What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Calilasseia · **#5421** by **Calilasseia** » Mar 03, 2018 5:05 am

Is he still peddling this tripe?

He seems to think that robotically parroting this tired old mantra about "observed X does not equal X in itself" somehow opens up all sorts of magic doors for whatever made up shit he wants to pretend governs the universe. It doesn't, and those of us who paid attention in class woke up to this a long time ago.

Indeed, since observation is an interaction, then by definition, our observation of a given entity is distinct from that entity. Interactions and entities are two separate ontological classes, at least in the macroscopic world (though particle physics has tossed a few spanners into the works here, as anyone who paid attention to its findings also knows). But just because that interaction is distinct from the entity taking part therein, doesn't for one moment mean that it is impossible to obtain substantive knowledge about that entity via observation. Especially if the interactions that take place during our act of observation are reliably repeatable.

That's the whole point - reliably repeatable interactions are necessary foundations for the emergence of order. If reliably repeatable interactions didn't exist, there wouldn't even exist entities as simple as hydrogen atoms, let alone compound entities composed of the trillions of components you find in a human being. Part of his wibble seems to consist of falling back on that fatuous trope, so beloved of supernaturalists, that you need a "mind" to generate order, a trope which actually has the real state of affairs ass-backwards. You need order before you can have anything as complex as a mind.

As for his tiresome wankery about science not supporting atheism, well it certainly supports the idea that blindly asserted mythological entities are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant, with respect to vast sets of observational entities and interactions, and that, he does not understand, is all we need. The moment it is demonstrated that a testable natural process can generate a given outcome, we don't need a fucking magic man for this. In that respect, it's Game Over for asinine supernaturalist pretensions.

But, once again, he's making the mistake, common to all who entertain supernaturalist fuckwittery, that atheism consists of a truth claim. Er, no it doesn't. It simply consists, in its rigorous formulation, of suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That suspicion is based upon the elementary discoursive rule, that the status of any assertion, in the absence of external support, is "truth value unknown".

Of course, we can, with ease, rule out mythological entities constructed with in-built contradictions and absurdities, but we don't need science for this, we just need for those mythological entities to possess the requisite in-built contradictions and absurdities. It's Game Over once again from that point on.

The fun part being, of course, that those like myself, who actually bother exercising some grey matter on the subject, don't regard the assertion "there exists a god type entity of some sort" as being answered either way. We regard it, quote properly, as possessing the aforementioned status "truth value unknown", and I'm on public record here as stating that the moment any genuine evidence for an entity of this sort materialises, it'll be far more likely to come from someone like Stephen Hawking than William Lane Craig. Which is probably the real reason Craig is so smarmy and condescending toward physicists, because at bottom, he realises that the writing is on the wall with respect to this, but that's a topic for a separate thread.

Of course, that's the problem with those who develop an attachment to mythological assertions of one sort or another - the corrosive effects of doing so start impairing their ability to reason properly from the very first moment onwards, that they develop said attachments. At bottom, when all you have is made up shit to start with, and have to resort to more made up shit to try and pretend that the original made up shit isn't made up shit, then this corrodes clarity of reasoning on grand scale, and it's not just in the world of supernaturalism that we see this corrosive effect - we also see it played out on a grand scale right across the spectrum of right-wing politics, which is why its leading figures are total dumbfucks.

There's just so much fail in his latest outburst, that it's painful to watch.

Thomas Eshuis · **#5422** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Mar 03, 2018 7:46 am

Skinny Puppy wrote:
Skinny Puppy wrote:
Is it rational, moral or true? To a Christian... yes.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Nope, Christians don't get to have their own rationality.
Again, according to that logic we cannot judge the Nazis either.

I'm not sure why you've mentioned Nazis twice already. One cannot justify Nazism, but one can justify the actions of the God of the OT.

You can justify Nazism if you presuppose Nazism is right, which is exactly the same way Christians justify the atrocities in the bible; by presupposing God is right.

Skinny Puppy wrote:Here's an excellent book that answers mostly everything in the OT that raises eyebrows.

