Author Topic: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?  (Read 40696 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #870 on: August 14, 2013, 07:38:01 AM »
Talmud....big fat "interpretation" crap
Josephius...forgery
Tacitus, Pliny the younger...stories of the cult of Christ...not primary.

Nope. Not good enough.



An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #871 on: August 14, 2013, 10:30:12 AM »
Talmud....big fat "interpretation" crap
Josephius...forgery
Tacitus, Pliny the younger...stories of the cult of Christ...not primary.

Nope. Not good enough.

 In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman [http://www.bartdehrman.com/]
(now a secular agnostic who was formerly Evangelical) wrote:

 "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285

http://www.harpercollins.com/browseinside/index.aspx?isbn13=9780062012616

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #872 on: August 14, 2013, 10:41:19 AM »

"Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200"

This is called the No True Scotsman Fallacy and should be rejected immediately. "No serious scholar"? Oh I see, what you want to say is that any scholar who disagrees with your assumption is not a "serious" scholar. HA! FAIL. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits.

The arguments for a miracle worker named Jesus are weak at best. It's time to start honestly looking at both sides and not just the one favored to your assumption. Can you not think for yourself, or do you always need "scholars" to tell you how to think?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1794
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +658/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #873 on: August 14, 2013, 10:56:21 AM »
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1794

What I find disturbing about that link is that Carrier is willing to engage any and all trolls in the comments on their own level.  Seems unnecessarily petty of him, to me.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #874 on: August 14, 2013, 10:56:25 AM »
People in the bible just don't seem to take the sin thing very seriously.

They are the picture of modern man. That's how we know it's accurate.

Database of Priests Accused of Sexual Abuse
http://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbydiocese.html

Comedy. You "know it's accurate" b/c it says it's accurate?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #875 on: August 14, 2013, 11:13:09 AM »
Talmud....big fat "interpretation" crap
Josephius...forgery
Tacitus, Pliny the younger...stories of the cult of Christ...not primary.

Nope. Not good enough.

 In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman [http://www.bartdehrman.com/]
(now a secular agnostic who was formerly Evangelical) wrote:

 "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285

http://www.harpercollins.com/browseinside/index.aspx?isbn13=9780062012616

This is a very interesting post on your part. So you're willing to quote Bart Ehrman when he supports your presumption. Does this also mean that you are willing to be consistent and quote him when he DOES NOT support your assumption?

Refusing to take that "modern scholarship" argument to it's furthest is intellectual hypocrisy and dishonesty - especially when it seems you don't really care about the arguments themselves but rather who agrees with your presumption.

Textual accounts of the miraculous (i.e. - ancient claims) are insufficient to establish that any miracle occurred. There's your state of modern scholarship!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #876 on: August 14, 2013, 11:18:09 AM »

People still take their own lives.   
Do you suggest they think they will
avoid the consequences of their actions?
They seem unable to resist the urge to
do what is wrong, even to the point of
loosing their own lives in the effort.

But not while someone (or a group of people) is watching.

You missed the point.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #877 on: August 14, 2013, 11:22:09 AM »
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1794

What I find disturbing about that link is that Carrier is willing to engage any and all trolls in the comments on their own level.  Seems unnecessarily petty of him, to me.

I actually like that he engages people. Take a peek at comment #26. He deals with arguments just like that of SW.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +658/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #878 on: August 14, 2013, 12:38:05 PM »
What I find disturbing about that link is that Carrier is willing to engage any and all trolls in the comments on their own level.  Seems unnecessarily petty of him, to me.

I actually like that he engages people. Take a peek at comment #26. He deals with arguments just like that of SW.

You said "people".  I said "trolls".
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #879 on: August 14, 2013, 02:42:04 PM »
Talmud....big fat "interpretation" crap
Josephius...forgery
Tacitus, Pliny the younger...stories of the cult of Christ...not primary.

Nope. Not good enough.

 In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman [http://www.bartdehrman.com/]
(now a secular agnostic who was formerly Evangelical) wrote:

 "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285

http://www.harpercollins.com/browseinside/index.aspx?isbn13=9780062012616

Sorry but an appeal to authority who is making a statement that is essentially a no true scotsman doesn't quite make the argument for me.

I realize that this isn't a textbook example of the fallacy, as Bart Ehrman is an expert in the feild. And guess what, I'm inclined to think that there was not one but several historical figures that the legendary mythical Christ is based on.

However, THAT DOES NOT CHANGE that Mr. Ehrman's "certainly" has NO primary evidence. None. A pronouncement isn't evidence.



An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6517
  • Darwins +850/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #880 on: August 14, 2013, 04:19:33 PM »
There were several Sherlock Holmes-like people, police detectives, doctors and so forth in Victorian days who were the basis for the Conan Doyle character. They were actual people and we have records of them and what they did. None of that means that there was a real guy named Sherlock Holmes running around London solving mysteries. There would be newspaper articles, family information and so forth about him. And there is not, because he was fictional, not real.

