What if Christians are Wrong?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
541

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Deism makes no sense to me. How can an effect be totally ontologically different and separate from its cause? Total paradox there. Don’t you think the cause has to remain within its effect to produce its effect?

[/quote]

Explain a little further.[/quote]

In deism, it looks like to me the cause and the effect are totally different. Nothing in common. The cause doesn’t exist anymore once it makes it effect.
[/quote]
That is one kind of causation, but that’s an empirical and temporal form. When you’re talking about dependent causation, usually the cause is sustained. For instance, you need rubber and roundness to get a tire, when you have the tire the rubber it depends on and the roundness it depends on still exist. These are contingencies…
The temporal causation you mentioned is the stuff of science. You add baking soda to vinegar you get CO2 and something else forget but you not longer have vinegar and baking soda. HOVEVER, what did sustain is all the stuff the baking soda and vinegar are made out of, like the atoms, did sustain and survived the change. So not only does it depend on what your talking about, it depends how deep you go into it…

This also speaks to why I say frequently that a ‘scientific’ proof of God would actually weaken the argument. Hume was desperately trying to dismantle causation and one thing he did succeed in, was showing that the temporal, empirical, observable causal relationships are only a matter of correlation. Correlation deals in matters of degree and more and less likeliness based on past experience…In other words it’s less reliable. But it’s an aposteriori form and we’re dealing with a priori matters.

It doesn’t have to, for the reasons I stated above. Prior to physical matter, time and space weren’t a problem, everything is eternal in that realm.
For instance, the an atom may have been the result of another cause that ceased existing, at least in that form, to become said atom, but the the laws the atom follows and indeed the laws that allowed the cause and effect to occur are static, eternal, and causal. The atom does what it does because the laws that govern it will not allow it to do anything else. That metaphysical component of the atom is how we understand things. Their physical state is the result. But the atom and the laws that govern it’s behavior exist simultaneously. And even if something acts on the atom to morph it or destroy it, the laws remain…[/quote]

Time and space be damned, even metaphysically it still doesn’t make sense to me. The laws have to continue to exist after they’re put into place and something has to be there to make the laws work and govern existence.

542

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Another question Pat, assuming the first cause is “God” what exactly makes it so special we are even talking about it in the first place?
[/quote]
The tread was started by an atheist as most religious threads seem to be. So whether you think it’s special or not is subjective. But at this point if you or others who put a lot of time in to the matter try to tell say now that ‘they don’t care’, I am going to call bullshit. You must think it’s pretty special to argue and ask so many questions about it.

[quote]
What if the first cause’s only purpose was the big bang and nothing else. In fact it had no choice but to create the big bang, the big bang was the sole inevitable purpose of the first cause and is incapable of ever doing anything else.[/quote]

The first part is a deistic point of view. ‘God created everything and then went hands-off and let it roll.’ Part of being said first-cause or Uncaused-caused, by default you have some unique things about you. First, you cannot be limited. Limitations are causal and something necessarily sitting outside the causal chain cannot be bound by it.
Second, the deistic point of view I would argue is largely correct, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t or hasn’t intervened. his intervention in the larger scheme even our understanding, if you believe everything that has ever been said about him intervening is still quite limited.
That’s why I said you have to understand what an ‘Uncaused-cause’ must be. Forget about whether you think the argument is true or not for a second and think, if such a thing exists, what does it have to be, to do what it did. Limited is not one of those things, because something independent of cause cannot be limited because limitations are causal.

Take a look at that link I provided for Neuromancer, it’s quick, easy and answers a lot of the things you’ve talked about, outright. Like I said to him, you potentially can learn more about the argument by understanding what it isn’t.[/quote]

The first cause being unlimited still does not make sense. With a causal chain the only thing that is required of the first cause is that it created the 2nd.

543

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Another question Pat, assuming the first cause is “God” what exactly makes it so special we are even talking about it in the first place?
[/quote]
The tread was started by an atheist as most religious threads seem to be. So whether you think it’s special or not is subjective. But at this point if you or others who put a lot of time in to the matter try to tell say now that ‘they don’t care’, I am going to call bullshit. You must think it’s pretty special to argue and ask so many questions about it.

[quote]
What if the first cause’s only purpose was the big bang and nothing else. In fact it had no choice but to create the big bang, the big bang was the sole inevitable purpose of the first cause and is incapable of ever doing anything else.[/quote]

The first part is a deistic point of view. ‘God created everything and then went hands-off and let it roll.’ Part of being said first-cause or Uncaused-caused, by default you have some unique things about you. First, you cannot be limited. Limitations are causal and something necessarily sitting outside the causal chain cannot be bound by it.
Second, the deistic point of view I would argue is largely correct, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t or hasn’t intervened. his intervention in the larger scheme even our understanding, if you believe everything that has ever been said about him intervening is still quite limited.
That’s why I said you have to understand what an ‘Uncaused-cause’ must be. Forget about whether you think the argument is true or not for a second and think, if such a thing exists, what does it have to be, to do what it did. Limited is not one of those things, because something independent of cause cannot be limited because limitations are causal.

Take a look at that link I provided for Neuromancer, it’s quick, easy and answers a lot of the things you’ve talked about, outright. Like I said to him, you potentially can learn more about the argument by understanding what it isn’t.[/quote]

The first cause being unlimited still does not make sense. With a causal chain the only thing that is required of the first cause is that it created the 2nd. [/quote]

You’re thinking first and temporal terms, A cause, then an effect which is not an actual case when discussing things at this level in the hierarchy of metaphysics (yes, metaphysics has an order and a hierarchy, it’s not a blob of immaterial shit). So by that fact alone, all things occurring in metaphysics are eternal. Second, ‘first-cause’ is really an improper term, used commonly by proponents arguing the Kalam version, which is a temporal based version of the argument. ‘Uncaused-cause’ is more proper, it says more about what it really is we are talking about. An Uncaused-cause cannot be acted on, so for it to expire after creating, would remove the ‘Uncaused’ part of the the title and hence we are no longer talking about an uncaused-cause but caused one. A limitation is a causal event and if the Uncaused-cause must expire after causing you end up with an invalid argument.

To really understand what the ‘Uncaused-cause’ must be like, you have to suspend your like or dislike of the argument and think of that part of it. Then look at the argument as a whole and think about what the ‘Uncaused-cause’ must be.
The argument does not tell us everything about the Uncaused-cause, or hell maybe it does, but for ‘it’ to be what it is, it has to be a certain way. One of those things is eternal, another is uncaused, which means nothing can act on it. So by the nature of what it must be, it must be eternal, and unaffected. Any change in that, will make it something other than the Uncaused-cause.

To really understand this sucker you really have to jump all the way in. If you ever have a hope of beating it you have to understand it exactly. Most of the time people attack ad hominem versions of it, claiming it says things it doesn’t. It may look good at first glance but it’s feeble, weak and ultimately pointless, because it’s so easily refutable.

That’s what that atheist author George Smith did in his book, ‘Atheism: The case Against God’ ( I went back and looked up the book I was looking at…
All he did was mock up a faulty version of the cosmological argument. His mock up was basically that proponents of the theory argue that God created the universe, and delved in to the various theories of how the universe could have come to be, and on and on. That’s fine, but that’s NOT what the argument is claiming. He was refuting a version that only technically existed in his head and in his book. Nobody who knows the argument in any depth makes any sort of claim that he said we make.
It does make me wonder why he and other supposedly smart guys cannot take the correct form of the argument and argue their points against the real thing?

It also tells me, when people get all puffed up and immediately dismissive of it, that they don’t know shit about it. It’s a specific argument, it says very specific things and none of it is really all that complex when you dig in to the reality of the argument.

544

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Another question Pat, assuming the first cause is “God” what exactly makes it so special we are even talking about it in the first place?
[/quote]
The tread was started by an atheist as most religious threads seem to be. So whether you think it’s special or not is subjective. But at this point if you or others who put a lot of time in to the matter try to tell say now that ‘they don’t care’, I am going to call bullshit. You must think it’s pretty special to argue and ask so many questions about it.

[quote]
What if the first cause’s only purpose was the big bang and nothing else. In fact it had no choice but to create the big bang, the big bang was the sole inevitable purpose of the first cause and is incapable of ever doing anything else.[/quote]

The first part is a deistic point of view. ‘God created everything and then went hands-off and let it roll.’ Part of being said first-cause or Uncaused-caused, by default you have some unique things about you. First, you cannot be limited. Limitations are causal and something necessarily sitting outside the causal chain cannot be bound by it.
Second, the deistic point of view I would argue is largely correct, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t or hasn’t intervened. his intervention in the larger scheme even our understanding, if you believe everything that has ever been said about him intervening is still quite limited.
That’s why I said you have to understand what an ‘Uncaused-cause’ must be. Forget about whether you think the argument is true or not for a second and think, if such a thing exists, what does it have to be, to do what it did. Limited is not one of those things, because something independent of cause cannot be limited because limitations are causal.

Take a look at that link I provided for Neuromancer, it’s quick, easy and answers a lot of the things you’ve talked about, outright. Like I said to him, you potentially can learn more about the argument by understanding what it isn’t.[/quote]

The first cause being unlimited still does not make sense. With a causal chain the only thing that is required of the first cause is that it created the 2nd. [/quote]

You’re thinking first and temporal terms, A cause, then an effect which is not an actual case when discussing things at this level in the hierarchy of metaphysics (yes, metaphysics has an order and a hierarchy, it’s not a blob of immaterial shit). So by that fact alone, all things occurring in metaphysics are eternal. Second, ‘first-cause’ is really an improper term, used commonly by proponents arguing the Kalam version, which is a temporal based version of the argument. ‘Uncaused-cause’ is more proper, it says more about what it really is we are talking about. An Uncaused-cause cannot be acted on, so for it to expire after creating, would remove the ‘Uncaused’ part of the the title and hence we are no longer talking about an uncaused-cause but caused one. A limitation is a causal event and if the Uncaused-cause must expire after causing you end up with an invalid argument.

To really understand what the ‘Uncaused-cause’ must be like, you have to suspend your like or dislike of the argument and think of that part of it. Then look at the argument as a whole and think about what the ‘Uncaused-cause’ must be.
The argument does not tell us everything about the Uncaused-cause, or hell maybe it does, but for ‘it’ to be what it is, it has to be a certain way. One of those things is eternal, another is uncaused, which means nothing can act on it. So by the nature of what it must be, it must be eternal, and unaffected. Any change in that, will make it something other than the Uncaused-cause.

To really understand this sucker you really have to jump all the way in. If you ever have a hope of beating it you have to understand it exactly. Most of the time people attack ad hominem versions of it, claiming it says things it doesn’t. It may look good at first glance but it’s feeble, weak and ultimately pointless, because it’s so easily refutable.

That’s what that atheist author George Smith did in his book, ‘Atheism: The case Against God’ ( I went back and looked up the book I was looking at…
All he did was mock up a faulty version of the cosmological argument. His mock up was basically that proponents of the theory argue that God created the universe, and delved in to the various theories of how the universe could have come to be, and on and on. That’s fine, but that’s NOT what the argument is claiming. He was refuting a version that only technically existed in his head and in his book. Nobody who knows the argument in any depth makes any sort of claim that he said we make.
It does make me wonder why he and other supposedly smart guys cannot take the correct form of the argument and argue their points against the real thing?

It also tells me, when people get all puffed up and immediately dismissive of it, that they don’t know shit about it. It’s a specific argument, it says very specific things and none of it is really all that complex when you dig in to the reality of the argument. [/quote]

Would you agree there are Atheists who fully understand this argument? I think the blog you linked before indicated something along those lines.

545

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Another question Pat, assuming the first cause is “God” what exactly makes it so special we are even talking about it in the first place?
[/quote]
The tread was started by an atheist as most religious threads seem to be. So whether you think it’s special or not is subjective. But at this point if you or others who put a lot of time in to the matter try to tell say now that ‘they don’t care’, I am going to call bullshit. You must think it’s pretty special to argue and ask so many questions about it.

[quote]
What if the first cause’s only purpose was the big bang and nothing else. In fact it had no choice but to create the big bang, the big bang was the sole inevitable purpose of the first cause and is incapable of ever doing anything else.[/quote]

The first part is a deistic point of view. ‘God created everything and then went hands-off and let it roll.’ Part of being said first-cause or Uncaused-caused, by default you have some unique things about you. First, you cannot be limited. Limitations are causal and something necessarily sitting outside the causal chain cannot be bound by it.
Second, the deistic point of view I would argue is largely correct, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t or hasn’t intervened. his intervention in the larger scheme even our understanding, if you believe everything that has ever been said about him intervening is still quite limited.
That’s why I said you have to understand what an ‘Uncaused-cause’ must be. Forget about whether you think the argument is true or not for a second and think, if such a thing exists, what does it have to be, to do what it did. Limited is not one of those things, because something independent of cause cannot be limited because limitations are causal.

Take a look at that link I provided for Neuromancer, it’s quick, easy and answers a lot of the things you’ve talked about, outright. Like I said to him, you potentially can learn more about the argument by understanding what it isn’t.[/quote]

The first cause being unlimited still does not make sense. With a causal chain the only thing that is required of the first cause is that it created the 2nd. [/quote]

You’re thinking first and temporal terms, A cause, then an effect which is not an actual case when discussing things at this level in the hierarchy of metaphysics (yes, metaphysics has an order and a hierarchy, it’s not a blob of immaterial shit). So by that fact alone, all things occurring in metaphysics are eternal. Second, ‘first-cause’ is really an improper term, used commonly by proponents arguing the Kalam version, which is a temporal based version of the argument. ‘Uncaused-cause’ is more proper, it says more about what it really is we are talking about. An Uncaused-cause cannot be acted on, so for it to expire after creating, would remove the ‘Uncaused’ part of the the title and hence we are no longer talking about an uncaused-cause but caused one. A limitation is a causal event and if the Uncaused-cause must expire after causing you end up with an invalid argument.

To really understand what the ‘Uncaused-cause’ must be like, you have to suspend your like or dislike of the argument and think of that part of it. Then look at the argument as a whole and think about what the ‘Uncaused-cause’ must be.
The argument does not tell us everything about the Uncaused-cause, or hell maybe it does, but for ‘it’ to be what it is, it has to be a certain way. One of those things is eternal, another is uncaused, which means nothing can act on it. So by the nature of what it must be, it must be eternal, and unaffected. Any change in that, will make it something other than the Uncaused-cause.

To really understand this sucker you really have to jump all the way in. If you ever have a hope of beating it you have to understand it exactly. Most of the time people attack ad hominem versions of it, claiming it says things it doesn’t. It may look good at first glance but it’s feeble, weak and ultimately pointless, because it’s so easily refutable.

That’s what that atheist author George Smith did in his book, ‘Atheism: The case Against God’ ( I went back and looked up the book I was looking at…
All he did was mock up a faulty version of the cosmological argument. His mock up was basically that proponents of the theory argue that God created the universe, and delved in to the various theories of how the universe could have come to be, and on and on. That’s fine, but that’s NOT what the argument is claiming. He was refuting a version that only technically existed in his head and in his book. Nobody who knows the argument in any depth makes any sort of claim that he said we make.
It does make me wonder why he and other supposedly smart guys cannot take the correct form of the argument and argue their points against the real thing?

It also tells me, when people get all puffed up and immediately dismissive of it, that they don’t know shit about it. It’s a specific argument, it says very specific things and none of it is really all that complex when you dig in to the reality of the argument. [/quote]

I thought Deist believed something different than what all you’ve mentioned? The Deism I’ve heard of uses the clock explanation where God puts everything in place then has nothing to do with it and the universe just works it different pieces like a clock.

You’ve basically given a much tighter explanation of what I was trying to say. I’m one of those people who can understand something, then have trouble explaining it without good probing questions. For example, I’m better than most at math but terrible at explaining it.

546

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Deism makes no sense to me. How can an effect be totally ontologically different and separate from its cause? Total paradox there. Don’t you think the cause has to remain within its effect to produce its effect?

[/quote]

Explain a little further.[/quote]

In deism, it looks like to me the cause and the effect are totally different. Nothing in common. The cause doesn’t exist anymore once it makes it effect.

The cause has to in a sense breathe into and move its effect to keep it going to speak a little more metaphorically which deism fails to explain.

edit: Or even if the cause does continue to exists, it has nothing to do with its effect.[/quote]
What you are getting at is God’s sustained upholding of contingent reality, were he to not sustain it contingent existence would cease to exist nor is there anything about contingent existence that would sustain its own existence. This is in contrast to deism where God caused the effect and let it be where in reality the effect wouldn’t be if it were not for his continual upholding.
Not sure if you watched this you tube vid before.
The Thoughts of William Lane Craig - YouTube [/quote]

Yes! Even Aquinas made some sort of mention of a sustaining cause. I’d like to make a quote or mention a work but I completely forgot. Sorry about that. This is where the holy spirit comes into play for Christians. Right?[/quote]
The trinity’s role in creation is pretty interesting there is 1 Corinthians 8:6 “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” of course John 1:1 where the Son is described as the Logos as described in the beginning of that youtube video as well but the Holy Spirit’s role in creation is interesting in that I would have to think about it more though it seems likely that he has a sustaining role. Off the top of my head Psalm 33:6 and the athanasian creed come to mind.

547

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I did. You said, “that probably Chris won’t disagree with.” Why would there even be a possibility?[/quote]I didn’t read them all. Maybe you would think a couple weren’t being applied properly or something. I don’t know. It was a totally innocuous and insignificant comment overall Chris. Meant nothing by it.

548

[quote]pat wrote:
…
I can tell you this definitively, Christians and Muslims are both righter than atheists. [/quote]

How can you be so sure?

549

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
…
I can tell you this definitively, Christians and Muslims are both righter than atheists. [/quote]

How can you be so sure?[/quote]

Sure of what?

550

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
…
I can tell you this definitively, Christians and Muslims are both righter than atheists. [/quote]

How can you be so sure?[/quote]

Well, duh…because of stuff like this:

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy”
Colossians 2/8

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

551

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
…
I can tell you this definitively, Christians and Muslims are both righter than atheists. [/quote]

How can you be so sure?[/quote]

Well, duh…because of stuff like this:

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy”
Colossians 2/8

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
[/quote]That is a GREAT passage.

552

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Another question Pat, assuming the first cause is “God” what exactly makes it so special we are even talking about it in the first place?
[/quote]
The tread was started by an atheist as most religious threads seem to be. So whether you think it’s special or not is subjective. But at this point if you or others who put a lot of time in to the matter try to tell say now that ‘they don’t care’, I am going to call bullshit. You must think it’s pretty special to argue and ask so many questions about it.

[quote]
What if the first cause’s only purpose was the big bang and nothing else. In fact it had no choice but to create the big bang, the big bang was the sole inevitable purpose of the first cause and is incapable of ever doing anything else.[/quote]

The first part is a deistic point of view. ‘God created everything and then went hands-off and let it roll.’ Part of being said first-cause or Uncaused-caused, by default you have some unique things about you. First, you cannot be limited. Limitations are causal and something necessarily sitting outside the causal chain cannot be bound by it.
Second, the deistic point of view I would argue is largely correct, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t or hasn’t intervened. his intervention in the larger scheme even our understanding, if you believe everything that has ever been said about him intervening is still quite limited.
That’s why I said you have to understand what an ‘Uncaused-cause’ must be. Forget about whether you think the argument is true or not for a second and think, if such a thing exists, what does it have to be, to do what it did. Limited is not one of those things, because something independent of cause cannot be limited because limitations are causal.

Take a look at that link I provided for Neuromancer, it’s quick, easy and answers a lot of the things you’ve talked about, outright. Like I said to him, you potentially can learn more about the argument by understanding what it isn’t.[/quote]

The first cause being unlimited still does not make sense. With a causal chain the only thing that is required of the first cause is that it created the 2nd. [/quote]

You’re thinking first and temporal terms, A cause, then an effect which is not an actual case when discussing things at this level in the hierarchy of metaphysics (yes, metaphysics has an order and a hierarchy, it’s not a blob of immaterial shit). So by that fact alone, all things occurring in metaphysics are eternal. Second, ‘first-cause’ is really an improper term, used commonly by proponents arguing the Kalam version, which is a temporal based version of the argument. ‘Uncaused-cause’ is more proper, it says more about what it really is we are talking about. An Uncaused-cause cannot be acted on, so for it to expire after creating, would remove the ‘Uncaused’ part of the the title and hence we are no longer talking about an uncaused-cause but caused one. A limitation is a causal event and if the Uncaused-cause must expire after causing you end up with an invalid argument.

To really understand what the ‘Uncaused-cause’ must be like, you have to suspend your like or dislike of the argument and think of that part of it. Then look at the argument as a whole and think about what the ‘Uncaused-cause’ must be.
The argument does not tell us everything about the Uncaused-cause, or hell maybe it does, but for ‘it’ to be what it is, it has to be a certain way. One of those things is eternal, another is uncaused, which means nothing can act on it. So by the nature of what it must be, it must be eternal, and unaffected. Any change in that, will make it something other than the Uncaused-cause.

To really understand this sucker you really have to jump all the way in. If you ever have a hope of beating it you have to understand it exactly. Most of the time people attack ad hominem versions of it, claiming it says things it doesn’t. It may look good at first glance but it’s feeble, weak and ultimately pointless, because it’s so easily refutable.

That’s what that atheist author George Smith did in his book, ‘Atheism: The case Against God’ ( I went back and looked up the book I was looking at…
All he did was mock up a faulty version of the cosmological argument. His mock up was basically that proponents of the theory argue that God created the universe, and delved in to the various theories of how the universe could have come to be, and on and on. That’s fine, but that’s NOT what the argument is claiming. He was refuting a version that only technically existed in his head and in his book. Nobody who knows the argument in any depth makes any sort of claim that he said we make.
It does make me wonder why he and other supposedly smart guys cannot take the correct form of the argument and argue their points against the real thing?

It also tells me, when people get all puffed up and immediately dismissive of it, that they don’t know shit about it. It’s a specific argument, it says very specific things and none of it is really all that complex when you dig in to the reality of the argument. [/quote]

Would you agree there are Atheists who fully understand this argument? I think the blog you linked before indicated something along those lines.[/quote]

Yes, not a lot, but yes. Usually, the link between Uncaused-cause and God is assumed, but not always. Technically, the argument argues for Uncaused-cause… Understanding what an Uncaused-cause must be to be an Uncaused-cause is where the link to God is inferred. There is only one thing that can exist that can have the properties the Uncaused-cause has, but you have to know something about God to make the inference. It is an inference but not a large one.

Kamui understands it well, but he’s also said some strange things about it before.

553

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
…
I can tell you this definitively, Christians and Muslims are both righter than atheists. [/quote]

How can you be so sure?[/quote]

Look up ^^.

554

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
…
I can tell you this definitively, Christians and Muslims are both righter than atheists. [/quote]

How can you be so sure?[/quote]

Look up ^^. [/quote]

Ceiling needs painting.

555

real lol here

556

That was actually rather humorous =D

557

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
…
I can tell you this definitively, Christians and Muslims are both righter than atheists. [/quote]

How can you be so sure?[/quote]

Look up ^^. [/quote]

Ceiling needs painting.[/quote]

Move out of that shithole Mak…

558

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
…
I can tell you this definitively, Christians and Muslims are both righter than atheists. [/quote]

How can you be so sure?[/quote]

Look up ^^. [/quote]

Ceiling needs painting.[/quote]

Move out of that shithole Mak…[/quote]

Hey, you leave Australia alone

559

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
…
I can tell you this definitively, Christians and Muslims are both righter than atheists. [/quote]

How can you be so sure?[/quote]

Look up ^^. [/quote]

Ceiling needs painting.[/quote]

Move out of that shithole Mak…[/quote]

Hey, you leave Australia alone[/quote]

I gotta admit, it sure is purty… I was lucky enough to go there for a couple of weeks when I was young. God’s Country… Beautiful, I would have no trouble moving there. Except for driving on the wrong side of the road… The hookers at King’s Cross were delightful. Very polite when asking me if I needed some action.