goDel Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 MENy people would agree! Also, women are evil and men are the root of all evil. Does that make men the root of all women? If so, what in hell is a "wo"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encey Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 a rib, apparently mmm, pussy ribs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerWaschbar Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 The guy's life was probably hell already if that makes any one feel any better. I don't think religion really has much to do with it at all, people will be getting cheesed at each even if everyone decided to accept that there are no gods and no afterlife. In fact I see a lot of the negative aspects of religion echoed in modern atheism. People assuming that their way is the only true way and looking down on everyone who doesn't agree with them. Really no one has any idea, which I guess was my point in my previous post (p. drunk last night, lol). I've yet to see how science can disprove religion... it describes natural processes, which is great of course. But even then, it's inevitably full of assumptions and nothing is provable to a perfect degree. It's more about people being desperate and latching on to a group of ideas for support and then feeling vulnerable when those idea's are threatened. Until we can accept that we're all pretty much just hurling through space screaming incoherently at the absurdity of everything, we'll be all frontin', getting cheesed and pickin' fights, regardless of if it's for a god or a country or race or whatever. Anyways, I'm not religious at all, but I get kind of cheesed myself at the arrogance that atheism sometimes associates itself with. Probably doesn't matter if we accept we are infinitely fast moving screaming space hurlers even. We'll still be getting cheesed all over the place and ending lives like crazy. It's like, entropy man, or something, whoa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Let's talk about Santa Claus for a moment. This chubby white guy with a beard and elves knows if you have been bad or good. If you are good you get presents (heaven), if you are bad you get coal (hell). Thought control/paranoia. By surrendering to something as man-made as Religion for morality you are devaluing yourself as a human being by limiting your creative mind to wonder and doubt. It is the root of evil in that it is the root of ignorance. Which is all that evil is. It's aesthetic may present itself as something good, but wolf in sheep clothes. Don't deny it. Churches should be taxed and ignored. Humanity needs to wake from its slumber and turn to a wider range of spiritual perspectives. Look towards science and space/the cosmos. Real mysteries that are more profound and important than Santa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 *eats ribeye steak* *vomits after reading the religion twist this thread is currently undergoing* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 It's not arrogant to attack religion as it is relevant in modern society religion/religious propaganda/power. Same idea with criticizing advertising/commercials. Would you say Bill Hicks is arrogant? The facts are the facts. Putting that information out there is not arrogant. Religious belief is in the position of power in this society so they ultimately hold the responsibility to justify its existence. Look at Global Warming and how that is doubted by more people yet tremendous more science to support it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Seriously, lol compson, get off it dude, most of us here on the internet have already seen the Dawkins foundation flounder around with the juvenile "religions are fairy tales" equation. It's the sort of analogy that 14 year olds are quite fond of, but I do suggest you look a bit deeper into spiritual schools of thought before you dismiss them all - maybe read some San Juan de la Cruz, the teachings of Buddha, the Bodhisattva Way, the Gracians Manual, the Gospel of Thomas, the Upanishads, a Sufi text or two (these would be especially illuminating for you, I think)... you might realize that religions aren't just about controlling others, and they certainly were not meant to be a means of war. anyway last poast, i gotta get out of this thread again, it's terrible in here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieBees Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 MISANDRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY reported for misandry comson being all r/athiesm is so like 5 years ago dude, its all about hating on dickhead hypocrit athiests nowadays. everyone already knows christians are dumb lol e: fuck atheists for making sagan into a meme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Calling someone a 14 year old while then informing of teachings on morality is a perfect example of how intelligent human being such as yourself, can say something as arrogant and disrespectful as that. Truly remarkable. In one small paragraph you cast your opponent as morally and spiritually depleted, suggesting that I potentially have it all wrong, that Religion does do good. And while you are definitely right about that (as I never said they never did any good) you completely side step my point that Religion exists and continues to exist by spreading ignorance about Science (critical thinking skills) and limiting a vast array of more unique spiritual philosophies. Instead the prominent examples of religion in society today suggests blackmail (worship/read the rules or go to hell) and promote fear / thought control. And yes while reading philosophy and many other spiritual beliefs/texts is good, I can read any form of philosophy and it not become my religion. As I already said "Humanity needs to wake from its slumber and turn to a wider range of spiritual perspectives." Religious institutions don't encourage personal/individual spiritual exploration. They are rigid and conformist. Agnostic doesn't mean you deny yourself from understanding what religions are. It just means you understand the subtext, "it has no scientific basis for being true." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambermonk Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 lol at that kid taking a gun into school and pointing it at some girls sahying he would kill themalso lol at people saying teachers should be armed, seriouslY? i thought the US hated teachers (overpaid incompetant union types etc) and thehy want to make them security guards and shit? surely ud have to pay them extra and trust them to be armed in a class full of kids If anything, teachers need to be paid more. Way too much money is spent on security in the US and not enough on education. And teachers sure as hell shouldn't be required to bring guns to school, nor anyone else. The argument that one would feel safer in an academic institution by packing heat is complete rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Calling someone a 14 year old while then informing of teachings on morality is a perfect example of how intelligent human being such as yourself, can say something as arrogant and disrespectful as that. Truly remarkable. Yeah, I was mimicking your tone. Thought you might enjoy that. I'm not particularly religious btw, just find it an interesting subject. I hope no one thinks I'm trying to be an ambassador for religious behaviour. I'm quite a cunt sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Not once did I personally criticize anyone. I criticized religion. I then complimented you as a human but called the analogy you used disrespectful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encey Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Let's talk about Santa Claus for a moment. This chubby white guy with a beard and elves knows if you have been bad or good. If you are good you get presents (heaven), if you are bad you get coal (hell). Thought control/paranoia. By surrendering to something as man-made as Religion for morality you are devaluing yourself as a human being by limiting your creative mind to wonder and doubt. It is the root of evil in that it is the root of ignorance. Which is all that evil is. It's aesthetic may present itself as something good, but wolf in sheep clothes. Don't deny it. Churches should be taxed and ignored. Humanity needs to wake from its slumber and turn to a wider range of spiritual perspectives. Look towards science and space/the cosmos. Real mysteries that are more profound and important than Santa. The problem is, you are presenting an unfair caricature of religion and religious people -- based on the worst of real-life examples, no doubt, but uncharitable at best. That would be like saying we should abolish colleges on account of the behavior of drop-out, moronic jocks, while overlooking the Nobel laureates who have graduated from the same institution. The Christian description of the project of the civil rights movement by MLK is an easy example of the positive, reflective and socially conscious power of religious faith. So what makes your claims so objectionable is that they come off as totally ignoring or writing off examples like those. Similarly, to say that the morality of being good before God's eyes is a form of thought control or paranoia is to focus on those who literalize the message in terms of its supernatural meaning, while ignoring those who can understand the power of a metaphor to give meaning and direction to our lives (just as we do secularly, when we think of our teammates as our family members or our spouses as our 'other halves' -- metaphor at work with profound practical consequences). You make two other objections to adopting moral values for religious reasons: (1) religion is man-made (implying that nothing man-made could give us legitimate moral values or reasons to act in certain ways rather than others), and (2) religious belief limits our creativity, wonder and skeptical/critical thought. But the principle behind (1) is false. The constitution and any state or local laws are man-made rules that give us legitimate moral values and reasons for action (e.g., agreeing with one another to respect our freedom and pursuit of happiness); the same goes for a marriage vow (a couple binding each other to value their relationship by acting faithfully in each other's best interest, or whatever). And if the idea is that only something non-man-made could give us a legitimate set of moral values, that is, on some construals, the very sort of religious superstition you would want to protest -- the thought that our real and true calling must be revealed to us from some source that is 'behind' or 'above' us, which we did not create but which dictates how we ought to live. Objection (2) rests on another caricature of religious faith. A paragon of Christian faith like St. Augustine or Soren Kierkegaard is perhaps one of the most skeptical, reflective, creative and