Is God a Moral Monster?

https://www.amazon.ca/God-Moral-Monster-Paul-Copan/dp/0801072751
I have that book, but it's on loan right now to a retired priest that lives just down the road from me.

Kindly present arguments, not book titles.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
Skinny Puppy wrote:
we have yet to define (or understand) what true morality and truth really is.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Define truth.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
I just stated that we don't know what it is.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
You're using a word. Words have usages, otherwise you're just throwing out random combinations of letters.
What usage of 'truth' are you employing?

I suppose the most important truth that we could know is whether we were created or whether evolution brought us here.

1. Since evolution is a demonstrable fact and there is zero evidence of a creator, that's not a question.
2. Why is that the most important truth?

Skinny Puppy wrote:Hopefully, and I obviously don't know, I trust that gravity waves will penetrate back to the moment of creation (Big Bang) and settle the question once and for all.

You do know that:
1. Evolution is neither about the origin of the universe, nor the origin of the universe?
2. "We don't know" is a perfectly valid answer and it doesn't make the Christian claim any more rational or true?

Skinny Puppy wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:

And you're begging the question that 'true morality' exists.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
We don't know whether it does or doesn't, so right now it's a question without an answer.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Correction, right now it's a question that isn't even valid.

Actually it is a valid question and to Xtians God is the ultimate authority.

Blinc counterfactual assertion.
You first need to demonstrate that objective morals exist, before you can ask the question of what it originates from.

Skinny Puppy wrote: For atheists we simply don't know since morality changes with the times and doesn't hold with any consistency.

So we do know, you just explained what we do know.
It's up to anyone who makes the claim, to demonstrate the existence of objective morality, before they get to make claims about where it comes from.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
Skinny Puppy wrote:

WLC explained how God isn't subject to our rules and the laws that we must obey.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
No he hasn't. He has presented an argument based on a number of blindly asserted premises.

He's using the Bible as source material,

Using someone else's list of blind assertions, still means you're basing your arguments on blind assertions.

Skinny Puppy wrote:which is the correct approach.

It's the irrational and intellectually dishonest approach.

Skinny Puppy wrote: I honestly don't know of any other way he could do it without being a hypocrite.

By not claiming to have scientific evidence and rationally sound arguments for Christianity.
That, or adapt his views to comply with the evidence and reason.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
Skinny Puppy wrote:
We may not like it or agree with it, but it is the way it is.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
This fuck all to do with liking things, hence my never mentioning it.
It has to do with logic and facts.
WLC asserts whatever ex-recto material he can come up with, as an ad-hoc defense of an indefensible position.
It's not a matter of opinions and even then, not all opinions are equal.

His position is not indefensible.

It's no rationally defensible.

Skinny Puppy wrote: Yes I know, he can't prove everything that he says,

Many things could be proven or disproven, the fact is Craig fails to do so and thus has no rational basis for his premises.

Skinny Puppy wrote: but Christianity isn't based on a set of proofs, it's based on faith and faith alone.

I know that, Craig knows that, but he still pretends to have evidence and sound arguments and even gives courses on how to present evidence for Christianity.

Alan B · **#5423** by **Alan B** » Mar 03, 2018 4:49 pm

"Science does not support atheism." :think:

Does this imply that science supports theism?

If so, SK, please indicate and describe the appropriate 'science'. (This precludes referring to 'Ancient' religious texts).

Waiting...

Calilasseia · **#5424** by **Calilasseia** » Mar 03, 2018 5:57 pm

Actually, it was JamesT who posted that, not SK ...

zulumoose · **#5425** by **zulumoose** » Mar 04, 2018 3:42 am

Science does not support atheism

I think it is important to clarify that science is the study of the nature of reality, hence its purpose is to expose, understand, quantify and demystify natural phenomena, which supports only that which is consistent with reality.

it does not "support atheism" in exactly the same way as it does not support disbelief in leprehauns, it is CONSISTENT with both, the significant point is that it has never exposed evidence supporting what believers in pure fantasy insist is reality. You don't win any prizes for guessing why that is.

Thomas Eshuis · **#5426** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Mar 04, 2018 9:38 am

zulumoose wrote:
Science does not support atheism

I think it is important to clarify that science is the study of the nature of reality, hence its purpose is to expose, understand, quantify and demystify natural phenomena, which supports only that which is consistent with reality.

it does not "support atheism" in exactly the same way as it does not support disbelief in leprehauns, it is CONSISTENT with both, the significant point is that it has never exposed evidence supporting what believers in pure fantasy insist is reality. You don't win any prizes for guessing why that is.

It's a category error to talk about thing supporting atheism, atheism being true, or believing things on atheism.

Alan B · **#5427** by **Alan B** » Mar 04, 2018 12:14 pm

Calilasseia wrote:Actually, it was JamesT who posted that, not SK ...

Ooops! Apologies, SK. :oops:

(I would have posted sooner if 'Notifications' were working...)

Skinny Puppy · **#5428** by **Skinny Puppy** » Mar 04, 2018 3:18 pm

Skinny Puppy wrote:
I'm not sure why you've mentioned Nazis twice already. One cannot justify Nazism, but one can justify the actions of the God of the OT.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
You can justify Nazism if you presuppose Nazism is right, which is exactly the same way Christians justify the atrocities in the bible; by presupposing God is right.

One cannot justify Nazism. While granted, some did for a very brief period of time, it has no redeeming qualities and no one would want to emulate it. No amount of twisted logic can explain away its barbarities, but with the Bible there are explanations, and when taken in the context of its time, outline why such actions were necessary. In addition, the two are diametrically opposite.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
Here's an excellent book that answers mostly everything in the OT that raises eyebrows.

Is God a Moral Monster?

https://www.amazon.ca/God-Moral-Monster-Paul-Copan/dp/0801072751
I have that book, but it's on loan right now to a retired priest that lives just down the road from me.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kindly present arguments, not book titles.

I didn’t expect you to read that book. My purpose was to show that there are answers to the problematic accounts in the OT. If one wishes to denounce the OT as a barbaric collection of stories then one must know the context and times in which they were written. That doesn’t mean that one must accept them, but it does mean that one must understand them and then make an informed rebuttal to them.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
You're using a word. Words have usages, otherwise you're just throwing out random combinations of letters.
What usage of 'truth' are you employing?

Skinny Puppy wrote:

I suppose the most important truth that we could know is whether we were created or whether evolution brought us here.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
1. Since evolution is a demonstrable fact and there is zero evidence of a creator, that's not a question.
2. Why is that the most important truth?

1- Actually it is a legitimate question. Yes, evolution did bring us here, but that says nothing as to whether a god was behind that process or not. We can assume that a god wasn’t involved, but that’s only an assumption, not proof.

2- Because it would either destroy religions or validate them.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
Hopefully, and I obviously don't know, I trust that gravity waves will penetrate back to the moment of creation (Big Bang) and settle the question once and for all.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
You do know that:
1. Evolution is neither about the origin of the universe, nor the origin of the universe?
2. "We don't know" is a perfectly valid answer and it doesn't make the Christian claim any more rational or true?

1- I was speaking from a cosmological POV. Since we can only see back to around 300,000 years after the BB, it’s possible that gravity waves will be able to penetrate that barrier and give us an insight into the actual creation process. Would that knowledge put a final nail into the coffin of religion? It’s hard to say since we still can’t breach that barrier. If, (as we assume) virtual particles fueled by Inflation Theory created the universe perhaps that will be enough, although it would still possibly beg the question as to whether that was by design or simply a quantum mechanical process.

2- I agree with ‘We don’t know’. That applies to both science and theology.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
Actually it is a valid question and to Xtians God is the ultimate authority.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Blinc counterfactual assertion.
You first need to demonstrate that objective morals exist, before you can ask the question of what it originates from.

I’ll concede that point. Even from a Biblical POV, it’s not spelled out that all moral behaviour is laid out without exception. There certainly are rules and guidelines, but whether that’s the end all… remains unknown.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
WLC explained how God isn't subject to our rules and the laws that we must obey.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
No he hasn't. He has presented an argument based on a number of blindly asserted premises.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
He's using the Bible as source material,

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Using someone else's list of blind assertions, still means you're basing your arguments on blind assertions.

No. If I were to write an essay or a critic, say on The Wizard of OZ book, then I’d use that book to make my case. Regardless of whether it’s a book of fiction or not, my source would be that book.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
which is the correct approach.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
It's the irrational and intellectually dishonest approach.

No it isn’t. If a question is asked about the Bible, disregarding whether its history is factual or not, (since one would need to reference outside sources), then answering via the Bible is apropos.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
I honestly don't know of any other way he could do it without being a hypocrite.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
By not claiming to have scientific evidence and rationally sound arguments for Christianity.
That, or adapt his views to comply with the evidence and reason.

I think you’re straying from the article that’s up thread. I’m only commenting on that, not WLC’s other arguments with regards to science.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
but Christianity isn't based on a set of proofs, it's based on faith and faith alone.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I know that, Craig knows that, but he still pretends to have evidence and sound arguments and even gives courses on how to present evidence for Christianity.

Once again this is straying away from the article that I’ve been talking about.

Aca · **#5429** by **Aca** » Mar 04, 2018 6:14 pm

The method I use in order to realise the presence of human is the same I use towards GOD. I am not here to convince anyone anything. These below proofs are sufficient for me to know GOD. If you don't consider them sufficient they are your problems and not mine. I am satisfied. If you are not satisfied, again it is your problem and not mine.

1) Human is a living being which has a specific form. The human's form comprises the whole body.

GOD is a living being which has a specific form. GOD's form comprises the whole existence.

2) Human next acts without my voluntary actions thoughtfully. Human's voluntary actions are noticed when a Human communicates with me via voice etc.

GOD acts without my voluntary actions. GOD's voluntary thoughtfully actions are notice when GOD communicates with me via MIND. Via MIND I am informed visual facts, recollection etc. Visual facts, recollection etc are experienced by me without my voluntary actions.

Thereby as I know GOD's presence, as I know a Human's presence.

Note:-
Again since you now know GOD is MIND as well, kindly read the below carefully. Writing these since people generally ignore GOD's good thoughts thinking they are just useless good thoughts coming for no good reason. But the innocent one keeps telling us again and again tirelessly what is good and what is bad.

Kindly take note:
Good thoughts that come from MIND is what GOD wants everyone to implement. Bad thoughts is only for educational purpose so that people learn about bad to avoid bad. Bad thoughts are not to be implemented.

*************************************
And what is good is determined using the following rule.
*************************************
Any act that considers the welfare of the whole existence including all the living beings is righteous (good). All other actions that does not consider the welfare of the whole existence including all the living beings is corrupt.

Aca · **#5430** by **Aca** » Mar 04, 2018 6:15 pm

same guy as above

Atheists, I noticed an Atheist coming and telling me, I am being wrong at accepting an information as truth in good faith. Since GOD had hinted to me, I experienced asking him, "if you don't consider any information as truth, why do you fear accidents if you do fear?" To the same, he has not yet answered. So the question to you all Atheists is, if you say I am wrong at considering every information as truth in good faith, why do you fear accidents, while you have still not considered them as truth yet? And if you have considered the accidents as truth, how did you practically consider them as truth? Kindly explain the practical steps.

fluttermoth · **#5431** by **fluttermoth** » Mar 04, 2018 10:15 pm

None of that makes any sense to me whatsoever... I fear accidents because they hurt, I have no idea what truth has to do with it.

Do you have any inkling what they're jabbering on about?

zulumoose · **#5432** by **zulumoose** » Mar 05, 2018 6:08 am

Accidents are real, demonstrable, well evidenced, everyday commonplace occurrences accepted by everyone. There is a probability of future occurrences, a risk calculated by insurance companies, and there are ways to minimise virtually all kinds of risks.

Information concerning supernatural phenomena as proposed by all religions, has not been verified or accepted by scientific bodies, or indeed by other religions. Information accepted by faith is pretty much by definition at odds with, or at least independent of verified available information.

Aca · **#5433** by **Aca** » Mar 05, 2018 7:58 am

same guy

I have no idea what he's trying to say. Looks like google translate to me :scratch:

See this scenario to understand the problem with shifting the burden of proof on the claimant. What is the logic you all follow?
A person who is not matured to judge what is 2+2=4, because has not learn what is 2+2=4, will not be able to judge matters pertaining to 2+2=4. In such cases, it is for the immature ones at first mature and know what is 2+2=4? What if this immature one start screaming now like an idiot, again and again, burden of proof lies on the claimant and refuses co-operate when explained, because he as has some ego problem, or is possibly a pervert who is trying induce wrongful logic in order bully people, to draw sarcastic pleasure from the same?

Thomas Eshuis · **#5434** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Mar 05, 2018 8:00 am

Aca wrote:same guy

I have no idea what he's trying to say. Looks like google translate to me

See this scenario to understand the problem with shifting the burden of proof on the claimant. What is the logic you all follow?
A person who is not matured to judge what is 2+2=4, because has not learn what is 2+2=4, will not be able to judge matters pertaining to 2+2=4. In such cases, it is for the immature ones at first mature and know what is 2+2=4? What if this immature one start screaming now like an idiot, again and again, burden of proof lies on the claimant and refuses co-operate when explained, because he as has some ego problem, or is possibly a pervert who is trying induce wrongful logic in order bully people, to draw sarcastic pleasure from the same?

He's trying to equate a toddler demanding evidence for 2+2=4 with atheists demanding evidence for the existence of gods.

Cito di Pense · **#5435** by **Cito di Pense** » Mar 07, 2018 6:50 am

Here's a candidate: Woman on board an airliner shouting "I am God" and attempting to open the cabin door. In flight.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/woman-screams- ... daho-video

Yeah, I know. Actions speak louder than words. Regardless, something batty was going on, here. If you're looking for 'batty'. Does she really believe she is God? I'm skeptical.

Arcanyn · **#5436** by **Arcanyn** » Mar 07, 2018 3:41 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Aca wrote:same guy

I have no idea what he's trying to say. Looks like google translate to me

See this scenario to understand the problem with shifting the burden of proof on the claimant. What is the logic you all follow?
A person who is not matured to judge what is 2+2=4, because has not learn what is 2+2=4, will not be able to judge matters pertaining to 2+2=4. In such cases, it is for the immature ones at first mature and know what is 2+2=4? What if this immature one start screaming now like an idiot, again and again, burden of proof lies on the claimant and refuses co-operate when explained, because he as has some ego problem, or is possibly a pervert who is trying induce wrongful logic in order bully people, to draw sarcastic pleasure from the same?

He's trying to equate a toddler demanding evidence for 2+2=4 with atheists demanding evidence for the existence of gods.

Of course the difference is that 2+2=4 is trivially easy to prove. Although Baldrick does struggle with it a bit:

Fenrir · **#5437** by **Fenrir** » Mar 08, 2018 8:28 am

It isn't that funny till you realise it's Byers responding to a post at Sandwalk about Dunning and Kruger.

I agree with this whole concept. i think about it in origin issues and other issues of mankind.
Yet i don't think its complicated.
i think its simply a issue of intelligence.
Its a curve in the class and then comparing classes.
Error or accuracy in contentions is not a roll of the dice for individual.
its about identities or groups or any thing that influences people.
Recently we saw in the winter olympics Norway, a tiny populated country, beat everyone in medals. beating high winter nations and all nations.
This shows a curve of intelligence in winter sports.

In North America one always finds social/political/religious/, and even oRIGIN subects to follow closely demographics.
i know evolutionists throw at us about education levels and acceptance of evolution etc etc.
there is a point here.
WE throw at them that the common middle class people are more likely to question things and think for themselves as opposed to upper classes/upper middle classes who accept anything they are told as if to justify their own status.

Yes I think the more intelligent are less likely to be so confident about things they know little about or things they know about. Because humans still know little about anything.
Less intelligent people are more sure complicated things are easy to understand and less able to see errors and errors in their own thinking.

if its a curve on human intelligence it could only be as this Dunning- Krueger chart indicates.

Its like adults and children. The kids are more likely to get things wrong and fail to correct them even after instruction. The kids are dumber and so consistent.
Its a curve.

Calilasseia · **#5438** by **Calilasseia** » Mar 08, 2018 8:55 am

Fenrir wrote:It isn't that funny till you realise it's Byers responding to a post at Sandwalk about Dunning and Kruger.

I agree with this whole concept. i think about it in origin issues and other issues of mankind.
Yet i don't think its complicated.
i think its simply a issue of intelligence.
Its a curve in the class and then comparing classes.
Error or accuracy in contentions is not a roll of the dice for individual.
its about identities or groups or any thing that influences people.
Recently we saw in the winter olympics Norway, a tiny populated country, beat everyone in medals. beating high winter nations and all nations.
This shows a curve of intelligence in winter sports.

In North America one always finds social/political/religious/, and even oRIGIN subects to follow closely demographics.
i know evolutionists throw at us about education levels and acceptance of evolution etc etc.
there is a point here.
WE throw at them that the common middle class people are more likely to question things and think for themselves as opposed to upper classes/upper middle classes who accept anything they are told as if to justify their own status.

Yes I think the more intelligent are less likely to be so confident about things they know little about or things they know about. Because humans still know little about anything.
Less intelligent people are more sure complicated things are easy to understand and less able to see errors and errors in their own thinking.

if its a curve on human intelligence it could only be as this Dunning- Krueger chart indicates.

Its like adults and children. The kids are more likely to get things wrong and fail to correct them even after instruction. The kids are dumber and so consistent.
Its a curve.

This from someone who thinks polar bears got white hair from being scared of humans. :lol:

Thomas Eshuis · **#5439** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Mar 08, 2018 2:16 pm

Organised by a group at my univeristy:
http://www.sggroningen.nl/nl/evenement/humanity%E2%80%99s-diary-genesis-bible

University Colloquium
Humanity’s Diary: The Genesis of the Bible
Carel van Schaik

The Bible is the bestselling book of all time. It has been venerated--or excoriated--as God's word, but so far no one has read the Bible for what it is: humanity's diary, chronicling our ancestors' valiant attempts to cope with the trials and tribulations of unexpected new problems.
Evolutionary anthropologist Carel van Schaik advances a new view of Homo sapiens' cultural evolution. The Bible, he argues, was written to make sense of the single greatest change in history: the transition from egalitarian hunter-gatherer to agricultural societies. Religion arose as a strategy to cope with the unprecedented levels of epidemic disease, violence, inequality, and injustice that confronted us when we abandoned the bush--and which still confront us today. Armed with the latest findings from cognitive science, behavioral biology, evolutionary biology, and archeology, Van Schaik shows how these changes can be seen as inspiring the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament). He examines the bible as an attempt to formulate solutions for the many new problems which were seen as punishment for transgressions and for which no biological adaptations existed, in order to achieve conditions more in tune with human nature.

Carel van Schaik is a behavioral and evolutionary biologist and works as professor of biological anthropology in Zurich. He investigates the social evolution in primates, with special emphasis on how data and models inform the human condition. He is also a member of the KNAW. Together with co-author Kai Michel he wrote The Good Book of Human Nature (in Dutch Het oerboek van de mens), an evolutionary interpretation of the Bible.

On Facebook it is promoted like this:

Carel van Schaik will show us on March 15 that the Bible is more than just a pillar for religious belief: it is a pioneering attempt at scientific inquiry.

aban57 · **#5440** by **aban57** » Mar 09, 2018 12:12 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

On Facebook it is promoted like this:
Carel van Schaik will show us on March 15 that the Bible is more than just a pillar for religious belief: it is a pioneering attempt at scientific inquiry.

LOL

What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: Skinny Puppy

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Re: What's the battiest thing you ever heard a believer say?

Who is online