Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-04-2009, 10:56 PM #43
sniperx117
Resident A-rab
 
sniperx117's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NY
I would definitly be doing all of the above.
__________________
We Real Cool
We Left School
We Lurk Late
We strike Straight
We sing Sin
We thin Gin
We jazz June
We Die Soon
sniperx117 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 11:54 PM #44
warbeak2099
That is my foot!
 
warbeak2099's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Wouldn't u like to know!
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISmokeIce View Post
Then natural law isn't consistent?
How is it not consistent? Natural law tells us that it is beneficial for us to treat others well. The fact that a lot of people don't treat each other well is not indicative of an inconsistent law, it simply means they are wrong.
__________________
US Navy Baller
UL'd 07 PMR F/S, PM me if interested!
#12 Italian Baller
“The real test of a man is not how well he plays the role he has invented for himself, but how well he plays the role that destiny assigned to him.”
-Václav Havel
warbeak2099 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 01:35 AM #45
dpkidsrocks2
 
 
dpkidsrocks2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Salisbury, MD
 has been a member for 10 years
Wasn't the bible written a very long time ago, like before anybody knew any modern science? If someone in that era saw a tornado, and one of his friends got sucked up into the sky from it, what would he think?
dpkidsrocks2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 07:12 AM #46
ISmokeIce
Postmodern Sophist
 
ISmokeIce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by warbeak2099 View Post
How is it not consistent? Natural law tells us that it is beneficial for us to treat others well. The fact that a lot of people don't treat each other well is not indicative of an inconsistent law, it simply means they are wrong.
I was referring to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by warbeak2099 View Post
Yes of course. My point is that it's natural for us to feel this way.
When replying to the possibility of having different perspective on a common occurrence. Natural law is ambiguous and you cannot determine how to universally treat people from it. You can guess and you can write about it, but it's not infallible. A dependence on it, thus, is necessarily subjective. Adding value to actions because of interpretation from natural law is subjective, e.g. saying something is wrong.
__________________
"No passion is stronger in the breast of man than the desire to make others believe as he believes...It is not the love of truth, but desire to prevail that sets quarter against quarter and makes parish desire the downfall of parish. Each seeks peace of mind and subserviency rather than the triumph of truth and exaltation of virtue-- But these moralities belong, and should be left to the historian, since they are as dull as ditch water" - Orlando: A Biography
ISmokeIce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 10:43 AM #47
warbeak2099
That is my foot!
 
warbeak2099's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Wouldn't u like to know!
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISmokeIce View Post
When replying to the possibility of having different perspective on a common occurrence. Natural law is ambiguous and you cannot determine how to universally treat people from it. You can guess and you can write about it, but it's not infallible. A dependence on it, thus, is necessarily subjective. Adding value to actions because of interpretation from natural law is subjective, e.g. saying something is wrong.
You can say that about any ethical code. All it does is lead a discussion in circles and it's not a particularly insightful idea either.
__________________
US Navy Baller
UL'd 07 PMR F/S, PM me if interested!
#12 Italian Baller
“The real test of a man is not how well he plays the role he has invented for himself, but how well he plays the role that destiny assigned to him.”
-Václav Havel
warbeak2099 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 10:57 AM #48
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη
 
 
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NC
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη helped look for balloons
Honestly, I don't think I would change too much morally, if at all. I'm pretty firmly planted in my morals. They are very important to me. I don't think I could live without them.
__________________
Beauty and Harmony through Entropy.
ἔρως-φιλία-ἀγάπη is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 11:31 AM #49
ISmokeIce
Postmodern Sophist
 
ISmokeIce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by warbeak2099 View Post
You can say that about any ethical code. All it does is lead a discussion in circles and it's not a particularly insightful idea either.
No, there are some ethical codes that are more stable than others. Natural law is quite unstable. The source, manner in which it's interpreted, and the reason it's interpreted is sketchy and thus can be used to justify many actions.