wonderous persons I can think of. In the name of what they took their faith to call upon them to do, they spent their whole lives questioning whether they truly understood what it meant to be a Christian, whether they were living up to the ideals of that identity, and whether the ideals themselves had been misunderstood by them and their contemporaries. I take that to be an exemplary moral attitude, no matter what particular moral value or point of view is in question. Your final point suggests that religion is objectionable because any religion is one among many, so that devoting yourself to one limits your 'perspective' on ... something -- I'm not sure what, exactly. I used to be someone who thought it was a shame that people grew up with one religious belief and never explored other options, until a friend of mine brought home to me how only in that way was the real nature of her religious point of view a part of her character in the way it needs to be in order to count as truly believing in it. In other words, being a spiritual tourist is unlikely to bring you to understand just what the religion is all about, since religion (among many other things!) has ritual, daily practice and habituation at its core. Not to mention that the work of most religions takes place through a spiritual community, which only comes about through a group of people sharing a way of life that they have spent a considerable amount of time learning to live and to live well. If I want to learn about a religion, I'm not going to check it out for a week and then move on, nor am I going to try to learn from such a person; I would want to give it a real shot, for years, and to hear what people who've practiced it for a decade or more think it's all about. So, those are the parts of your attitude toward religion that I don't think are fair, sympathetic or correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCONES TO DIE FOR Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I just got a sandwich at Subway. As I was leaving, a kid - maybe 18 or 19 - walked in with a sidearm. America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I just got a sandwich at Subway. As I was leaving, a kid - maybe 18 or 19 - walked in with a sidearm. America. 2nd amendment in action, baby, just as God intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Not once did I personally criticize anyone. I criticized religion. I then complimented you as a human but called the analogy you used disrespectful. Sorry, I was feeling a bit contrary... Your Santa Claus post seemed to be insulting the intelligence of millions of people by equating their serious religious beliefs with a commercial folk fable told to little children. Basically, likewise - you're an intelligent guy but your analogy was pretty rough around the edges. BTW, Encey, that was a great post and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Let's talk about Santa Claus for a moment. This chubby white guy with a beard and elves knows if you have been bad or good. If you are good you get presents (heaven), if you are bad you get coal (hell). Thought control/paranoia. By surrendering to something as man-made as Religion for morality you are devaluing yourself as a human being by limiting your creative mind to wonder and doubt. It is the root of evil in that it is the root of ignorance. Which is all that evil is. It's aesthetic may present itself as something good, but wolf in sheep clothes. Don't deny it. Churches should be taxed and ignored. Humanity needs to wake from its slumber and turn to a wider range of spiritual perspectives. Look towards science and space/the cosmos. Real mysteries that are more profound and important than Santa. The problem is, you are presenting an unfair caricature of religion and religious people -- based on the worst of real-life examples, no doubt, but uncharitable at best. That would be like saying we should abolish colleges on account of the behavior of drop-out, moronic jocks, while overlooking the Nobel laureates who have graduated from the same institution. The Christian description of the project of the civil rights movement by MLK is an easy example of the positive, reflective and socially conscious power of religious faith. So what makes your claims so objectionable is that they come off as totally ignoring or writing off examples like those. Similarly, to say that the morality of being good before God's eyes is a form of thought control or paranoia is to focus on those who literalize the message in terms of its supernatural meaning, while ignoring those who can understand the power of a metaphor to give meaning and direction to our lives (just as we do secularly, when we think of our teammates as our family members or our spouses as our 'other halves' -- metaphor at work with profound practical consequences). You make two other objections to adopting moral values for religious reasons: (1) religion is man-made (implying that nothing man-made could give us legitimate moral values or reasons to act in certain ways rather than others), and (2) religious belief limits our creativity, wonder and skeptical/critical thought. But the principle behind (1) is false. The constitution and any state or local laws are man-made rules that give us legitimate moral values and reasons for action (e.g., agreeing with one another to respect our freedom and pursuit of happiness); the same goes for a marriage vow (a couple binding each other to value their relationship by acting faithfully