KingsChosen, I Challenge You To A Debate On the Existence of God
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-01-2013, 11:36 PM
RE: KingsChosen, I Challenge You To A Debate On the Existence of God
(08-01-2013 11:29 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(08-01-2013 11:14 PM)Grassy Knoll Wrote:  I agree. It looked like RIED did concede.

I would like to ask you KC, not to debate-just asking. How would the world that we live in change if God did not exist? Of course I'm asking a hypothetical situation for you to describe. But what makes our world what it is since God is real in your opinion and what key things would change if he suddenly lost interest in this pale blue dot we call Earth?
Well, since I believe that we have existence because of God, if there was no God there would be no existence... of anything.

Ah, touché Bowing
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
08-01-2013, 11:41 PM (This post was last modified: 10-01-2013 01:52 AM by Dark Light.)
RE: KingsChosen, I Challenge You To A Debate On the Existence of God
(08-01-2013 11:29 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(08-01-2013 11:14 PM)Grassy Knoll Wrote:  I agree. It looked like RIED did concede.

I would like to ask you KC, not to debate-just asking. How would the world that we live in change if God did not exist? Of course I'm asking a hypothetical situation for you to describe. But what makes our world what it is since God is real in your opinion and what key things would change if he suddenly lost interest in this pale blue dot we call Earth?
Well, since I believe that we have existence because of God, if there was no God there would be no existence... of anything.
Man doesn't exist without God? God doesn't exist without man. Next!

You're just moving the answer back one step further than necessary.


Me: Where did everything come from? I don't know.

You: Where did everything come from? God. Where did God come from? I don't know.

Since there is no reason, be it logical, or otherwise, to conclude that there is a god or gods, then why enter that variable into the equation? There is no good reason. You're fucking up the math dude!

Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Dark Light's post
09-01-2013, 02:43 AM (This post was last modified: 09-01-2013 02:47 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: KingsChosen, I Challenge You To A Debate On the Existence of God
A quick debate roundup and thoughts from me - only really covering KC's side:

KC starts this debate with the small target strategy. Despite claiming he will defend "the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotence Christian God" he says the burden of proof is on the gnostic atheist and not on the gnostic(?) theist. The default position is that such a being exists. This seems like a strange starting assumption. He then goes on to define the additional property for his God that is unobservable and subjective, consistent with him being "metaphyiscal". So does KC's god have properties that are constant or not? Is he metaphysical in the sense that he has no definable, observable, objective properties? It seems that he at least has omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotentence. Aren't these objective properties? Are not not observable?

Clearly if the being has definable properties that are known they must be in some sense objective and in some sense observable. Therefore the definition of metaphysical seems self-contradictory and is more of an escape clause than anything else. The definition is not that the being has no objective observable properties, but that the being is difficult to find and objectively observe. So are rabbits. That doesn't make them anything but physical. The being might not be made of "universe stuff" but it has properties and some of these properties are apparently known. You might as well toss your Bible out the window immediately if you believe the being is truly unknowable. The Bible if nothing else is a story of a people trying "know" God.

So then we move onto faith. Faith is used as a vessel to believe in something for which there is no empirical reason to believe in. Belief is justified by radical conversion. One moment one does not believe and another moment one believes. I believe in God because I believe in God, but but more than that: I know because it seemed to happen all of a sudden. I know he is real because I believe he is real, and that seemed to happen in an instant. Some people believe they are Emperor Napoleon with the same just cause.

On the other side of the ledger there is plenty of empirical evidence against God. Prayer is not answered. Christians aren't rewarded in this life. Evil doers are not punished in this life, except by natural and societal processes consistent with the non-intervention of a deity. Everything that the authors of the Bible attributed to God is now known to have natural causes. We know what causes thunder now. We know what causes the diversity of life. We have some reasonable ideas about how the whole thing started and how it all works. If God exists and interacts with the universe, he does so only within the statistical margin of error of these natural processes. As that margin of error has shrunk through generations of learning and understanding, so has the influence of God. Is this an accident? Perhaps God has already set enough in motion that he no longer needs to intervene, and he intends to stay out of the universe until it is time for a triumphant return.


The Bible is a house of cards, a book of myths and legends - inconsistent with itself and with reality. So we're back to faith. Faith against reality. Faith, a reason to believe perhaps but not evidence for existence. Perhaps we could put together statistics on these faith experiences. If they come from God then perhaps some signal could emerge that would indicate his presence. Perhaps if this at least was an interaction God has with the universe it could be analysed to determine whether he exists. Hrrm... but as we look around we find these faith experiences are not limited to one god but are common to many gods (many version of the Christian god, and many other gods), and also to non-god faith experiences.

If there is a god, that god has not been interacting with our part of the universe in a statistically significant way for at least a few hundred years. If there is a god, that god has chosen not to reveal itself to anyone but a specific subset of people - and has chosen to make that revelation indistinguishable from other revelations that have turned out to be false. If there is a god and he is actively engaged in the universe he seems to be doing his best to hide. Given that such a god could take any form (Christian or otherwise) and it is not possible to know which is which, it seems better to fall on the side of reserving judgement. Even those who have faith must acknowledge that the revelation of many is clearly false that the chances their own revelation is true are on the low side. After all, the true god may have seeded a false revelation in your mind to cover his tracks for the true revelation he chose to put into another's mind. He needs to sow false revelation in order to maintain his statistical insignificance in this world. In fact, one wonders whether the true god is simply looking to see who can see through his ruse and figure out that no such revelation is true before deciding who will follow him into the afterlife.

One cannot say that no god exists, but it is possible to empirically show that any god that exists does so within the margin of error. Any god that exists and interacts with the universe does so in a statistically insignificant way, and is so far entirely indistinguishable from any other god or no god at all. How you choose to react to this statistical insignificance is of course up to you. You could bet that your revelation is true, or you could bet that no revelation is true. Even if a god exists the chances that you chose the right path are equal in either direction.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like Hafnof's post
09-01-2013, 03:00 AM
RE: KingsChosen, I Challenge You To A Debate On the Existence of God
I'm sure my debate with Vosur is not going to look much like this lol

Although, I understand things a bit like KC does in regards to the consitution of evidence.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
09-01-2013, 03:31 AM
RE: KingsChosen, I Challenge You To A Debate On the Existence of God
(09-01-2013 02:43 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  A quick debate roundup and thoughts from me - only really covering KC's side:

KC starts this debate with the small target strategy. Despite claiming he will defend "the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotence Christian God" he says the burden of proof is on the gnostic atheist and not on the gnostic(?) theist. The default position is that such a being exists. This seems like a strange starting assumption. He then goes on to define the additional property for his God that is unobservable and subjective, consistent with him being "metaphyiscal". So does KC's god have properties that are constant or not? Is he metaphysical in the sense that he has no definable, observable, objective properties? It seems that he at least has omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotentence. Aren't these objective properties? Are not not observable?

Clearly if the being has definable properties that are known they must be in some sense objective and in some sense observable. Therefore the definition of metaphysical seems self-contradictory and is more of an escape clause than anything else. The definition is not that the being has no objective observable properties, but that the being is difficult to find and objectively observe. So are rabbits. That doesn't make them anything but physical. The being might not be made of "universe stuff" but it has properties and some of these properties are apparently known. You might as well toss your Bible out the window immediately if you believe the being is truly unknowable. The Bible if nothing else is a story of a people trying "know" God.

So then we move onto faith. Faith is used as a vessel to believe in something for which there is no empirical reason to believe in. Belief is justified by radical conversion. One moment one does not believe and another moment one believes. I believe in God because I believe in God, but but more than that: I know because it seemed to happen all of a sudden. I know he is real because I believe he is real, and that seemed to happen in an instant. Some people believe they are Emperor Napoleon with the same just cause.

On the other side of the ledger there is plenty of empirical evidence against God. Prayer is not answered. Christians aren't rewarded in this life. Evil doers are not punished in this life, except by natural and societal processes consistent with the non-intervention of a deity. Everything that the authors of the Bible attributed to God is now known to have natural causes. We know what causes thunder now. We know what causes the diversity of life. We have some reasonable ideas about how the whole thing started and how it all works. If God exists and interacts with the universe, he does so only within the statistical margin of error of these natural processes. As that margin of error has shrunk through generations of learning and understanding, so has the influence of God. Is this an accident? Perhaps God has already set enough in motion that he no longer needs to intervene, and he intends to stay out of the universe until it is time for a triumphant return.


The Bible is a house of cards, a book of myths and legends - inconsistent with itself and with reality. So we're back to faith. Faith against reality. Faith, a reason to believe perhaps but not evidence for existence. Perhaps we could put together statistics on these faith experiences. If they come from God then perhaps some signal could emerge that would indicate his presence. Perhaps if this at least was an interaction God has with the universe it could be analysed to determine whether he exists. Hrrm... but as we look around we find these faith experiences are not limited to one god but are common to many gods (many version of the Christian god, and many other gods), and also to non-god faith experiences.

If there is a god, that god has not been interacting with our part of the universe in a statistically significant way for at least a few hundred years. If there is a god, that god has chosen not to reveal itself to anyone but a specific subset of people - and has chosen to make that revelation indistinguishable from other revelations that have turned out to be false. If there is a god and he is actively engaged in the universe he seems to be doing his best to hide. Given that such a god could take any form (Christian or otherwise) and it is not possible to know which is which, it seems better to fall on the side of reserving judgement. Even those who have faith must acknowledge that the revelation of many is clearly false that the chances their own revelation is true are on the low side. After all, the true god may have seeded a false revelation in your mind to cover his tracks for the true revelation he chose to put into another's mind. He needs to sow false revelation in order to maintain his statistical insignificance in this world. In fact, one wonders whether the true god is simply looking to see who can see through his ruse and figure out that no such revelation is true before deciding who will follow him into the afterlife.

One cannot say that no god exists, but it is possible to empirically show that any god that exists does so within the margin of error. Any god that exists and interacts with the universe does so in a statistically insignificant way, and is so far entirely indistinguishable from any other god or no god at all. How you choose to react to this statistical insignificance is of course up to you. You could bet that your revelation is true, or you could bet that no revelation is true. Even if a god exists the chances that you chose the right path are equal in either direction.

tl;dr
too long; did read Big Grin

And liked very much.

Cheers

Find all posts by this user
09-01-2013, 03:37 AM
RE: KingsChosen, I Challenge You To A Debate On the Existence of God
(09-01-2013 03:31 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(09-01-2013 02:43 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  A quick debate roundup and thoughts from me - only really covering KC's side:

KC starts this debate with the small target strategy. Despite claiming he will defend "the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotence Christian God" he says the burden of proof is on the gnostic atheist and not on the gnostic(?) theist. The default position is that such a being exists. This seems like a strange starting assumption. He then goes on to define the additional property for his God that is unobservable and subjective, consistent with him being "metaphyiscal". So does KC's god have properties that are constant or not? Is he metaphysical in the sense that he has no definable, observable, objective properties? It seems that he at least has omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotentence. Aren't these objective properties? Are not not observable?

Clearly if the being has definable properties that are known they must be in some sense objective and in some sense observable. Therefore the definition of metaphysical seems self-contradictory and is more of an escape clause than anything else. The definition is not that the being has no objective observable properties, but that the being is difficult to find and objectively observe. So are rabbits. That doesn't make them anything but physical. The being might not be made of "universe stuff" but it has properties and some of these properties are apparently known. You might as well toss your Bible out the window immediately if you believe the being is truly unknowable. The Bible if nothing else is a story of a people trying "know" God.

So then we move onto faith. Faith is used as a vessel to believe in something for which there is no empirical reason to believe in. Belief is justified by radical conversion. One moment one does not believe and another moment one believes. I believe in God because I believe in God, but but more than that: I know because it seemed to happen all of a sudden. I know he is real because I believe he is real, and that seemed to happen in an instant. Some people believe they are Emperor Napoleon with the same just cause.

On the other side of the ledger there is plenty of empirical evidence against God. Prayer is not answered. Christians aren't rewarded in this life. Evil doers are not punished in this life, except by natural and societal processes consistent with the non-intervention of a deity. Everything that the authors of the Bible attributed to God is now known to have natural causes. We know what causes thunder now. We know what causes the diversity of life. We have some reasonable ideas about how the whole thing started and how it all works. If God exists and interacts with the universe, he does so only within the statistical margin of error of these natural processes. As that margin of error has shrunk through generations of learning and understanding, so has the influence of God. Is this an accident? Perhaps God has already set enough in motion that he no longer needs to intervene, and he intends to stay out of the universe until it is time for a triumphant return.


The Bible is a house of cards, a book of myths and legends - inconsistent with itself and with reality. So we're back to faith. Faith against reality. Faith, a reason to believe perhaps but not evidence for existence. Perhaps we could put together statistics on these faith experiences. If they come from God then perhaps some signal could emerge that would indicate his presence. Perhaps if this at least was an interaction God has with the universe it could be analysed to determine whether he exists. Hrrm... but as we look around we find these faith experiences are not limited to one god but are common to many gods (many version of the Christian god, and many other gods), and also to non-god faith experiences.

If there is a god, that god has not been interacting with our part of the universe in a statistically significant way for at least a few hundred years. If there is a god, that god has chosen not to reveal itself to anyone but a specific subset of people - and has chosen to make that revelation indistinguishable from other revelations that have turned out to be false. If there is a god and he is actively engaged in the universe he seems to be doing his best to hide. Given that such a god could take any form (Christian or otherwise) and it is not possible to know which is which, it seems better to fall on the side of reserving judgement. Even those who have faith must acknowledge that the revelation of many is clearly false that the chances their own revelation is true are on the low side. After all, the true god may have seeded a false revelation in your mind to cover his tracks for the true revelation he chose to put into another's mind. He needs to sow false revelation in order to maintain his statistical insignificance in this world. In fact, one wonders whether the true god is simply looking to see who can see through his ruse and figure out that no such revelation is true before deciding who will follow him into the afterlife.

One cannot say that no god exists, but it is possible to empirically show that any god that exists does so within the margin of error. Any god that exists and interacts with the universe does so in a statistically insignificant way, and is so far entirely indistinguishable from any other god or no god at all. How you choose to react to this statistical insignificance is of course up to you. You could bet that your revelation is true, or you could bet that no revelation is true. Even if a god exists the chances that you chose the right path are equal in either direction.

tl;dr
too long; did read Big Grin

And liked very much.

Cheers
No, no, no, it's


tl;rew (truly logical; read every word)

And liked very much!

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Aseptic Skeptic's post
09-01-2013, 12:15 PM
RE: KingsChosen, I Challenge You To A Debate On the Existence of God
(09-01-2013 02:43 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  KC starts this debate with the small target strategy. Despite claiming he will defend "the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotence Christian God" he says the burden of proof is on the gnostic atheist and not on the gnostic(?) theist. The default position is that such a being exists. This seems like a strange starting assumption.

I was always under the impression that the challenger holds the burden of proof.

Quote:He then goes on to define the additional property for his God that is unobservable and subjective, consistent with him being "metaphyiscal". So does KC's god have properties that are constant or not? Is he metaphysical in the sense that he has no definable, observable, objective properties? It seems that he at least has omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotentence. Aren't these objective properties? Are not not observable?

No. They are not observable properties. They are hypothetical properties based on a hypothetical being. The only evidence of these properties is anecdotal evidence and Biblical evidence. I repeatedly called for a definition of evidence and what could be used. You can't say a being that isn't empirical has objective properties. It doesn't work like that.

Quote:Clearly if the being has definable properties that are known they must be in some sense objective and in some sense observable. Therefore the definition of metaphysical seems self-contradictory and is more of an escape clause than anything else. The definition is not that the being has no objective observable properties, but that the being is difficult to find and objectively observe. So are rabbits. That doesn't make them anything but physical. The being might not be made of "universe stuff" but it has properties and some of these properties are apparently known. You might as well toss your Bible out the window immediately if you believe the being is truly unknowable. The Bible if nothing else is a story of a people trying "know" God.