What makes ethical codes more stable than others are the premises which the codes depend on. One can say that there are various forms of natural laws, but this renders the term either ambiguous or useless. These forms consist of limiting the reasons behind natural law and how to follow them.

Another objection to natural law is that it coerces the term "natural" to represent an unquestionable stance because of its "source."

The usual reason the discussion goes in circles is similar to a rowboat going in a circle. The rower is stubborn and insists that it can get somewhere just rowing on one side.
__________________
"No passion is stronger in the breast of man than the desire to make others believe as he believes...It is not the love of truth, but desire to prevail that sets quarter against quarter and makes parish desire the downfall of parish. Each seeks peace of mind and subserviency rather than the triumph of truth and exaltation of virtue-- But these moralities belong, and should be left to the historian, since they are as dull as ditch water" - Orlando: A Biography
ISmokeIce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 11:42 AM #50
warbeak2099
That is my foot!
 
warbeak2099's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Wouldn't u like to know!
 has been a member for 10 years
I think you may be misunderstanding me. I am not referencing Aquinas' "natural law" so much as I am talking about Hume's idea of taking morality from nature. I am not talking about the debate over what is natural and what's not. I am simply saying that my ethical code is predicated on observation of nature and how it works.
__________________
US Navy Baller
UL'd 07 PMR F/S, PM me if interested!
#12 Italian Baller
“The real test of a man is not how well he plays the role he has invented for himself, but how well he plays the role that destiny assigned to him.”
-Václav Havel
warbeak2099 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 11:46 AM #51
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by warbeak2099 View Post
I think you may be misunderstanding me. I am not referencing Aquinas' "natural law" so much as I am talking about Hume's idea of taking morality from nature. I am not talking about the debate over what is natural and what's not. I am simply saying that my ethical code is predicated on observation of nature and how it works.
but since it is predicated upon your observations, doesn't that mean you can really read a large variety of things into this/take from it, which may not encessarily be true?

wtf are we talking about here, I haven't really been paying attention to this thread. Is my statement relevant at all?
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 12:09 PM #52
warbeak2099
That is my foot!
 
warbeak2099's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Wouldn't u like to know!
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
but since it is predicated upon your observations, doesn't that mean you can really read a large variety of things into this/take from it, which may not encessarily be true?
Yes I guess you could. But let's look at an example that will illustrate where I'm coming from. A particular animal belongs to a herd. The herd always travels to the same grazing area at a certain time of the year. The one animal in question gets there first and eats all the food before the herd arrives. That animal is ostracized by the herd and, unable to survive on its own, dies later that season. We can take from a situation like that, the idea that it behooves us to work as a group. Humans especially are social animals, it is not good for us to be selfish. Not for us as individuals, not for communities, and certainly not for the species.

Sure I guess you can read other things into it, but that doesn't make the above conclusion wrong or flawed. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong or to prove that it is indeed good for humans to sabotage each other.
__________________
US Navy Baller
UL'd 07 PMR F/S, PM me if interested!
#12 Italian Baller
“The real test of a man is not how well he plays the role he has invented for himself, but how well he plays the role that destiny assigned to him.”
-Václav Havel
warbeak2099 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 12:40 PM #53
ThePr0pheT (Banned)
Trust me, I'm a Lawyer!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Novos Ordo Seclorum
morals/ethics =/= faith

however

faith = morals/ethics.



/thread.


If you can't understand that, then shame on you!
ThePr0pheT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 04:58 PM #54
xtoughguyx
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
When I was a christian I was happy, filled with this thing I couldn't figure out, but it felt like I was truly never alone, I always had something to lean on, I didn't lie, cheat, steal, murder, I did have a whole lot of sex though.

Now that I am an athiest, I am happy, I have figured out that thing I thought was the holy spirit was called inner strength and I am just as happy, I still don't lie, cheat, steal, murder, and still have a whole lot of sex.

Nothing has really changed, only my religion.