That is what it sounds like with the "Jesus really existed" stuff. He sounds fictional, not real, even before you add in the magical stuff. There certainly could have been several itinerant Jewish preachers roaming around the Middle East during the Roman Empire. Some of them probably gathered groups of followers and made public speeches--why not?  Someone might even have said the "love one another" stuff and annoying parables that are attributed to "Jesus". One of them might even have pissed off the authorities enough to get himself executed. I don't think anyone would dispute that this could be factual.

But there is no evidence from the time period that there was this one guy who did all of these things-- plus did miracles in front of hundreds of people and came back from the dead. Those are things that would get noticed by lots of writers and observers in any time period. You would think that someone would have passed on the info about Jesus along with the shipment of spices and silk. However, he is not recorded in the Jewish records of the time. Nobody in India or China or Egypt or Ethiopia or Rome heard anything about him, although these people had been traveling and trading goods back and forth for centuries. 

And although people wrote about all kinds of things that we still have records of, including everyday gossip, news from home, tax bills and shopping lists, nobody anywhere appeared to notice the one and only son of god, the true Messiah, showing up, healing the sick, raising the dead, getting killed and coming back again.

Wonder why that is. :-\
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline neopagan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1161
  • Darwins +86/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #881 on: August 14, 2013, 04:40:02 PM »
the most effective consipracy in the history of the world by those nasty jews and romans trying to keep thereal jeezus story quiet?   :)
If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is.  - neopagan

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6517
  • Darwins +850/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #882 on: August 14, 2013, 04:43:13 PM »
the most effective consipracy in the history of the world by those nasty jews and romans trying to keep thereal jeezus story quiet?   :)

Not a very good conspiracy, was it? Roman Catholic Church let the jeezus cat out of the bag. :o
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12062
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #883 on: August 21, 2013, 10:30:08 PM »
the most effective consipracy in the history of the world by those nasty jews and romans trying to keep thereal jeezus story quiet?   :)

Not a very good conspiracy, was it? Roman Catholic Church let the jeezus cat out of the bag. :o

It wasn't the bi-bull? Damn! I fall for it every time. :(

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #884 on: August 22, 2013, 01:25:01 AM »
There were several Sherlock Holmes-like people, police detectives, doctors and so forth in Victorian days who were the basis for the Conan Doyle character. They were actual people and we have records of them and what they did. None of that means that there was a real guy named Sherlock Holmes running around London solving mysteries. There would be newspaper articles, family information and so forth about him. And there is not, because he was fictional, not real.

That is what it sounds like with the "Jesus really existed" stuff. He sounds fictional, not real, even before you add in the magical stuff. There certainly could have been several itinerant Jewish preachers roaming around the Middle East during the Roman Empire. Some of them probably gathered groups of followers and made public speeches--why not?  Someone might even have said the "love one another" stuff and annoying parables that are attributed to "Jesus". One of them might even have pissed off the authorities enough to get himself executed. I don't think anyone would dispute that this could be factual.

But there is no evidence from the time period that there was this one guy who did all of these things-- plus did miracles in front of hundreds of people and came back from the dead. Those are things that would get noticed by lots of writers and observers in any time period. You would think that someone would have passed on the info about Jesus along with the shipment of spices and silk. However, he is not recorded in the Jewish records of the time. Nobody in India or China or Egypt or Ethiopia or Rome heard anything about him, although these people had been traveling and trading goods back and forth for centuries. 

And although people wrote about all kinds of things that we still have records of, including everyday gossip, news from home, tax bills and shopping lists, nobody anywhere appeared to notice the one and only son of god, the true Messiah, showing up, healing the sick, raising the dead, getting killed and coming back again.

Wonder why that is. :-\

Perhaps he belonged to an Essene Community and held the post of  Righteous Teacher. Because they practised the austere "nazarite" ways no one outside the Jewish traditions knew or cared about them. He dies and the Pharisees dress Saulus up as an Essene to go about drawing those lost to the Jesus interpretation back to Pharisaic Judaism. Miracles they like, but at this stage nothing as elaborate as you see in the Biblical record. So far he's just another Jewish sect leader with an attractive philosophy that is more appealing the overly ritualistic Pharisee tradition.

Emperor Nerva at Nero's bequest uncovers Saulus activity. This upsets Nero. They also allegedly called him the Beast or AntiChrist.  Nero wipes out all the Jesus sect Bishops and then starts out to smash all things Jewish.

When Vespasian comes to power, he decides that he needs a better spin on the Jewish Massacre. He tasks Nerva (a skilled literary apparently) with re-writing the Jewish history and giving it a more favourable image for Rome's part.  The works of the incredibly talented Flavius Josephus are born. Then one of the Flavians assigns Nerva the task of writing the  4 Gospels and the Book of Acts, thus romanizing the Jewish Sect and creating Roman Christianity. It's Nerva that fabricates the Miracles thus outplaying the Pharisees at their own game.

Mark was written to counter the work of Mark the Pharisee evangelist and most likely was targeted towards the Alexandrians
Luke was for the folks in Judea
Matthew was for the broader community not the least being the kings (or Magi) from the east.
John well he was his own man and had some good stuff philosophically speaking. They used him for credibility and pinned the Fiction of Revelations on him.

The Book of Acts exists to romanize the efforts of Paul the Pharisee.
 
Nerva is handsomely rewarded by both Nero and the Flavians and later rises to the post of Roman Emperor. Not a bad effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerva

All a power play really. Or something awfully close to that.  That's why.
 
« Last Edit: August 22, 2013, 01:34:47 AM by eartheconomyspirit »

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12239
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #885 on: August 22, 2013, 07:36:00 AM »
Like any good conspiracy theory, there's always an excuse (or collection of excuses) for why it appears, on the facts, to be incorrect.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #886 on: August 22, 2013, 05:17:54 PM »
Like any good conspiracy theory, there's always an excuse (or collection of excuses) for why it appears, on the facts, to be incorrect.

And then there's the historical record.

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1412
  • Darwins +49/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #887 on: August 22, 2013, 06:30:16 PM »
Like any good conspiracy theory, there's always an excuse (or collection of excuses) for why it appears, on the facts, to be incorrect.

And then there's the historical record.
What historical records!
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #888 on: August 22, 2013, 07:44:18 PM »
Like any good conspiracy theory, there's always an excuse (or collection of excuses) for why it appears, on the facts, to be incorrect.

And then there's the historical record.
What historical records!

http://eartheconomyspirit.net/PRVW/WIITTCGHandBook.htm

Don't be lazy now. You did ask. It's only a summary. If you want the full historical record you'll have to wait for the book.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2013, 07:46:05 PM by eartheconomyspirit »

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12239
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #889 on: August 22, 2013, 09:56:47 PM »
The cheque is always in the mail.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12062
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #890 on: August 22, 2013, 10:01:38 PM »
The cheque is always in the mail.

You misspelled "check". :P

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12239
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #891 on: August 22, 2013, 10:49:13 PM »
I am Canadian.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1412
  • Darwins +49/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #892 on: August 23, 2013, 02:07:30 AM »
Like any good conspiracy theory, there's always an excuse (or collection of excuses) for why it appears, on the facts, to be incorrect.

And then there's the historical record.
What historical records!

http://eartheconomyspirit.net/PRVW/WIITTCGHandBook.htm

Don't be lazy now. You did ask. It's only a summary. If you want the full historical record you'll have to wait for the book.
Not lazy, and I did ask. However I will ask again "What historical records!". The onus is yours, please supply said records. Not just your opinion! Any historical records would be out there for all to see. So cite your sources. [1]
 1. http://www.ncsu.edu/midlink/citing.html
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #893 on: August 23, 2013, 03:26:31 AM »
Like any good conspiracy theory, there's always an excuse (or collection of excuses) for why it appears, on the facts, to be incorrect.

And then there's the historical record.
What historical records!


http://eartheconomyspirit.net/PRVW/WIITTCGHandBook.htm

Don't be lazy now. You did ask. It's only a summary. If you want the full historical record you'll have to wait for the book.
Not lazy, and I did ask. However I will ask again "What historical records!". The onus is yours, please supply said records. Not just your opinion! Any historical records would be out there for all to see. So cite your sources. [1]
 1. http://www.ncsu.edu/midlink/citing.html

I did it's in the link

http://eartheconomyspirit.net/PRVW/WIITTCGHandBook.htm

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1412
  • Darwins +49/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #894 on: August 23, 2013, 05:08:12 AM »
 
Quote from: eartheconomyspirit
I did it's in the link
No you haven't you have only cited a document that was written 150 years after the fact. it is not a recording of history, it is a recording of what someone may have thought happened, you said you had historical records supply them thank you. I want to see contemporaneous historical records, not someone's (nearly two centuries later) opinion.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 05:10:16 AM by bertatberts »
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline eartheconomyspirit

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Darwins +2/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #895 on: August 23, 2013, 07:51:29 PM »
Quote from: eartheconomyspirit
I did it's in the link
No you haven't you have only cited a document that was written 150 years after the fact. it is not a recording of history, it is a recording of what someone may have thought happened, you said you had historical records supply them thank you. I want to see contemporaneous historical records, not someone's (nearly two centuries later) opinion.

Did you go to the web link and if so are you saying that I haven't provided a reference to a specific point you wish to challenge. If so, my bad, the summary doesn't have the links that the main book has.  Let me know what  your challenge is and I'll get the reference. might I suggest to make this quick a possible for you., you start with my claims that Judaism was corrupted by Cyrus the Great and that proof exists to support a further claim that the prophecies of the Book of Isaiah were made up.

If you haven't visited the link, what can I say. Don't worry be happy  :-)

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12062
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #896 on: August 23, 2013, 08:33:44 PM »
I am Canadian.

Are you? I always thought you were from somewhere in Europe.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +658/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #897 on: August 24, 2013, 11:21:29 AM »
I am Canadian.

Are you? I always thought you were from somewhere in Europe.

-Nam

yeah, Canada's in Europe, isn't it?

That's my parody of an ugly American
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12062
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #898 on: August 24, 2013, 11:56:54 AM »
You shouldn't call yourself ugly. No one thinks you're that pretty.

;)

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey