a home for the rest of his life? Is that what Jesus teaches - if you don't like someone then imprison them for life?
the myth of the so-called "dark ages" of medieval Europe is all but dead outside of some secularist and old-fashioned Protestant apologetics Same with that myth about the so-called "holocaust." I'm sure the dark ages were just lovely. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/18/2008 1:06:40 PM | I felt I had to respond to the original post to begin with, which seemed to me to be written by someone who claims to be an atheist, but is somehow ashamed of it. I deal with it point by point.
~Don't assume or suggest the beliefs of another
This really isn't hard to avoid - if someone identifies him/herself as a person of faith, then it can be taken at face value that they believe that there is a God, and that his revealed word is given in one holy scripture or other. If they choose to accept some, and discard others, then they're actually wishy-washy. Or. as I prefer to refer to them, on their way to becoming an atheist.
~Don't forget the magic!
There is no such thing. Miracles do not occur. Magic belongs in fairy tales, and can be dismissed as such.
~Don't put down the beliefs or intelligence of people who disagree with you
I have the right to question any assertion made by a delusional person. It's actually good for them. If you call into question the unreasonable and sometimes dangerous delusions of people of faith, which, by the way, they believe that is their anointed right to impose on the rest of us, then I believe I'm actually doing my civic duty. If they are insulted, then that's too bad. My right to free speech is more important than their feelings, and religion is dealt too much respect already.
~Ignorance
Faith=Ignorance. Christians have known this since St. Augustine.
~Twisting and misquoting
This does not apply to any atheist I know of; Dawkins, Hitchens, Penn & Teller, et. al. Every true atheist that I know has read the bible. I have. I happen to believe that if someone wants to test themselves as to whether they are atheist or agnostic, then read the bible. Then you will be an atheist, my friend.
~Appealing to extremes
>>People commit murders because God said to
Bullsh*t!! They commit murders because they want to. They use god to justify it. Big, big difference. By the way Hitler wasn't an Atheist. He enlisted the support of the RC Church and the Lutheran Church in Germany to consolidate his power. They were interested in stopping Marxism. And "God" was referenced in numerous speeches (watch Triumph Of The Will if you doubt me) and used in the oath that all German military men were required to recite pledging their loyalty to Hitler. He also stated on several occasions that he was doing God's will. He was raised a Catholic. I only mention this because I keep seeing in print and other media that many are asserting that he was an atheist; even Dawkins did in one of his interviews. Clearly he was not.
>>bowing down and worshipping before the altar of Science and Reason
Oh, come on. If you believe in Science and reason, then you're not worshiping anything. Reminding yourself of your insignificance in the presence of the enormity of the universe is as close as you get. And what you "know" about the universe is under constant revision. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/18/2008 1:34:04 PM | I understand the OP ~ but some of the posts elude me too ~
however this is a good thing ! ~
In writing something down you have commited yourself to line of thought ~ at some level ~ so By all means ~ ladies and gents ~ please continue ~ I'm listening," Logial errors made by atheists" is placed before you to quandry over ~ lots of rabbit trails to explore.
The term "worship" deserves exploring ~as do freak random happenings.
Dance | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/18/2008 1:46:39 PM |
rockondon wrote:
Some of the Christian theologians that taught a flat earth are Lactantius, Cosmas Indicopleustes, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim Syrus, Athanasius of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Hilary of Poitiers, and Severianus of Gabala.
Thank you for pointing them out. Quite a few of the Early Church Fathers believed in a flat earth model; however, the flat earth model was never accepted as authoritative. St. Augustine would be a good example of an authoritative critic against these Fathers who were contemporary to him.
And again, in the Middle Ages, the round earth model was taken for granted. The Columbus controversy never actually existed.
Nobody can. We can only provide evidence, its up to others if they're willing to accept it.
Galileo didn't provide the necessary evidence to counter geocentric models of his time. Isaac Newton did, and sure enough, the Church accepted the heliocentric model after that.
What science were they following - the science of read the bible and ignore the observations of the universe around them?
The science established by Aristotle and the ancient Greeks. The issue was already debated by them long before Christianity even came into the picture, and the lck of an observable parallax shift in the stars made heliocentrism untenable, until more accurate telescopes were created. The Bible is a red herring in the larger scheme of the picture, and no astronomical observations were being "ignored".
Your attempt to portray the church as a supporter of science is...entertaining.
I'm glad you're entertained.
He was threatened with torture to recant his views - and so he did recant. So I agree with you on this one.
Actually, he couldn't have been threatened with torture, either. At most, instruments of torture were shown to him as were done with all accused folks in Europe at that time, but The Directory for Inquisitors forbade their use on him.
So since they ignored the evidence, and he was apparently a jerk, I guess its okay to imprison him in a home for the rest of his life?
What evidence? That's precisely the problem: Galileo didn't have enough to support his case.
Is that what Jesus teaches - if you don't like someone then imprison them for life?
Jesus did teach His disciples to respect the judgment of religious leaders, even when they may be wrong. "The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not."
Same with that myth about the so-called "holocaust."
Not quite the same thing at all. I hope we don't have to go to a reductio ad Hitlerum here.
I'm sure the dark ages were just lovely.
You'll be surprised.
Not lovely, but respectable in their own right and responsible for many of western civilization's greatest developments. Check out the book "Those Terrible Middle Ages!: Debunking the Myths" by historian Regine Pernoud. http://www.amazon.com/Those-Terrible-Middle-Ages-Debunking/dp/0898707811 | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/18/2008 3:44:35 PM | Seriously, if you insist that science and scientist, and atheism and atheists, have no dogmatic persons in their ranks, you are being so... well, dogmatic!
Scientists can be dogmatic, but as a rule, are not. Refusing to jump out of a plane based on someone's theory that it's safe, without evidence, is not being dogmatic. It's going with the odds, and each scientist always goes with what he/she considers to be the best odds. Refusing to investigate some random claim that appears to have zero odds of being correct is not being dogmatic. It's doing what a scientist is paid to do. Unlike religion, science is self-correcting. Given empirical evidence that something isn't correct, a scientist must either change his/her mind or join the crackpots.
Athiests are just going with the odds. In this case it's the odds of wasting one's life following a relion for nothing versus the odds of reward in an afterlife.
Examples of the scientific community being dogmatic abound,
Perhaps that is truer in the life sciences than the hard sciences. You won't find such an example in mathematics of physics. (Contrary to what may think, there are no theories in physics which are accepted to the extent of being dogma. There are theories which are so well tested that we know the limitations of those theories and the regime in which those theories may be treated as fact, but that's it.) I'm not sure to what examples you refer, but I'd be surprised if you had an actual example of dogma (at least since the point the scientific method has been applied in that field.) | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/18/2008 3:50:21 PM |
Question everything... but only trust nature..
Uh, science IS the study of nature. (I'm a scientist and that was how I understood the plot.) What did you think it was? | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/18/2008 3:57:34 PM |
bowing down and worshipping before the altar of Science and Reason
OK, tell you what. Let's go skydiving. I'm going to use a parachute that was designed at the altar of Science and Reason. You can use one designed at the alter of Whatever-You-Want . If you want to call Science and Reasoning a religiion, I'll probably see you at worship services. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/18/2008 5:17:27 PM |
Science and Reason
It sure beats the alternative: intellectual dishonesty, delusion & insanity... | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/18/2008 8:26:33 PM | There is many things we've only scratched the surface of with our science and reasoning. ~ Gravity for instance ~ we know a lot about it ~ but still it keep unfolding `
why does the number 42 come up so often when dealing with gravity?
gravity over space and time ~ work together ~ making the impossible seem possible .
It defies my understanding ~ offering small glimpe to strange worlds ~ and that there is more to reality then the one we live in. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/18/2008 11:14:14 PM |
why does the number 42 come up so often when dealing with gravity?
I'm not sure where you get the number 42, but numbers in the forties come up a lot because the strength of the gravitational interaction relative to the strong force is about 40 orders of magnitude weaker, i.e. if you assign the strong force a coupling strength of 1, gravity rolls in around 10^-40. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/19/2008 6:32:38 AM | Firstly...
Same with that myth about the so-called "holocaust."
Don't even go there man. I know you said it in jest but even in jest those words hurt thousands of people. I would stear well clear of that if I were you. 
I'm sure the dark ages were just lovely.
Actually they were. Well just as lovelly as any other period in our history. The only reason that they were called the dark ages is because we did not know very much about them due to scant historical reacords from the time, but we have uncovered much since the fifties and learned a great deal about the dark ages and know now that in many aspects peoples lives were improved during the dark ages (and in some they got worse, but thats true of every age). Farming improved, infrastructure grew so more people had acces to a greater range of amienites, law and order was imposed to a better degree so people no longer had to live in forts just to survive. these things did bring new problems with them like sanitation and coruption, but in all the human situation got better for people as a whole in the dark ages.
At any rate, the problem with Galileo was that he couldn't prove the heliocentric model Nobody can. We can only provide evidence, its up to others if they're willing to accept it.
Plenty of people can. Go ask NASA.
Actually, he couldn't have been threatened with torture, either. At most, instruments of torture were shown to him as were done with all accused folks in Europe at that time, but The Directory for Inquisitors forbade their use on him.
Just like the US soldiers in Iraq are forbiden to torture Iraqi prisoners? We all know how that went don't we.
Lets see if we can all agrea on a few things about Galileo here?
He was a bit of a jerk.
His studies were supported by funding from the church.
When he published his findings, the funding was withdrawn and he got a rather sever telling off.
People eventually realised that although he had writen his findings in the style of the jerk he was, he was actually correct and even the church eventually agreed and changed thier position.
By: Charles_45
If they choose to accept some, and discard others, then they're actually wishy-washy.
No they are not. Theye are exercising thier right to freadom of belief.
Beliving in god dose not force one to belive in the bible or the tora or the koran, nor dose it force one to belive that those books are entirelly litteral. It is well within reason to belive that a god could have inspired a book that was entirelly alegory and up to interpretation by the indivdual. Logic dose not deny this from being a posobility.
Don't put down the beliefs or intelligence of people who disagree with you I have the right to question any assertion made
This is just comon curtesy sir. Noothing to do with your human rights. If everyone was more respectfull of the opinions and beliefs of others, then we would have far more constructive debates.
Being respectfull of others DOSE NOT mean you have to agrea with them of shut up. You can still disagrea with someone without being a jerk about it (one would hope anyways).
Faith=Ignorance. Christians have known this since St. Augustine.
No it truelly dose not. I have faith in the goodness (I dislike that word by the way) of humanity. I know that people can be cruel and twisted, but I also know that the majority of people are just trying to get by and will do you no disservice if you do them none. Altruism has no explentaion in the curent Psychological model of human society but it dose still happen and this is upported by evidence.
I am not ignorant about humans. I am one (I hope!). But I still have faith in thier behaviour.
Twisting and misquoting, This does not apply to any atheist I know of; Dawkins, Hitchens...
Actually these people are constantly missquating, but it could be easilly argued that is not thier fault as they do not speak the original greek/hebru/ect. Any time someone quotes from the bible but dose not state which translation they are quating from, or compare difrent versions to one another, is a missquote of the original. Its not something that can be easilly avoided but for clarity and honesty sake atheists MUST include the version they are quoting from or compare thier quote to another version.
Aditionally there are a lot of texts that are taken out of context and so become something else. Admittedly it is hard to take such things as the murder of all firstborn sons out of context, but other lines such as the bibles mention of the four corners of the earth are easilly taken out of context. (It is clear if you read the entire passage that it dose not mean four litteral corners, but abstract ones.)
I know it means we have extra work to do, but if you wish to be truelly honest, you either have do it or become a greek scholar.
~Don't forget the magic! There is no such thing. Miracles do not occur. Magic belongs in fairy tales, and can be dismissed as such.
And finally I come to this one. I have one thing to say to you here. Quantum phyisics.
A particle can be in two places at once. Not only that but it can also be a wave and a particle at the same time. Not only that but it can also pop in and out of existance at random. Not only that but it can also transmit information over any distance, instantly. Not only that but... ect ect ect.
In the realms of quantum phyisics, the laws are set and work.... on arevage. The only one of the laws of phyisics that we have not seen broken by quantum stuff so far, is the creation/destruction of energy. So if ANYTHING is posible in quantum phyisics, then magic is real. It may not apply to the macro scale world we live in, but in the realms of quantum phyisics magic is very, very real.
I belive in magic.... at a quantum scale. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/19/2008 9:18:08 AM |
The only one of the laws of phyisics that we have not seen broken by quantum stuff so far, is the creation/destruction of energy. So if ANYTHING is posible in quantum phyisics, then magic is real. It may not apply to the macro scale world we live in, but in the realms of quantum phyisics magic is very, very real.
I belive in magic.... at a quantum scale.
Nice post there Bright
I appreciate the comments on quantum physics, and how there is so much about the quantum world that doesn't fit into classical physics/science. As far as not applying to the macro world though -- If we would remember that we didn't understand the connection between molecules and the physical realm initially. In time we'll realize that the quantum does in fact impact the macro and that it is intrinsic in it's existance.
And my 2 cents: Consciousness plays the greatest part! | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/19/2008 9:37:39 AM | I agree with you completely ~ things can be thought into existance
scarry thought in itself !
Seems many things point to this as a reality ~ but very hard to prove ~ different people have offer this to us for many,many years.
But ~ no proof! ~ yet a man/woman can say ~ I've been thinking about building a house ~ presto-chango ~ we have a new house! ~ the primary difference ~ we understand how it was achieved. ~ we have the proof! dance | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/20/2008 3:00:12 PM | The definition of Magic:
Magic–noun
1. the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; legerdemain; conjuring: to pull a rabbit out of a hat by magic.
2. the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature. Compare contagious magic, imitative magic, sympathetic magic.
3. the use of this art: Magic, it was believed, could drive illness from the body.
4. the effects produced: the magic of recovery.
5. power or influence exerted through this art: a wizard of great magic.
6. any extraordinary or mystical influence, charm, power, etc.: the magic in a great name; the magic of music; the magic of spring.
Magic. Right.... come on. Give me a break. What am I doing here? I'm debating something with someone who spells at less than the grade 6 level! | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/20/2008 3:02:31 PM |
As far as not applying to the macro world though -- If we would remember that we didn't understand the connection between molecules and the physical realm initially. In time we'll realize that the quantum does in fact impact the macro and that it is intrinsic in it's existance.
You have it backwards. Quantum mechanics is an accepted theory only because it has a classical limit where the quantum effects disappear. There are NOT two types of mechanics, quantum and classical. Quantum mechanics is THE theory called mechanics which has as a limiting case, classical mechanics. You can't attribute mystical, macrosopic effects to a theory which explains why it doesn't predict those effects. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/20/2008 7:26:06 PM |
You have it backwards. Quantum mechanics is an accepted theory only because it has a classical limit where the quantum effects disappear. There are NOT two types of mechanics, quantum and classical. Quantum mechanics is THE theory called mechanics which has as a limiting case, classical mechanics. You can't attribute mystical, macrosopic effects to a theory which explains why it doesn't predict those effects.
Ummm, seems like you're itching for an argument. That's ok, knock yerself out :-)
No one mentioned or implied a classical mechanics, but there is such a thing as classical scientific belief, which is what is primarily instilled in the general populace and is the backbone of many a POFers' debate stance.
I find the word "can't", being rather absolute, and, is it not interesting that scientific methodology doesn't adhered to absolutes, but rather leaves the door of objectivity open for potentials that haven't been considered or developed yet due to undiscovered understanding on any subject let alone quantum theory. (which is only in it's pre-adolesence)
The quantum world is being explored beyond the comprehension of the classical scientific mind. There are many journals/literature that expound upon the New science, perhaps one might become familiar with these before one delves into a discussion.
The truth is, before any hypothesis can be discovered it must first be imagined And, in that imagining, is where the quantum world and consciousness come together.
I suspect we'll hear from you an0n. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/21/2008 6:37:47 PM |
The definition of Magic:
Magic–noun
1. the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; legerdemain; conjuring: to pull a rabbit out of a hat by magic.
Not sure what you are trying to prove here?
Let me just examine each of these definitions then. No1. We can all perform this form of magic so no disprofe here.
2. the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature. Compare contagious magic, imitative magic, sympathetic magic.
Other techniques that asure human controlof the forces of nature? Sounds like magic to me... or alternativly science. Switching on light alows you to directly controll the natural force of electricity and turn it into light. This is the sort of thing that a long time ago would have been thought to be magic, but we know better now.
3. the use of this art: Magic, it was believed, could drive illness from the body.
This is just the verb form of the above. Nowerdays we would use difrent language for the various effects that were proscribed to magic.
4. the effects produced: the magic of recovery.
Again just another old time word for things we now have better language to describe.
5. power or influence exerted through this art: a wizard of great magic.
And finally we have yet another example of the same thing. Old expresions for things we have difrent words for now.
6. any extraordinary or mystical influence, charm, power, etc.: the magic in a great name; the magic of music; the magic of spring.
This is just a figurative form of the wordso nothing to prove here.
Magic. Right.... come on. Give me a break. What am I doing here? I'm debating something with someone who spells at less than the grade 6 level!
Please do not insult my spealing. If you want to pick on anything I have said, then pick on the content, not the style. Eloquence is no determination of inteligence. If you insist on picking on the spelling of someone who is dyslexic then please note that dyslexia is a registered disability and as such you would be breaking forum rules. Besides, it would be the equivelant of asking a blind person if he has seen your new suit, highly amusing i'm sure but hardly very nice.
Quantum mechanics is an accepted theory only because it has a classical limit where the quantum effects disappear.
Which is partly what I was talking about. The macro world has set rules that do not always apply at the quantum scale. You can not be in two places at once but a photon can. However I think you find that wether on not quantum effects disapear at the macro scale is completelly inconsequntial to wether or not the theories are acepted. The theories areacepted because they have been tested and stood up to the rigors of science.
There are NOT two types of mechanics, quantum and classical.
No, the two types of mechanics are called General and Special relativity.
General relativity is the explination of how the universe works at any scale above the atom.
Special relativity is the explantion of the universe at the quantum scale, wher the universal princaples are contradictory.
Quantum mechanics is THE theory called mechanics which has as a limiting case, classical mechanics.
Clasical mechanics was replaced by the theory of general relativity because clasical mechanics did not stand up to the rigors of science.
We still use clasical mecahincs in most cases because although it is inacurate, it is good enough for most purposes and far less complex than general relativity.
You can't attribute mystical, macrosopic effects to a theory which explains why it doesn't predict those effects.
Special relativity says nothing about what scale the quantum effects are capable of ocuring. In fact it states that there is no theoretical limit to the scale, the problem is just in the numbers. Getting a single photon to be both a wave and particle at once is easy enough, getting two to do it is more dificult, the more you add the harder it becomes. We live on a scale where the number of particles that would need to be effected is so great as to be almost imposible. Quantum mechanics alows for the posobility if such occurances, but mathematics put into the realms of the absurdly unlikely.
And finally I did not atribute mystical macroscopic efects to the quantum, I mearly said it was a posiblity. As a scientist I would not atribute properties to something without testing them first. | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/22/2008 2:10:58 PM | Magic. Right.... come on. Give me a break. What am I doing here? I'm debating something with someone who spells at less than the grade 6 level!
the simplist thing anyone can do is attack spelling ~or grammer ~
pleae focus on the content and reframe from anal retentive behavior
In pulling up a record of your last 25 post ~ I find "only" three ~
and why is that ? ~ and why bother on one's third post to offer to define a noun and then attack someones spelling ?? ~ May I answer your question?
I am completely cluless why you are here ~ you have little to contribute ~ are your the grammer police?
Dance | |
|
| Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 6/22/2008 7:49:27 PM |
the simplist thing anyone can do is attack spelling ~or grammer ~
Those are spelled 'simplest' and 'grammar'
*runs for cover*  | |
|
|
| Page 17 of 17
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
|
Home
login 