in each other's best interest, or whatever). And if the idea is that only something non-man-made could give us a legitimate set of moral values, that is, on some construals, the very sort of religious superstition you would want to protest -- the thought that our real and true calling must be revealed to us from some source that is 'behind' or 'above' us, which we did not create but which dictates how we ought to live. Objection (2) rests on another caricature of religious faith. A paragon of Christian faith like St. Augustine or Soren Kierkegaard is perhaps one of the most skeptical, reflective, creative and wonderous persons I can think of. In the name of what they took their faith to call upon them to do, they spent their whole lives questioning whether they truly understood what it meant to be a Christian, whether they were living up to the ideals of that identity, and whether the ideals themselves had been misunderstood by them and their contemporaries. I take that to be an exemplary moral attitude, no matter what particular moral value or point of view is in question. Your final point suggests that religion is objectionable because any religion is one among many, so that devoting yourself to one limits your 'perspective' on ... something -- I'm not sure what, exactly. I used to be someone who thought it was a shame that people grew up with one religious belief and never explored other options, until a friend of mine brought home to me how only in that way was the real nature of her religious point of view a part of her character in the way it needs to be in order to count as truly believing in it. In other words, being a spiritual tourist is unlikely to bring you to understand just what the religion is all about, since religion (among many other things!) has ritual, daily practice and habituation at its core. Not to mention that the work of most religions takes place through a spiritual community, which only comes about through a group of people sharing a way of life that they have spent a considerable amount of time learning to live and to live well. If I want to learn about a religion, I'm not going to check it out for a week and then move on, nor am I going to try to learn from such a person; I would want to give it a real shot, for years, and to hear what people who've practiced it for a decade or more think it's all about. So, those are the parts of your attitude toward religion that I don't think are fair, sympathetic or correct. ---There's nothing uniquely religious about MLK's message, so no I don't see that as an example of religion doing good, but more a vehicle to spread truth. MLK had a very unique voice and his passion derived more from justice/equality than religious texts. Hell the Christian Coalition of today opposes MLK and what he stands for. ---If you don't "literalize" the message than you aren't really religious. And many people do literalize this message as many people don't literalize evolution or how old the earth is. The metaphor is also pointless from my perspective and I don't see your point. Thou shalt not kill because killing is wrong. Period. End of Story. I don't need a metaphor to hammer home such concepts. This again plays in on thought policing, because if you start even thinking about something bad/evil, you will begin to question your self and will start to accept you are a beast, an animal, and need religion to rid you of your flaws. ---I see your point here... and my response is its akin to consuming art versus creating your own. Of course all human constructs are man-made. The problem is religious constructs are man made (male) and fucking old as shit. So surrendering your outlook to some old men compared to thinking for yourself is sad to see... just as it would be sad to see Richard James stop making music and listening to mainstream radio. ---Again like MLK you can be agnostic and have this kind of thought process about morality. It's nothing special. The big difference between them is one creates powerful institutions that streamlines and pre-packages while the other requires you to use your brain and think about it like St. Augustine. ---I wouldn't want to give it a real shot because the entire premise for its existence has no factual basis for being true. I will observe and study it as I would anything, but I am not going to worship nor hope that "God's Will" will save me from burning in hell. No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Is someone really trying to defend Christianity as being benevolent and moral? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encey Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Let's talk about Santa Claus for a moment. This chubby white guy with a beard and elves knows if you have been bad or good. If you are good you get presents (heaven), if you are bad you get coal (hell). Thought control/paranoia. By surrendering to something as man-made as Religion for morality you are devaluing yourself as a human being by limiting your creative mind to wonder and doubt. It is the root of evil in that it is the root of ignorance. Which is all that evil is. It's aesthetic may present itself as something good, but wolf in sheep clothes. Don't deny it. Churches should be taxed and ignored. Humanity needs to wake from its slumber and turn to a wider range of spiritual perspectives. Look towards science and space/the cosmos. Real mysteries that are more profound and important than Santa. The problem is, you are presenting an unfair caricature of religion and religious people -- based on the worst of real-life examples, no doubt, but uncharitable at best. That would be like saying we should abolish colleges on account of the behavior of drop-out, moronic jocks, while overlooking the Nobel laureates who have graduated from the same institution. The Christian description of the project of the civil rights movement by MLK is an easy example of the positive, reflective and socially conscious power of religious faith. So what makes your claims so objectionable is that they come off as totally ignoring or writing off examples like those. Similarly, to say that the morality of being good before God's eyes is a form of thought control or paranoia is to focus on those who literalize the message in terms of its supernatural meaning, while ignoring those who can understand the power of a metaphor to give meaning and direction to our lives (just as we do secularly, when we think of our teammates as our family members or our spouses as our 'other halves' -- metaphor at work with profound practical consequences). You make two other objections to adopting moral values for religious reasons: (1) religion is man-made (implying that nothing man-made could give us legitimate moral values or reasons to act in certain ways rather than others), and (2) religious belief limits our creativity, wonder and skeptical/critical thought. But the principle behind (1) is false. The constitution and any state or local laws are man-made rules that give us legitimate moral values and reasons for action (e.g., agreeing with one another to respect our freedom and pursuit of happiness); the same goes for a marriage vow (a couple binding each other to value their relationship by acting faithfully in each other's best interest, or whatever). And if the idea is that only something non-man-made could give us a legitimate set of moral values, that is, on some construals, the very sort of religious superstition you would want to protest -- the thought that our real and true calling must be revealed to us from some source that is 'behind' or 'above' us, which we did not create but which dictates how we ought to live. Objection (2) rests on another caricature of religious faith. A paragon of Christian faith like St. Augustine or Soren Kierkegaard is perhaps one of the most skeptical, reflective, creative and wonderous persons I can think of. In the name of what they took their faith to call upon them to do, they spent their whole lives questioning whether they truly understood what it meant to be a Christian, whether they were living up to the ideals of that identity, and whether the ideals themselves had been misunderstood by them and their contemporaries. I take that to be an exemplary moral attitude, no matter what particular moral value or point of view is in question. Your final point suggests that religion is objectionable because any religion is one among many, so that devoting yourself to one limits your 'perspective' on ... something -- I'm not sure what, exactly. I used to be someone who thought it was a shame that people grew up with one religious belief and never explored other options, until a friend of mine brought home to me how only in that way was the real nature of her religious point of view a part of her character in the way it needs to be in order to count as truly believing in it. In other words, being a spiritual tourist is unlikely to bring you to understand just what the religion is all about, since religion (among many other things!) has ritual, daily practice and habituation at its core. Not to mention that the work of most religions takes place through a spiritual community, which only comes about through a group of people sharing a way of life that they have spent a considerable amount of time learning to live and to live well. If I want to learn about a religion, I'm not going to check it out for a week and then move on, nor am I going to try to learn from such a person; I would want to give it a real shot, for years, and to hear what people who've practiced it for a decade or more think it's all about. So, those are the parts of your attitude toward religion that I don't think are fair, sympathetic or correct. [1] ---There's nothing uniquely religious about MLK's message, so no I don't see that as an example of religion doing good, but more a vehicle to spread truth. MLK had a very unique voice and his passion derived more from justice/equality than religious texts. Hell the Christian Coalition of today opposes MLK and what he stands for. [2] ---If you don't "literalize" the message than you aren't really religious. And many people do literalize this message as many people don't literalize evolution or how old the earth is. The metaphor is also pointless from my perspective and I don't see your point. Thou shalt not kill because killing is wrong. Period. End of Story. I don't need a metaphor to hammer home such concepts. This again plays in on thought policing, because if you start even thinking about something bad/evil, you will begin to question your self and will start to accept you are a beast, an animal, and need religion to rid you of your flaws. [3] ---I see your point here... and my response is its akin to consuming art versus creating your own. Of course all human constructs are man-made. The problem is religious constructs are man made (male) and fucking old as shit. So surrendering your outlook to some old men compared to thinking for yourself is sad to see... just as it would be sad to see Richard James stop making music and listening to mainstream radio. [4] ---Again like MLK you can be agnostic and have this kind of thought process about morality. It's nothing special. The big difference between them is one creates powerful institutions that streamlines and pre-packages while the other requires you to use your brain and think about it like St. Augustine. [5] ---I wouldn't want to give it a real shot because the entire premise for its existence has no factual basis for being true. I will observe and study it as I would anything, but I am not going to worship nor hope that "God's Will" will save me from burning in hell. No thanks. [1] shows that you have never read an MLK speech. His message was thoroughly Christian in content, however easy it is to translate it into secular terms. But what you can both agree on is that the idea of 'God's kingdom on Earth' can stand for 'making our political and moral ideals a reality,' without meaning anything more supernatural or superstitious than that, and I argue that many Christians would be happy with that construal of their project. Plus, the practical good (and danger, to be sure) of a religious community and message is its power to mobilize a large number of people in support of a practical goal. The first sentence of [2] again shows your narrow understanding of the point of religious belief. If you think it must be literal, then why would Galileo, a devout Christian, argue against a literal reading of the Bible's descriptions of some natural phenomena? I would argue on the contrary, that if you understand a religious text literally, then you are not truly religious, you are just misguided. It is possible to believe a religious doctrine without believing it literally. [3]: Are you seriously dissing Katy Perry and Rihanna?! No, but seriously, I think you are searching for your real beef with religious authority. It's not that it's man-made; now it's that it's man-made (already accounted for) and old. But what does the age of a doctrine have to do with its truth? Aren't mathematics pretty old? Isn't the Constitution old? That can't be the problem. So you then switch to saying that the problem is accepting a doctrine in an unreflective, uncritical way. But I responded to that worry in the gold text. I think your response to [4] misses the point by reiterating the objection I had just responded to. Here's another way to put it: Your worry is that religious belief encourages mindless acceptance and obedience whereas scientific belief encourages critical, rational thought. I have already argued that religious people can legitimately and seriously reflect on and criticize their own religious beliefs, even though many do not (which is what worries you, but is a knock against the players, not the game itself) -- and now, the same can be said for scientific beliefs: Look at how many people uncritically accept the claims of expert scientists about the safety of prescription drugs, the nutritional benefits of organic food, the falsity of climate change, and so on -- all on a supposedly 'scientific' basis. The problem is not with science or religion themselves; it is with the way people adopt and justify their scientific or religious beliefs, so it cuts across the distinction you want to draw between the two kinds of beliefs. I think your point in [5] against the reasonableness of relying on God to solve your problems for you is a fair one. But the very point I was trying to make there was that if you actually took the time to understand what reflective, serious believers mean when they say those things, you will probably find they don't mean the idiotic version of the claim which you ascribe to them, but instead mean something more nuanced and sophisticated, such as 'I have to know how to judge when to fight and when to realize I cannot control a situation' -- only, they're expressing it in religious terms. Here too, you will say, 'then the claim is not really religious,' but I think that, in a word, religion is not about its metaphysics or cosmology so much as it is about its ethics and psychology. But I acknowledge that many believers will not grant that you can be a Christian without believing that God created the universe, say. So then it becomes a matter of whether you can give that claim a plausible interpretation, which is what I suppose religious studies in academics are all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 "There's no good thing that a chuch or religion does that cannot be achieved by purely secular means." (And usually the good done by a church or religion comes at a cost ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 "Quotation marks and italics lend gravitas to a statement." *jots it down* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 "Quotation marks and italics lend gravitas to a statement." *jots it down* Just read the statement, and judge on its own merits whether it's true or not. In the future I'll consult you about my font choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 next time, use comic sans. cern scientists use it as well. i mean, how more secular can you get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 There's no good thing that a church or religion does that cannot be achieved by purely secular means. (oh look, it's still true and it's spell-checked) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 "Thank you, Limpy." sorry, sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.