I do however view the world a lot more logically and for what it is now.
__________________
OC straightedge **** you.
xtoughguyx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 10:07 PM #55
xblackstarx v2.0
dead forum is dead.
 
xblackstarx v2.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: with aligators
well, thats a tough question. if God did not exist (which i believe he does) then what is the reason for any moral action? society would eventually right itself so why not kill whenever you get angry at someone or completely destroy their lives? why not be a glutton and do anything that feels good? personally, i know what i believe and stand fast in my morals, but what is the reason for any action when you deny Gods existence and say that once you die your done? if that were true then there would be no reason for morals so i would probably just do whatever the heck i felt like.
__________________
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.p...0#post76789480

selling sleeping dogs copy for steam.
xblackstarx v2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 11:04 PM #56
ISmokeIce
Postmodern Sophist
 
ISmokeIce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by warbeak2099 View Post
I think you may be misunderstanding me. I am not referencing Aquinas' "natural law" so much as I am talking about Hume's idea of taking morality from nature. I am not talking about the debate over what is natural and what's not. I am simply saying that my ethical code is predicated on observation of nature and how it works.
I would agree more with Aquinas than with Hume.

Quote:
Originally Posted by warbeak2099 View Post
Yes I guess you could. But let's look at an example that will illustrate where I'm coming from. A particular animal belongs to a herd. The herd always travels to the same grazing area at a certain time of the year. The one animal in question gets there first and eats all the food before the herd arrives. That animal is ostracized by the herd and, unable to survive on its own, dies later that season. We can take from a situation like that, the idea that it behooves us to work as a group. Humans especially are social animals, it is not good for us to be selfish. Not for us as individuals, not for communities, and certainly not for the species.

Sure I guess you can read other things into it, but that doesn't make the above conclusion wrong or flawed. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong or to prove that it is indeed good for humans to sabotage each other.

You add unwarranted value to sociality. You assume that sociality is intentional in part of the individual in order to promote the species. These are mostly instinct and you can’t add value to instinct since you cannot change the value from good to bad. You just have to accept it. If you can’t accept the instinct, you banish the instinct.

A society exist where a person can survive without stealing. Once this instinct is acted upon, however, the thief has to pay a debt to society. The instinct is not taken out of him or her, it’s only discouraged.

But isn’t stealing (an instinct for survival) being labeled bad here?
It’s being labeled “bad” because the conscientious society sees this action as detrimental to its operation. But the individual can justify the stealing. Both values are subjective, but which one is more legitimate? For the thief, the actions were justified. For the society, the thief is wrong for performing an unjustifiable act.

The thief may be seen as social because he stole from society in order to better his or her situation. The thief and his or her respective society are working in a group. The thief benefits from his or her neighbor and the neighbor is the better because he or she fed a member of the herd.

But this is not the case. The neighbor feels unsafe because the assumption of property has been taken away. Without property, the neighbor cannot know what belongs to who or the justification for one person to own something but not the other without this manifestation of inconsistency (i.e., the thief taking away his or her property). This is why stealing is “bad” for society: that a society dependant on property for function cannot support the ambiguous status of ownership, and stealing arouses this ambiguity.

For the thief, the justifications vary. Isn’t one classic example of ethical dilemma (and one which we can imagine ourselves in) “would you steal a loaf of bread to prevent your family from starving”? The thief’s justification range from biological necessity, psychological distraught, or even being coerced by the situation he or she was put in.

Assuming that values cannot be objective, I go on explicitly saying that instinct cannot be subjectively labeled as good or bad. Main reason behind this is that you have to see why people steal and it’s the context of their situation to label the actions justified or not. This is why people can kill in self defense. You can label the context potentially caustic, but the reaction cannot be blamed for the end result. Assuming the thief has moral autonomy, he or she may choose the lesser evil or the greatest good, but the options are limited. For example, you’re dehydrated and need water. In the context you’re in you have the option to drink water or not to drink water. You don’t have the option to save a family from a burning house, because this is physically impossible.

The thief (through fault of society or self) is put in a situation where he or she can steal in order to survive or die. He or she realizes that by stealing, the fabric of society may unravel and that this is bad, but also figures that dying is bad. Most likely the person would not willingly choose to die (although this is not always the case).

Your example uses a specific context where the options are clear and the right one is obvious (and it also uses a different species). When thinking in the moment, however, the options are not always clear and the reasoning is foggy. Also, being dependent on past events to motivate future actions doesn't show much progress or correct answers to changing societies and changing values.

All this considering natural law. I don’t want this to be a respond to other ethical theories. Also, I'm tired and I'm not sure how well-written this post is. I'll reply to confusion.

We are not social. I’m social; for selfish reasons no fault of my own.
__________________
"No passion is stronger in the breast of man than the desire to make others believe as he believes...It is not the love of truth, but desire to prevail that sets quarter against quarter and makes parish desire the downfall of parish. Each seeks peace of mind and subserviency rather than the triumph of truth and exaltation of virtue-- But these moralities belong, and should be left to the historian, since they are as dull as ditch water" - Orlando: A Biography
ISmokeIce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 01:31 AM #57
warbeak2099
That is my foot!
 
warbeak2099's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Wouldn't u like to know!
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by xblackstarx v2.0 View Post
well, thats a tough question. if God did not exist (which i believe he does) then what is the reason for any moral action? society would eventually right itself so why not kill whenever you get angry at someone or completely destroy their lives? why not be a glutton and do anything that feels good? personally, i know what i believe and stand fast in my morals, but what is the reason for any action when you deny Gods existence and say that once you die your done? if that were true then there would be no reason for morals so i would probably just do whatever the heck i felt like.
The reason: because it's good to do so. Why do you need a God to be good to other people and to yourself? Can you not just do it for the sake of it being good?

Ice, your post still didn't refute my claim. It's good for us to work together and as Hume said, "wish well upon each other". And yes, we instinctively work together as do animals in nature. That's natural law at work. I don't see anything in your post that proves Hume's idea of taking morality from nature wrong. That's all I've advocated, perhaps poorly at times. To make myself totally clear though, I am just saying that we can get our morality from nature. You don't need a god or religion.
__________________
US Navy Baller
UL'd 07 PMR F/S, PM me if interested!
#12 Italian Baller
“The real test of a man is not how well he plays the role he has invented for himself, but how well he plays the role that destiny assigned to him.”
-Václav Havel
warbeak2099 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 02:39 AM #58
xtoughguyx
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by warbeak2099 View Post
I am just saying that we can get our morality from nature. You don't need a god or religion.
serious I don't understand these people that say god is necessary for good morals and ethics.

There were rules and ethics to societies long before religion was introduced, and way way WAYYYYY before any Abrahamic religion was introduced to the world.
__________________
OC straightedge **** you.
xtoughguyx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 10:18 AM #59
ISmokeIce
Postmodern Sophist
 
ISmokeIce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by warbeak2099 View Post
Ice, your post still didn't refute my claim. It's good for us to work together and as Hume said, "wish well upon each other". And yes, we instinctively work together as do animals in nature. That's natural law at work. I don't see anything in your post that proves Hume's idea of taking morality from nature wrong. That's all I've advocated, perhaps poorly at times. To make myself totally clear though, I am just saying that we can get our morality from nature. You don't need a god or religion.
Yes it does. Your conclusion arrived at treating well others which is totally arbitrary and only cited because it sounds good and it agrees what you want to believe. We don't work together; we collectively through accident benefit each other when it's convenient for me. Taking morality from nature is always arbitrary. What does it mean to work together? What does this tell us about morality? We should always work together? Only some of the time? No. When I benefit we should work together. Nature, then, is not only poorly defined but only defended from poor understanding of nature.

Is saying that without God or religion, we can extract morality from nature consistent? Not through rationality. There is an assumption of what it means to be “natural” and what the goals of “nature” are. Naturalistic fallacy specifically states that we cannot attribute good to nature without proper justification. And humans cannot be treated/compared to lower animals, because some important differences will always interfere with the end result.

And saying that we can get our morality from nature is reiterating the foundations of God and religion. It’s ambiguous because the context of morality is too wide. If you limit to behavior or brain function, then you’re getting closer to an accurate description but you’re ignoring other parts of the moral foundations. If you consider human brain function in relation to their actions, you cannot arrive that a human should always act like this because the brain function may not be relevant when considering a specific situation.

Example:

I’m naturally (meaning that my brain is wired and works in a way that emotions are easily aroused) an emotional person and my actions are guided by emotions. We cannot say this is good or bad by itself. But if I work as a loan officer, it’s bad if I give out loans based on my emotions since the profit from these loans are not guaranteed (bad for the bank). If I’m asked my reasoning or justification for my actions, I will justify them. I will, through nature, say the reasoning behind my actions. Does that make them right?

If a soldier kills a man who is not suspected of anything because of chemicals in her body, she is going to justify her actions. Police officers do the same thing with black people. Wallets will look like guns. There are various articles and a couple of books dedicated to this.

Objections: The actions of soldier and loan officers are analogous with nature and nature can explain why something is bad. The loan officer is wrong because he agreed with a contract (literally) whose validity is dependent on the success of the loan officer. So that violating this herd rule made the loan officer a target for dismissal. And the soldier was put in a situation where she was under pressure and had a right to fear for her life. A natural reaction to the situation.

Reply: The loan officer was wrong in regards to the bank, but for the people he approved he did well. So did he ultimately do good or bad? And even the soldier had few other options, she could justify her actions. But will society and the man’s family see it as good or bad?

It’s largely arbitrary. I’m not saying that you can’t extract morality from nature, but just that ultimately it’s a useless source by itself if you want to be guided by reason. How is it better than God or religion?

So saying that we can derive morality from nature, AGAIN, is arbitrary or useless because it ultimately says nothing on its superiority to morality derived through nature from religion.

If you want to say that nature + a theory based on reason can be yield morality, then nature is being modified for the needs of humans and then “nature” becomes artificial since its validity rests on superfluous values and context not presented in nature.

Utilitarianism, for example, on placing value is removing itself from natural law since assumes reason behind entities.

An example comes from Mill, if I recall correctly. He places more value in expanding one’s intellectual curiosity rather than spend time entertaining oneself through mundane (value placed by Mill) physical sports. He says this because intellectual curiosity helps society more than physical sports. I may agree with him, but society is presumed the beneficiary of action without considering the individual and whether the individual is interested on personal interest or society’s.

Natural law is ambiguous or useless. It’s ambiguous because labeling values on action through it is arbitrary. It’s useless because if it’s just used to denote that morality can't be derived from nature without defining a specific process, any credibility to its source is in questioned and dependent on the process itself. So that the role of nature is quickly turned into a minor role.
__________________
"No passion is stronger in the breast of man than the desire to make others believe as he believes...It is not the love of truth, but desire to prevail that sets quarter against quarter and makes parish desire the downfall of parish. Each seeks peace of mind and subserviency rather than the triumph of truth and exaltation of virtue-- But these moralities belong, and should be left to the historian, since they are as dull as ditch water" - Orlando: A Biography

Last edited by ISmokeIce : 08-06-2009 at 10:20 AM.
ISmokeIce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 01:59 PM #60
warbeak2099
That is my foot!
 
warbeak2099's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Wouldn't u like to know!
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISmokeIce View Post
If you want to say that nature + a theory based on reason can be yield morality, then nature is being modified for the needs of humans and then “nature” becomes artificial since its validity rests on superfluous values and context not presented in nature.
I have been thinking about this for some time and I must agree with you. You have to add a theory to nature to get this code of ethics, not just observe nature on its own. But I think that using nature as a "basis" for that theory is good. Nature itself is perfectly objective. We as humans add subjectivity to everything, but we can still try to come as close as we can to objectivity and universalism. I think the best way to do that is to use nature as a predication for an ethical code. Yes that code will still require us to assign arbitrary, subjective meaning to certain things in nature, but I think it comes closer to objectivity than anything else.
__________________
US Navy Baller
UL'd 07 PMR F/S, PM me if interested!
#12 Italian Baller
“The real test of a man is not how well he plays the role he has invented for himself, but how well he plays the role that destiny assigned to him.”
-Václav Havel
warbeak2099 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 10:32 PM #61
Attig11
Male Nurse
 
Attig11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: 717 PA
Annual Supporting Member
Attig11 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
Attig11 supports Pev's Paintball
Attig11 supports Empire
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRunior View Post
I had a discussion with a Christian friend of mine and during the discussion I asked him a question that he struggled with and I've decided to pass it along to the other Christians/Believers in this subforum.

If you were provided evidence that caused you to become an Atheist how would your life change? Would you volunteer less, give less money to charity, hire hookers, break your abstinence vow, lie, cheat, steal...murder? Simply being, how would your actions change as a result of a change in your 'philosophy'?

My friend said he'd change almost nothing and so I asked him how he would evaluate himself as a christian if his belief causes him to behave in a way no different than he would without belief. Christianity and other faiths often promote self sacrifice and talk about how the righteous path is a difficult one.

So I pass this question on to you guys. If you lost your faith how would you change? After thinking of your own answers how do you feel you're doing in your efforts to live a Jesus like lifestyle?

Just to close, I really don't think this is an attack on anyone's belief. Heck, I'd rather it bolster your efforts in living like Christ than having no effect on you at all.

Jr,
Well in my christian beliefs, i will never lose my faith. and in the bible i'm sure somewhere it says something like people will try to bring me(jesus) down, and don't believe what it says.

So... you could give me proof that there's a %100 percent fact that christianity is false, but i've felt the spirit, and i know nothing can change faith, no matter how black and white it is to you.

P.S., all you *******s out there, don't question my thought process cause i used the figurative language of "black and white." you get my point. STFU.
__________________
PAP FAMILY | UNSIGNED PHOTOGRAPHY | KINGKONGPB.COM | OTB PRODUCTIONS | UN1TED CLOTHING | HK |
Attig11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2009, 03:17 PM #62
JRunior
 
 
JRunior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attig11 View Post
Well in my christian beliefs, i will never lose my faith. and in the bible i'm sure somewhere it says something like people will try to bring me(jesus) down, and don't believe what it says.

So... you could give me proof that there's a %100 percent fact that christianity is false, but i've felt the spirit, and i know nothing can change faith, no matter how black and white it is to you.

P.S., all you *******s out there, don't question my thought process cause i used the figurative language of "black and white." you get my point. STFU.
I think you missed the point of 'Thought experiment'. I'm not saying God doesn't exist in this post all I'm asking is that if you discovered he didn't how would things change? That's like me saying that if God came to earth, filled me with knowledge of his existence, brought me to heaven and I was given more proof than humanly possible of his existence saying "Nope, still don't believe". It's a 'what if scenario' to reflect on...

Jr

Last edited by JRunior : 08-12-2009 at 04:32 PM.
JRunior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2009, 09:39 AM #63
Attig11
Male Nurse
 
Attig11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: 717 PA
Annual Supporting Member
Attig11 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
Attig11 supports Pev's Paintball
Attig11 supports Empire
oh oh. well i understand wheree your coming from.
__________________
PAP FAMILY | UNSIGNED PHOTOGRAPHY | KINGKONGPB.COM | OTB PRODUCTIONS | UN1TED CLOTHING | HK |
Attig11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump