Religion & Morality

[artist4perry]

Dave, I DID answer the question....I gave you a scenario where you would act the same way.

Bringing up a hypothetical situation and asking how I'd react or surmising how I'd react is not answering the question. It's deflecting and saying "Well, this is what you'd do if..." blah blah blah, instead of directly answering the question.

It's actually fuuny, agnostics/atheists never bring up, or whine about feeling like they are being attacked. Conversely, that is ALL you and Ginger clamor about.

Really? Have you been following the news lately about the media campaigns enacted by atheists where they mentioned how they are feeling attacked by the mainstream in this country?

Also, I don't think being critical about an opposing viewpoint falls within the realm of morality, no matter how that criticism reveals itself.

Being critical? No, I have no problem with that. Insinuations and accusations about lack of intelligence, stupidity, etc...That, I do have a problem with. Being critical about an opposing viewpoint is different than belittling others for what they believe.

I agree with Dave. If you have a differing opinion and you want to discuss it I am O.K. with that. The name calling is childish and for some that claim to be all grown up and superior to those of us of faith I would think you would be above all that. Most of what I see in this thread is not curiosity or an exchange of ideas. It is a " I am better than you because I don't believe in God" fest. I get it, Parfait, S2M, and Duncan are from Missouri, you don't believe anything you cannot see or touch.

The lack of your believing does not disturb me as much as there is a movement to do away with people's right to freely express their religious faith. It is the mind set of those who just cannot let anyone think differently than themselves. The dictators who would demand total obedience to conformity.

The Obsolete Man episode of Twilight zone. Rip this is what such a world would produce. Watch it please. I am sure the others will not. I am the Obsolete Woman, people like Parfait, S2M, and Duncan would do as the state did in this episode. But who is obsolete?

http://youtu.be/vow6I1fV4q4

http://youtu.be/t3wL5RBC4bA
http://youtu.be/rDn3tcPiMRA

Most importantly, listen to what Rod Sterling has to say at the end.

[S2M]

I will repeat this for my less than attentive boardmates....

The religious have an external locus of control. Praising an invisible sky wizard for good things that happen, and attributing bad things that happen to his dissatisfaction....

The non-religious have an internal locus of control. Realizing that the individual is responsible for what happens to him/her. Not blaming some 2nd party.


We understand weather now. We understand why the ground trembles. It isn't because Gandalf is upset. Drought & Famine? Natural occurances, no reason to appease the God of Wheat. We understand that now. No reason to sacrifice 2 virgins(good luck finding 2) in hopes to quell the arid sky.

For those who don't see how silly this sounds, i have no further answer for you.

[artist4perry]

I will repeat this for my less than attentive boardmates....

The religious have an external locus of control. Praising an invisible sky wizard for good things that happen, and attributing bad things that happen to his dissatisfaction....

The non-religious have an internal locus of control. Realizing that the individual is responsible for what happens to him/her. Not blaming some 2nd party.


We understand weather now. We understand why the ground trembles. It isn't because Gandalf is upset. Drought & Famine? Natural occurances, no reason to appease the God of Wheat. We understand that now. No reason to sacrifice 2 virgins(good luck finding 2) in hopes to quell the arid sky.

For those who don't see how silly this sounds, i have no further answer for you.

I dare you to watch the twilight zone episode all the way through.

[Rip Rokken]

OK...This is the kind of discussion I'm talking about which Sean doesn't seem to be able to engage in on a consistent basis.

This begs the question, though...Just because someone claims to be a believer doesn't mean they really are a believer. I know lots of folks claim to be one thing on Sunday but act quite different the rest of the week.

True, but recognizing that only strengthens the argument on the sticker. Here is one psychiatric definition of the word "delusional":

A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness

The belief is genuine, though false. It becomes delusional when that belief is held past the point that it makes sense to believe it anymore. Unbelievers aren't delusional when it comes to religion - only believers have that ability, and I don't call Christians delusional as an insult, but in accordance with that definition. Neither does the sticker insult anyone directly - it just warns that those things can happen as a result of heavy indoctrination, especially from a young age. Yes, the truth is that most Christians are delusional when it comes to their beliefs, just as anyone who has a deeply vested interest in any believe runs the danger of becoming. They don't feel they can afford to shed their beliefs.

Now the other question is, can those things occur in people who really are believers? Sure...They're still human and God's spirit doesn't possess the person and force them to do only good things. They can still make decisions and do things which are contrary to what they believe. Sanctification isn't a one-time process. It's continuous and no one does only good things from the point at which they believe in Christ until they die.

Sanctification is the supposedly lifelong process of spiritual growth which eventually leads to perfection, after which the renewal is complete with the receipt of one's glorified body at the time of the Lord's return. If the spirit of God indwelling a believer was the real deal, he wouldn't be so easy to ignore, misinterpret, etc. Otherwise, what good is he really for? To borrow an idea from Hitchens, Christians can't claim any moral attributes or actions that are beyond the capability of unbelievers. So there is nothing special going on here... sure, maybe lives change and great things happen, but people from any religion claim the same thing. The power of suggestion...

Most importantly, this really isn't an issue of morality at all. It's a difference of opinion in a legitimate discussion. Speaking for myself, I never ridicule anyone for their beliefs, though I'm usually happy to discuss them, even if I use some sarcasm or humor to illustrate a point.

What I'm talking about is, do you think it's moral to say that someone shouldn't be belittled for their beliefs but it's OK to hold someone up like Hitchens who does do that kind of thing?[/quote]

This isn't an argument at all... I can support people without agreeing with them 100%. I don't consider ridiculing of other people to be proper, but at the same time I don't see it as a moral action.

[Rip Rokken]

The sticker is mainly criticism of a book, and though silly in tone, it's also educational. I'm sure a good percentage of believers who read it might ask, "Where does it say all that in the Bible?". And actually, everything in the "Exposure Warning" is possible - we've seen those things happen in at least a small percentage of believers, can't be denied. Therefore, those folks are fair game for criticism. It's my personal contention that if God were real and Christianity was the truth, then those things would not occur in any believer.

People are not automatons. (Well, some are.)

Do you understand the entire concept behind "free will"? It's not just a great song by Rush.

Sure I do, but (venturing a guess), if you are going to use the "God doesn't interfere with free will" argument, it's a rapidly slippery slope. I've also heard it used as an excuse for why God doesn't intervene when Christians are being victimized (like the German girl who was raped daily for years). Well, it wasn't her free will choices that put her in that spot, and why is God so concerned about protecting the free will rights of the rapist? This smacks of things that suck about our own human justice system. And to top that off with a cherry, why pray for God's protection at all if he's not going to stop an attacker's exercise of free will?

Sticking closer to the original point, if you're saying that it's a person's free will (vs. God's will) that leads them into delusion, hatred, bigotry, etc. etc., then I ask, where was God in all this? You know many of those people are not rebelling against God consciously... instead, many actually believe they've heard God's voice or had some "truth" revealed to them, and are acting on their convictions. If God was real and personal, he'd reward their belief with truth, blessing, etc. They wouldn't be left to their own false but sincere assumptions which they believe to be inspired by God.

[Rip Rokken]

It's actually fuuny, agnostics/atheists never bring up, or whine about feeling like they are being attacked.

Bull. Rip even goes to events that are inspired by atheists' collective reactions to anything connected to a belief system.

True, and there are always speakers trying to inspire the movement and get people to "come out of the closet" with their beliefs. They have good reasons for doing this, and to try to work toward getting more respect for a philosophical belief system held by so many in secret. On the other hand, many (like me) could really care less about advancing any movement or actively trying to change the beliefs of other people, as long as they don't use them to cause harm to others. But unfortunately many do, and that's what drives the movement. Not inspired by people who mind their own business, but by those who use their beliefs to insist how others should live, especially with a view toward the concept of eternal life, reward, etc. Every second of every day, someone is being negatively affected, possibly persecuted by religion. On the extreme end, we have a few Middle East nations who we know would love to bring Allah's kingdom back by detonating a nuke somewhere. It's that realization alone which has driven many modern atheists and secularists into activism, to do their best to influence the discussion toward one more rational. This has nothing to do with prejudice at all... it's about people waking up and realizing that if something doesn't happen soon, we could very well shorten our existence as a species.

[Rip Rokken]

The lack of your believing does not disturb me as much as there is a movement to do away with people's right to freely express their religious faith. It is the mind set of those who just cannot let anyone think differently than themselves. The dictators who would demand total obedience to conformity.

I grew up being warned about that too, but don't believe it's really the case. Sure, there are some who feel the world would be better off without religion at all, but I don't know anyone out of the tons I've met who wants to do away with anyone's rights. In all honesty, I think that's just a scare tactic used by religion to keep the fear going and rally people to fight against it. It's actually quite the contrary... I've been to two conventions now, and the activist speakers make it very clear that they are not trying to take away anyone's freedom to believe, but only to enforce the law where separation of church and state is concerned.

Dan Barker specifically mentioned an example where his Freedom From Religion Foundation (http://ffrf.org/) had written a letter to a public school letting them know that their traditional pre-football game prayer was actually in violation with the law. He said for most places, a single letter is all it takes, and many write back appreciative responses because they honestly want to follow the law, and don't want to leave themselves in a position where someone could sue them.

In this example, he mentioned that when the news went out that the school was ending the traditional prayer, many believers were outraged, and came up with a plan to rush out onto the field and pray. He said that was great!!! That was people exercising their personal right to free speech, not a state funded educational institution sponsoring a traditional religious practice. Big, big difference.

So I have to disagree - from my limited experience to date, I haven't heard one iota from any respected leader in this movement trying to take away people's personal right to freely express their religion. They just want the current laws upheld, and with good reason.

The Obsolete Man episode of Twilight zone. Rip this is what such a world would produce. Watch it please. I am sure the others will not. I am the Obsolete Woman, people like Parfait, S2M, and Duncan would do as the state did in this episode. But who is obsolete?

http://youtu.be/vow6I1fV4q4

http://youtu.be/t3wL5RBC4bA
http://youtu.be/rDn3tcPiMRA

Most importantly, listen to what Rod Sterling has to say at the end.

I'll watch it tonight! Sounds interesting.

[S2M]

Ok, I watched the entire Twilight Zone episode, AND listened to what Rod Serling said....

However, I still do not get your point.....

[artist4perry]

Ok, I watched the entire Twilight Zone episode, AND listened to what Rod Serling said....

However, I still do not get your point.....

Danger lies in the wish to squelch the freedom of thought. To remove ones rights as a human to believe in God, no God, etc.. To become so dogmatic in what you deem is rational, reasonable, and logical, your mind becomes that of a steel trap.

It is one thing to not believe in God, it is another to wish to remove anyone's right to believe in God.

[S2M]

Ok, I watched the entire Twilight Zone episode, AND listened to what Rod Serling said....

However, I still do not get your point.....

Danger lies in the wish to squelch the freedom of thought. To remove ones rights as a human to believe in God, no God, etc.. To become so dogmatic in what you deem is rational, reasonable, and logical, your mind becomes that of a steel trap.

It is one thing to not believe in God, it is another to wish to remove anyone's right to believe in God.

Rubbish. How is this different than people believing the world is flat? When science has proven that the world is, indeed, NOT flat. Are people of the flat earth society exempt from ridicule? Haven't I been chastised on this very board for not believing we went to the moon?

And since you are so stuck on this idea of 'freedom of thought', why don't you just stop at the thought aspect of it? Once the thought manifests itself as 'action' - it then becomes open to scrutiny.

Like you wouldn't ridicule another person if they told you they thought the world was flat, or that we never went to the moon...Wait, strike that..... you wouldn't speak your objections, you'd just excercise your freedom of thought!

[artist4perry]

The lack of your believing does not disturb me as much as there is a movement to do away with people's right to freely express their religious faith. It is the mind set of those who just cannot let anyone think differently than themselves. The dictators who would demand total obedience to conformity.

I grew up being warned about that too, but don't believe it's really the case. Sure, there are some who feel the world would be better off without religion at all, but I don't know anyone out of the tons I've met who wants to do away with anyone's rights. In all honesty, I think that's just a scare tactic used by religion to keep the fear going and rally people to fight against it. It's actually quite the contrary... I've been to two conventions now, and the activist speakers make it very clear that they are not trying to take away anyone's freedom to believe, but only to enforce the law where separation of church and state is concerned.

Dan Barker specifically mentioned an example where his Freedom From Religion Foundation (http://ffrf.org/) had written a letter to a public school letting them know that their traditional pre-football game prayer was actually in violation with the law. He said for most places, a single letter is all it takes, and many write back appreciative responses because they honestly want to follow the law, and don't want to leave themselves in a position where someone could sue them.

In this example, he mentioned that when the news went out that the school was ending the traditional prayer, many believers were outraged, and came up with a plan to rush out onto the field and pray. He said that was great!!! That was people exercising their personal right to free speech, not a state funded educational institution sponsoring a traditional religious practice. Big, big difference.

So I have to disagree - from my limited experience to date, I haven't heard one iota from any respected leader in this movement trying to take away people's personal right to freely express their religion. They just want the current laws upheld, and with good reason.

The Obsolete Man episode of Twilight zone. Rip this is what such a world would produce. Watch it please. I am sure the others will not. I am the Obsolete Woman, people like Parfait, S2M, and Duncan would do as the state did in this episode. But who is obsolete?

http://youtu.be/vow6I1fV4q4

http://youtu.be/t3wL5RBC4bA
http://youtu.be/rDn3tcPiMRA

Most importantly, listen to what Rod Sterling has to say at the end.

I'll watch it tonight! Sounds interesting.

I am glad your going to watch it.


Foolish is the man who thinks he knows it all. They tell you they don't want to remove the right to faith, but what do they constitute separation of church and state? Which is not a law at all, truth be told it more is an intolerance of faith all together. They do believe in the separation of one from freedom of expression of religion, especially in public.

[artist4perry]

Ok, I watched the entire Twilight Zone episode, AND listened to what Rod Serling said....

However, I still do not get your point.....

Danger lies in the wish to squelch the freedom of thought. To remove ones rights as a human to believe in God, no God, etc.. To become so dogmatic in what you deem is rational, reasonable, and logical, your mind becomes that of a steel trap.

It is one thing to not believe in God, it is another to wish to remove anyone's right to believe in God.

Rubbish. How is this different than people believing the world is flat? When science has proven that the world is, indeed, NOT flat. Are people of the flat earth society exempt from ridicule? Haven't I been chastised on this very board for not believing we went to the moon?

And since you are so stuck on this idea of 'freedom of thought', why don't you just stop at the thought aspect of it? Once the thought manifests itself as 'action' - it then becomes open to scrutiny.

Like you wouldn't ridicule another person if they told you they thought the world was flat, or that we never went to the moon...Wait, strike that..... you wouldn't speak your objections, you'd just excercise your freedom of thought!

Has science proven there is no God? NO.

I have not had a problem with your not believing in God. Just your belittling anyone who does.

[S2M]

Ok, I watched the entire Twilight Zone episode, AND listened to what Rod Serling said....

However, I still do not get your point.....

Danger lies in the wish to squelch the freedom of thought. To remove ones rights as a human to believe in God, no God, etc.. To become so dogmatic in what you deem is rational, reasonable, and logical, your mind becomes that of a steel trap.

It is one thing to not believe in God, it is another to wish to remove anyone's right to believe in God.

Rubbish. How is this different than people believing the world is flat? When science has proven that the world is, indeed, NOT flat. Are people of the flat earth society exempt from ridicule? Haven't I been chastised on this very board for not believing we went to the moon?

And since you are so stuck on this idea of 'freedom of thought', why don't you just stop at the thought aspect of it? Once the thought manifests itself as 'action' - it then becomes open to scrutiny.

Like you wouldn't ridicule another person if they told you they thought the world was flat, or that we never went to the moon...Wait, strike that..... you wouldn't speak your objections, you'd just excercise your freedom of thought!

Has science proven there is no God? NO.

I have not had a problem with your not believing in God. Just your belittling anyone who does.

Would you prefer I belittle you in my mind? Excercising my freedom of thought.

[artist4perry]

Ok, I watched the entire Twilight Zone episode, AND listened to what Rod Serling said....

However, I still do not get your point.....

Danger lies in the wish to squelch the freedom of thought. To remove ones rights as a human to believe in God, no God, etc.. To become so dogmatic in what you deem is rational, reasonable, and logical, your mind becomes that of a steel trap.

It is one thing to not believe in God, it is another to wish to remove anyone's right to believe in God.

Rubbish. How is this different than people believing the world is flat? When science has proven that the world is, indeed, NOT flat. Are people of the flat earth society exempt from ridicule? Haven't I been chastised on this very board for not believing we went to the moon?

And since you are so stuck on this idea of 'freedom of thought', why don't you just stop at the thought aspect of it? Once the thought manifests itself as 'action' - it then becomes open to scrutiny.

Like you wouldn't ridicule another person if they told you they thought the world was flat, or that we never went to the moon...Wait, strike that..... you wouldn't speak your objections, you'd just excercise your freedom of thought!

Has science proven there is no God? NO.

I have not had a problem with your not believing in God. Just your belittling anyone who does.

Would you prefer I belittle you in my mind? Excercising my freedom of thought.

Read my thought on that. The lack of approbation of those of faith while you vociferate a superior perspicacity, is repugnant.

[S2M]

I will tell you this though....I do not believe in Blind Faith. ALL faith is based, somewhat, on evidence. So tell me...what sliver of evidence is your faith based on?

[artist4perry]

I will tell you this though....I do not believe in Blind Faith. ALL faith is based, somewhat, on evidence. So tell me...what sliver of evidence is your faith based on?

Not wanting to be like you suffice? I am joking. I base it on the fact that so many things in life are so complex, so symbiotic. Not accidental or random at all. The fact that each thing in life for the most part has a purpose. A design of some sort. Fitting together. I am sure now you have fuel for a three page rebuttal so be my guest.

[majik]

I will repeat this for my less than attentive boardmates....

The religious have an external locus of control. Praising an invisible sky wizard for good things that happen, and attributing bad things that happen to his dissatisfaction....

The non-religious have an internal locus of control. Realizing that the individual is responsible for what happens to him/her. Not blaming some 2nd party.


We understand weather now. We understand why the ground trembles. It isn't because Gandalf is upset. Drought & Famine? Natural occurances, no reason to appease the God of Wheat. We understand that now. No reason to sacrifice 2 virgins(good luck finding 2) in hopes to quell the arid sky.

For those who don't see how silly this sounds, i have no further answer for you.

No one is controlling what is, its all happening spontaneously. Its not god and its not you either. How did you wake up today did you make it happen or did it just happen......spontaneously.

[artist4perry]

Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman. ~Author Unknown


Funny quote

[S2M]

I will tell you this though....I do not believe in Blind Faith. ALL faith is based, somewhat, on evidence. So tell me...what sliver of evidence is your faith based on?

Not wanting to be like you suffice? I am joking. I base it on the fact that so many things in life are so complex, so symbiotic. Not accidental or random at all. The fact that each thing in life for the most part has a purpose. I am sure now you have fuel for a three page rebuttal so be my guest.

Well...a logical argument has 3 parts: a premise, or premises....an inference...and a conclusion. Your statement that 'God' exists because *I* can't prove he doesn't is an example of a fallacious argument. Specifically, Argumentum ad Ignorantium - or Argument from Ignorance.

It could also be Non Causa Pro Causa, or False Cause....for example: I took Advil and said a prayer to 'god, and my pain disappeared. "god' cured my illness.

Order of the universe MAY be evidence of the existence of a supreme being....but in the premises you gave, you've failed to present your argument in logical form. I see 2 or 3 premises, no inference...and an implied conclusion(one based on earlier posts).

[majik]

I will tell you this though....I do not believe in Blind Faith. ALL faith is based, somewhat, on evidence. So tell me...what sliver of evidence is your faith based on?

Not wanting to be like you suffice? I am joking. I base it on the fact that so many things in life are so complex, so symbiotic. Not accidental or random at all. The fact that each thing in life for the most part has a purpose. I am sure now you have fuel for a three page rebuttal so be my guest.

Well...a logical argument has 3 parts: a premise, or premises....an inference...and a conclusion. Your statement that 'God' exists because *I* can't prove he doesn't is an example of a fallacious argument. Specifically, Argumentum ad Ignorantium - or Argument from Ignorance.

It could also be Non Causa Pro Causa, or False Cause....for example: I took Advil and said a prayer to 'god, and my pain disappeared. "god' cured my illness.

Order of the universe MAY be evidence of the existence of a supreme being....but in the premises you gave, you've failed to present your argument in logical form. I see 2 or 3 premises, no inference...and an implied conclusion(one based on earlier posts).

And the above happened spontaneously also!

[artist4perry]

I will tell you this though....I do not believe in Blind Faith. ALL faith is based, somewhat, on evidence. So tell me...what sliver of evidence is your faith based on?

Not wanting to be like you suffice? I am joking. I base it on the fact that so many things in life are so complex, so symbiotic. Not accidental or random at all. The fact that each thing in life for the most part has a purpose. I am sure now you have fuel for a three page rebuttal so be my guest.

Well...a logical argument has 3 parts: a premise, or premises....an inference...and a conclusion. Your statement that 'God' exists because *I* can't prove he doesn't is an example of a fallacious argument. Specifically, Argumentum ad Ignorantium - or Argument from Ignorance.

It could also be Non Causa Pro Causa, or False Cause....for example: I took Advil and said a prayer to 'god, and my pain disappeared. "god' cured my illness.

Order of the universe MAY be evidence of the existence of a supreme being....but in the premises you gave, you've failed to present your argument in logical form. I see 2 or 3 premises, no inference...and an implied conclusion(one based on earlier posts).

How long did you have to look up that crap?

Screw your "Logical form". You asked and I gave you in lay mans terms my reason why. You did not ask for a thesis on the subject.

You guys are so predictable. You ask for a reason of faith and yet all the while know the very nature of faith itself. You ask for a proof of God, yet you provide no proof of a lack of existence of God. You ask what I base my faith on, I tell you the order of life itself, and yet that is not enough..........I need to form my ideas in attestation that one of your caliber can agree on.

So really who cares what you think? Your not interested in my reasoning, just how you will shoot it down once I say what it is! You don't listen you formulate how you will rebut before you hear the other person out.

The fact is just because I did not say "Mother May I" and do three ballerina steps before I gave a reason does not make my reasoning invalid.

Your blind and deaf...........you close your eyes and cover your ears right after anyone gives you an answer. Now if we could only get you to "speak no evil" too.

[verslibre]

I have not had a problem with your not believing in God. Just your belittling anyone who does.

Would you prefer I belittle you in my mind? Excercising my freedom of thought.

He actually admits to enjoying a little belittlin' here and there!


Now if he can just learn to spell.

[S2M]

I have not had a problem with your not believing in God. Just your belittling anyone who does.

Would you prefer I belittle you in my mind? Excercising my freedom of thought.

He actually admits to enjoying a little belittlin' here and there!


Now if he can just learn to spell.

And your signature is just teeming with grammatical insight....

[majik]

I have not had a problem with your not believing in God. Just your belittling anyone who does.

Would you prefer I belittle you in my mind? Excercising my freedom of thought.

He actually admits to enjoying a little belittlin' here and there!


Now if he can just learn to spell.

And your signature is just teeming with grammatical insight....

"A man loved for what he has; has nothing " S2M


He has only himself, therefore he has Nothing !

But that nothing is not the conceptual nothing the mind thinks it is, he is No-thing. Things are of the world, impermanent, but you being No-thing are always beyond impermanence.

[Andrew]

Would you prefer I belittle you in my mind? Excercising my freedom of thought.

Do you take lessons in how to talk down to poeple?

[artist4perry]

To change the subject! Snow! We have our first snow!

What is the purpose of snow S2M? Why is it white? Why is it needed? What is the purpose of snowmen? Why are they round and not square? Do snowmen get cold? Do snowmen catch cold?


This and other thought provoking questions to be continued....................

[S2M]

I have not had a problem with your not believing in God. Just your belittling anyone who does.

Would you prefer I belittle you in my mind? Excercising my freedom of thought.

He actually admits to enjoying a little belittlin' here and there!


Now if he can just learn to spell.

And your signature is just teeming with grammatical insight....

"A man loved for what he has; has nothing " S2M


He has only himself, therefore he has Nothing !

But that nothing is not the conceptual nothing the mind thinks it is, he is No-thing. Things are of the world, impermanent, but you being No-thing are always beyond impermanence.

What I was getting at with my quote is that a man who is loved for the material things that he has....in fact, has nothing. The material things are worthless, thus is the love he gets from having them.

[verslibre]

I have not had a problem with your not believing in God. Just your belittling anyone who does.

Would you prefer I belittle you in my mind? Excercising my freedom of thought.

He actually admits to enjoying a little belittlin' here and there!


Now if he can just learn to spell.

And your signature is just teeming with grammatical insight....

Do you even know the origin of said quote?

[artist4perry]

I have not had a problem with your not believing in God. Just your belittling anyone who does.

Would you prefer I belittle you in my mind? Excercising my freedom of thought.

He actually admits to enjoying a little belittlin' here and there!


Now if he can just learn to spell.

And your signature is just teeming with grammatical insight....

Do you even know the origin of said quote?

Here is one similar............ Ma loved Pa
Pa loved women
Ma caught Pa wif two a swimmin'
Here lies Pa

[S2M]

I have not had a problem with your not believing in God. Just your belittling anyone who does.

Would you prefer I belittle you in my mind? Excercising my freedom of thought.

He actually admits to enjoying a little belittlin' here and there!


Now if he can just learn to spell.

And your signature is just teeming with grammatical insight....

Do you even know the origin of said quote?

I would assume Popeye.