See above. It's not a way out. God cannot be proved through empirical evidence. God cannot be objectively observed as that requires testable data.

Quote:So then we move onto faith. Faith is used as a vessel to believe in something for which there is no empirical reason to believe in. Belief is justified by radical conversion. One moment one does not believe and another moment one believes. I believe in God because I believe in God, but but more than that: I know because it seemed to happen all of a sudden. I know he is real because I believe he is real, and that seemed to happen in an instant. Some people believe they are Emperor Napoleon with the same just cause.

I showed this as an example of what we could use for evidence other than empirical evidence. The use of it was never established.

Quote:On the other side of the ledger there is plenty of empirical evidence against God.

No there isn't.

Quote:Prayer is not answered.

Strawman. Doesn't disprove God. If anything, it proves God doesn't answer prayer (another debate all together). But, it certainly isn't empirical evidence against God.

Quote:Christians aren't rewarded in this life.

Strawman. Doesn't disprove God.

Quote:Evil doers are not punished in this life, except by natural and societal processes consistent with the non-intervention of a deity.

Strawman. Doesn't disprove God.

Quote:Everything that the authors of the Bible attributed to God is now known to have natural causes. We know what causes thunder now. We know what causes the diversity of life. We have some reasonable ideas about how the whole thing started and how it all works.

Strawman. Doesn't disprove God.

Quote:If God exists and interacts with the universe, he does so only within the statistical margin of error of these natural processes. As that margin of error has shrunk through generations of learning and understanding, so has the influence of God. Is this an accident? Perhaps God has already set enough in motion that he no longer needs to intervene, and he intends to stay out of the universe until it is time for a triumphant return.

And finally...

Strawman. Doesn't disprove God.

Each one of your pieces of "empirical evidence" do nothing to disprove God. They are refutations on the nature of the Biblical God (all of which have reconciliations - another debate).

Quote:The Bible is a house of cards, a book of myths and legends - inconsistent with itself and with reality. So we're back to faith. Faith against reality. Faith, a reason to believe perhaps but not evidence for existence. Perhaps we could put together statistics on these faith experiences. If they come from God then perhaps some signal could emerge that would indicate his presence. Perhaps if this at least was an interaction God has with the universe it could be analysed to determine whether he exists. Hrrm... but as we look around we find these faith experiences are not limited to one god but are common to many gods (many version of the Christian god, and many other gods), and also to non-god faith experiences.

Won't argue with this. Still doesn't disprove God, though.

Quote:If there is a god, that god has not been interacting with our part of the universe in a statistically significant way for at least a few hundred years. If there is a god, that god has chosen not to reveal itself to anyone but a specific subset of people - and has chosen to make that revelation indistinguishable from other revelations that have turned out to be false. If there is a god and he is actively engaged in the universe he seems to be doing his best to hide. Given that such a god could take any form (Christian or otherwise) and it is not possible to know which is which, it seems better to fall on the side of reserving judgement. Even those who have faith must acknowledge that the revelation of many is clearly false that the chances their own revelation is true are on the low side. After all, the true god may have seeded a false revelation in your mind to cover his tracks for the true revelation he chose to put into another's mind. He needs to sow false revelation in order to maintain his statistical insignificance in this world. In fact, one wonders whether the true god is simply looking to see who can see through his ruse and figure out that no such revelation is true before deciding who will follow him into the afterlife.

You're not even addressing the debate anymore. This is an irrelevant tangent on God's perceived actions. This in no way disproves God.

Quote:One cannot say that no god exists, but it is possible to empirically show that any god that exists does so within the margin of error. Any god that exists and interacts with the universe does so in a statistically insignificant way, and is so far entirely indistinguishable from any other god or no god at all. How you choose to react to this statistical insignificance is of course up to you. You could bet that your revelation is true, or you could bet that no revelation is true. Even if a god exists the chances that you chose the right path are equal in either direction.

I agree. That's why I established my case from the beginning and asked him to define evidence.

That's a great write-up Hafnof, but you actually added zero to the debate and offered no evidence contrary to the existence of God given on the assumed parameters of the debate.

If the debate was simply on empirical evidence, I would immediately concede because it is impossible to offer any empirical evidence for or against God. The debate is pointless; however, since anecdotal and Biblical evidence were never made illegal in the debate, I presented more evidence for the existence of God.

I'm assuming what you wrote was under the parameters of empirical evidence only, right?

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
09-01-2013, 11:20 PM
RE: KingsChosen, I Challenge You To A Debate On the Existence of God
Well, if you are happy to equate the timeless and never changing mighty involved god of the old testament with the meek statistically insignificant god of today there is little that can possibly be said to refute the concept. Personally I find these concepts difficult to reconcile. The problem with disproving a generic god concept is that his definition can be manipulated to match any physical reality. If physical reality is such that god shows no evidence of existing then it must be that he chooses to remain hidden, perhaps to preserve free will or perhaps for his own unfathomable reason. Whatever evidence is presented that some property of the universe once attributed to god is entirely natural simply causes the god concept to further retract. What used to be a mighty god, personal and powerful, now becomes an unknowable god steeped in mystery.

To me the god of the Bible, the one you seek to defend could not be the god of today. Their natures seem irreconcilable. Their omnipotence seem different. Their care for their people seems different. But you are right that I cannot disprove any god concept so malliable that it can fit into the box empirical evidence has left for it. A god with no significant impact on our part of the universe cannot be countered. A god that hides whatever impact it does have in random noise cannot be countered. This is not because it is unknowable in any absolute sense, though. Such a god could still be known in principle, but in either being unable (impotent) or unwilling (nefarious) to make itself known it keeps its properties hidden.

So god if it exists and is omnipotent and is hidden seems to be hidden by its own choice. Again I find this idea difficult to reconcile with the biblical god, but if you think he is sufficiently malleable to fill both roles then there is no further proof that can be offered. Likewise the hidden god hypothesis affords the believer no grounds for proof of existence. We are left with the conclusion that there is no evidence for god, that god is neither necessary or apparent in nature, but might possibly exist in a hidden form waiting to pounce on the unsuspecting at a time of his choosing.

If I rely on empirical evidence too much for your liking it is perhaps because I am not convinced any other kind exists. Empirical evidence or "evidence" has been a useful tool so far for humanity in sifting true claims from false claims. Perhaps I could be convinced that there are other forms that exist and are useful in assessing truth claims, but I'm not sure how you would achieve that without empirical evidence for the claim Wink I also find the assumption that god cannot be known both ill defined and unproven. Why should we believe it to be so? On what grounds? In particular, how can we reconcile the god of the psalms and of Christianity with this concept of inherent unknowability?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
09-01-2013, 11:35 PM
RE: KingsChosen, I Challenge You To A Debate On the Existence of God
(08-01-2013 04:41 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I'll just go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt... anyway...

My evidence for God is anecdotal and based on faith. There is no empirical evidence for God. God cannot be empirically proved or disproved. God is metaphysical. Evidence is based on observable, objective claims; this is in direct contention with metaphysics.


Everything you need in order to disprove god, in a nutshell. Nice work KC. Drinking Beverage Oh wait a minute.
Find all posts by this user
09-01-2013, 11:41 PM
RE: KingsChosen, I Challenge You To A Debate On the Existence of God
(08-01-2013 07:48 PM)Refuting_Ignorance_Every_Day Wrote:  In the New Testimate, it states that "The difference between man and God is that God doesn't sin.", which contradicts the fact that he committed so many violations of his own commandments.
The Bible has plagiarized so many other mythologies too the point in which it is an utter rip-off.
The first Bible (New Testimate) wasn't written until fifty years after the supposed Christ died.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." contradicts the fact that he impregnated Mary.
"Thou shalt not convent.".
If God were to have chosen Mary to have carried his son, then wouldn't he have to have convented?
Such hypocrisies can easily easily refute the Bible.


You don't seem to get it. The bible is basically saying that might make right. God if he exists, is all powerful. Our biggest weapons could do him no harm. No being is going to judge themselves as evil. Therefore, using the logic of a bully on the playground. I am bigger and more powerful than you, so everything I say and do is good. Just drop it, you can't win with logic.
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: