Dwayne Wade Can Kiss My Ass
Yes, this is essentially a direct rip-off of ~I Am’s~ post about Carrie Underwood.
No, Dwayne Wade has not started a country music career, but if he did, I am sure it would be very similar to Underwood in it’s abundant references to God. Why do I think that? Well apparently Wade felt it necessary to subject the general populace to an explanation of his “faith” in God in the form of a Converse ad. I wouldn’t really care except for the tag line.
If your curious you can see the ad for your self at Converse.com.
Now, it doesn’t matter to me if he can’t sleep at night without a spiritual comfort item. My three year old has a teddy bear and a favorite blanket, Wade has God. I also don’t care if he feels the need to justify away his talent by giving the credit to God, but I am sick and tired of being told that my life is meaningless, worthless, bleak, or otherwise “lost”, unless I subscribe to an illogical destructive self effacing delusion. I am not lost. Should I get lost, I’ll get a map and GPS, not a bible.
What really sucks, is that if he had said, “if you don’t have faith in Santa Clause, you’re lost.” people would just laugh at him. But, sense his imaginary friend is “God” it’s not just OK, it’s a “brave message of faith”. It just makes me sick.
Oh yeah, I’m not going to buy the stupid shoes either.
LBBP
November 11th, 2006 at at 8:58 am
Face it LBBP, your life is meaningless, worthless, bleak, and otherwise lost!
:twisted: 
To paraphrase Woody Allen, if life without God is an empty experience, then as empty experiences go, it’s one of the best.
November 12th, 2006 at at 8:26 am
“What really sucks, is that if he had said, “if you don’t have faith in Santa Clause, you’re lost.” people would just laugh at him. But, sense his imaginary friend is “God” it’s not just OK, it’s a “brave message of faith”.
This is a false analogy. There are many differences in belief in God (for which there is abundant evidence) and in a being that history shows clearly has been made up to make kids happy at Christmas (based on a historical person albeit). I know you are simply trying to make a point, but you are using a logical fallacy in doing so. Your non-belief in God should be supported with stronger data. I know that you have stronger arguments elsewhere, (you don’t have to give them all to me right here and right now), but this kind of rhetoric and illogical reasoning I hope convinces nobody who is seriously considering whether to believe in God or not.
November 12th, 2006 at at 9:13 am
There are many differences in belief in God (for which there is abundant evidence) and in a being that history shows clearly has been made up to make kids happy at Christmas (based on a historical person albeit). I know you are simply trying to make a point, but you are using a logical fallacy in doing so. Your non-belief in God should be supported with stronger data. I know that you have stronger arguments elsewhere, (you don’t have to give them all to me right here and right now), but this kind of rhetoric and illogical reasoning I hope convinces nobody who is seriously considering whether to believe in God or not.
A) As you say, I was simply making a point. This type of blanket statement “without God you’re lost” is condescending and belittling. Not just to atheists but to everyone. It’s this type of blanket statement idiocy that me so angry, and it’s backlash to this type of attitude that has created the “new atheist” movement. New atheists seek to point out not just the fallacy of religion, but also the lunacy of respecting belief in divisive illogical fairytales turned into ideological rulebooks.
B) I have never seen or been shown any “evidence” for the existence of God. Therefore I find the concept of God to be no less arbitrary or imaginary than Santa Clause. As such, I see no “logical fallacy” in my arguments. The “burden of proof” debate is a long an arduous one, but obviously I feel that burden lies with the theists.
November 12th, 2006 at at 2:32 pm
“Not just to atheists but to everyone. It’s this type of blanket statement idiocy that me so angry”
It is just such an emotional tone that I think clouds and muddies the water of the debate. Atheists tend to be angry and reacting usually to something stupid a Christian did or said to hurt them. It is easy to take “evidence” and interpret it in a biased fashion when driven by emotion rather than logic.
As far as evidence goes, we have the same evidence. What I count as evidence in favor of the Christian worldview you count in favor of Naturalism. But it is the same evidence: the existence of the universe and life for example. These are the evidences (or part of them) that point heavily in the direction of a divine being. You might say that the evidence does not point that way as far as you can tell, but to say there is “no” evidence is to deny the very same evidence that you use to support your theories.
Again, I am simply pointing out the rhetoric used by atheists. I know, Christians have our own rhetoric we throw around as well. I am doing my very best to avoid those buzz words and phrases that have no real grounding. I am very interested in knowing the truth, not what people think or what makes them mad. I refuse to get angry at atheists. I don’t even want to get frustrated. I want to know why atheists have come to the conclusions they have come to. I want to know how a nihilistic worldview actually works. I want to try and step into your framework and see how the points connect.
Thing is, Christianity makes so much sense to me and paints a coherent picture of reality. (I am not saying I have all the answers here, but simply that it makes so much sense.) I simply want to see if other worldviews come anywhere near making as much sense of reality. If they do, I want to explore them.
For me, emotions - anger and the like - seem to get in the way. Logically fallacies are stumbling blocks to seeing the worldview. Throwing out name-calling barrages and the like just don;t get it done for me. Who cares if Wade is a theist or not. What does that have to do with what is true?
November 12th, 2006 at at 3:16 pm
“These are the evidences (or part of them) that point heavily in the direction of a divine being. You might say that the evidence does not point that way as far as you can tell, but to say there is “no” evidence is to deny the very same evidence that you use to support your theories.”
Occam’s Razor applies here. What is the simpler explanation, that the universe always existed, or that this complex universe was created by an even MORE complex creator?
I’ll accept that everyone has a different definition of the word ‘universe.’ Regardless, the concept of a creator is superfluous once you realize that:
Premise 1. Matter and energy exist
Premise 2. We have never observed a violation of the law of conservation of energy ( the law which states that energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed)
Conclusion - since matter & energy exist, and cannot be created or destroyed, it has always existed.
I suppose advanced experiments could prove Premise 2 to be false, it just hasn’t happened yet. If you posit that Premise 1 is false, well what can I say, the discussion stops there.
Whether you buy the argument or not, depends on your “cosmological point of view.” That is, believers in a creator for whatever reason, seem to think that the natural order of things is for there to be no universe at all, nothing physical to exist whatsoever until a supreme being wills it into existence. What is the rationale for believing this? And please don’t cite the “big bang” model, it doesn’t specify that the beginning of EVERYTHING occurred 13.7 billion years ago, just the part of the universe that we are capable of observing.
If anything, modern science points to physical matter/energy always existing, which, while not contradicting the idea of a “creator”, certainly renders such a creator as superfluous.
November 12th, 2006 at at 3:25 pm
Here’s the problem.
You suppose you have discovered order in the universe, and that that order must be the consequence of its having a designer. The order in the universe, however, is, of necessity, a consequence of the way the human mind imposes order, so it can understand. That doesn’t invalidate it, but we have to understand things in terms of time and space, and so our universe is temporal and spatial. To say that this order is the consequence of a designer is to selectively apply a line of reasoning that you have already neglected to apply in an area where it would clearly be more reasonable to do so. If I may illustrate:
1. In the beginning, God created the World. (establishes his authority)
2. In the End, God will judge you (reinforces his authority)
3. In the meantime, the Meaning of Life, for you, is obedience to Gods Law.
Now, if ever there was an instance of Form being dictated by Function, this is it!
Furthermore, if we understood things as our ancestors did, we would know that loyalty to this form of shamanistic government constituted treason.
November 12th, 2006 at at 3:34 pm
Dollar:
Nihilism is a philosophical position, often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche (though he considered it something to be overcome), which argues that the world, and especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a “true morality” is unknown, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action is known to be preferable to any other.[1]
This is the definition according to Wikipedia. This is NOT the opinion or worldview of most atheists. Most atheists know that meaning and morals, etc., are part of the person, not derived from some superior being. This is often the problem we encounter when debating theists. Many, though not all, think that without a god, everything is amoral chaos. If that were the case, I’d be on death row with all of my cohorts I assume. Since that is not the case, then I suppose I have morals.
I agree that arguing (angrily) and name calling does no one any good and cause the name caller to lose credibility. I have been guilty of that on occassion myself, although I try very hard not to. I have seen this happen on both sides of the debate. I agree with LBBP that it gets tiring watching so many people thank god for everything and anything when to us it is as realistic as thanking Santa Claus for the presents.
November 13th, 2006 at at 8:30 am
“Occam’s Razor applies here. What is the simpler explanation, that the universe always existed, or that this complex universe was created by an even MORE complex creator?”
Occam’s Razor is valid in some senses, but determining which is the more simple explanation is a matter uf subjectivity. Stating bluntly that the universe always existed (eternality is not a small matter) is extremely difficult to grasp and denies my basic understanding of causality (Hume notwithstanding). Though it may be difficult to prove, theists generally agree that a divine cause is a simpler explanation, in a manner of speaking. Truly Occam does not help us much here because what is “simpler” is too subjective.
“Premise 1. Matter and energy exist
Premise 2. We have never observed a violation of the law of conservation of energy ( the law which states that energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed)
Conclusion - since matter & energy exist, and cannot be created or destroyed, it has always existed.”
This argument is fine except for the seeming impossibility of the conclusion. If we set up a hypothetical world where God exists, then matter and energy CAN be created and destroyed. That is, within that worldview structure the conclusion is flase. Furthermore, within any worldview structure, it seems highly implausable that matter could have always existed. I really have trouble accepting that theory, though I also recognize that my sight / understanding is highly limited. But wouldn’t atheists have to admit the same - that is, limitations on being able to verify the possible eternality of matter. And if our faculaties are so limited in this regard, perhaps they could be limited in regard to the existence of a possible divine being as well.
“You suppose you have discovered order in the universe, and that that order must be the consequence of its having a designer.”
Intelligent Design is not why I am a Christian. Jesus convinced me to trust Him through His death, resurrection, and internally consistent and logical teaching. The Bible convinced me with its unity, historicity, and truthfulness. That said, ID is part of the big picture. But I do have trouble trying to convince myself that the order I observe is merely my imposing that order. Are we not all seeing the same things? Are we not all watching the universe rotate and orbit like a giant clock? Are we not all seeing the internal organ systems of the human body working in sync? Are we not all observing the same ecological systems? Are we not all watching bacteria swim with all of its various parts working together to make it go?
William Dembski’s book called The Design Inference is powerful in showing that experiments can scientifically (that is, starting with the fact in an unbiased since) show that a certain thing has features of design. Again, this is not why I am a Christian, but it does support the worldview.
“Most atheists know that meaning and morals, etc., are part of the person, not derived from some superior being. This is often the problem we encounter when debating theists. Many, though not all, think that without a god, everything is amoral chaos.”
Very good point. Theists very often build a straw-man out of atheistic morality. I suppose it is an honest attempt to show atheists the logical conclusion of subjective morality and ultimate meaninglessness in life, but again, point well taken. Atheists can be just as “good” as anyone, as far as caring for neighbors, loving families, and all the rest. I will do my very best not to build that straw-man, though I do admit it is hard to see how morals can be “real” in the sense of being grounded in something outside of one’s own opinion of what is right and wrong, or even society’s opinion. I really struggle with understanding how atheists can be “good” if within their own worldview there is no such thing as “good.” I think this is why theists use this argument so regularly.
November 13th, 2006 at at 12:32 pm
ALRIGHT, THAT’S IT. I’ve been reading quietly, and after the 3rd insult I have to speak up.
As the world’s foremost, and quite possibly only, member of the Greater Clausian church, this constant bashing of Santa Claus as a silly concept is deeply offensive. It is a well documented fact that Santa Claus exists, and is highly benevolent. Look at the reams of data in the form of books and movies. Look at the millions of believers (most under the age of 9).
So, watch it, or you’ll get small bottles of propane in your stockings for being naughty. (Coal, as we all know is no longer used as fuel in American homes.)
Now as for the question of belief and evidence. I’m filled with the Christmas spirit, and what more could you need as proof of the divinity of Santa Claus then Christmas spirit. The truth was revealed to me in the most holy text “Night before Christmas”, and all was right in the world.
Now stop fighting and be nice.
November 13th, 2006 at at 2:08 pm
Glintir:
November 13th, 2006 at at 5:36 pm
“Now as for the question of belief and evidence. I’m filled with the Christmas spirit, and
what more could you need as proof of the divinity of Santa Claus then Christmas spirit.
The truth was revealed to me in the most holy text “Night before Christmas”, and
all was right in the world.”
This was a very funny post and I appreciate the humor. But again, it is a flase analogy. Though I know some Christians state their own experience as the primary grounds for belief, they do not speak for me. I believe because Jesus Christ was an actual and historical person who came on the scene of history claiming to be God and substantiating that claim in many different ways. See this complete argument at http://www.arcapologetics.org/blog/2005/08/christocentric-apologetic.html.
The text of scripture has endured incredible scrutiny in order to be shown authentic and trustworthy. The Night Before Christmas is a relatively new document describing purely fanciful material. The Gospels on the other hand claim to be recording actual history with eyewitness and historical corroboration. The Bible has numbers of fulfilled prophecies, many of which are of an outstanding variety (Daniel’s predictions about Alexander the Great for example, not to mention Ps. 22 detailing how the Messiah would die). This document has shown itself reliable with internal consistency and no contradictions when interpreted in context and allowances are given for the normal usuage of language (numerical approximations, etc.)
In other words, you have created a false analogy between those who believe in Santa and those who believe in the truthfulness of the Bible. It was funny though. But funny doesn’t get us any closer to the truth. (I’m not saying don’t be funny, I like funny, but just making an important point).
November 13th, 2006 at at 6:35 pm
Dollar, you are assuming that the Book of Daniel was written before the events it purports to predict. Same with Ezekiel, Isaiah etcetera.
Plus, a lot of the Old Testament references in the Gospels are really just quote mining, because if you read the quoted verses in context, they are not applicable to Jesus at all. I hope to have a post about that on my blog in the near future.
November 13th, 2006 at at 7:56 pm
The text of scripture has endured incredible scrutiny in order to be shown authentic and trustworthy.
How do you account for all of the discrepancies between the stories in the gospels?
An angel
Matthew 28:2
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
A young man
Mark 16:5
And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
Two men
Luke 24:4
And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.
Two angels
John 20:12
And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
_________________________________________________________
Matthew 28:10
Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
Mark 16:7
But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
Luke 24:49
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
Acts 1:4
And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
These are but two examples. There are quite a few more. See: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm
That’s what gets me. Many Christians say that the bible is the word of god..If this is the case, then god is confused. If it is not the word of god, but the words of men, then the men are confused. It’s hard to trust a book that tells the same story in many different ways.
November 14th, 2006 at at 2:12 am
A lot of people yearn to make a spritual/trancendental connection with something that’s “out there.” This is common and normal, and I don’t have a problem with such people. It really pisses me off though when such people decided that since such experiences are valuable to them in their lives, that somehow I need it too, otherwisee I’m tragically broken.
I’ve been a believer, I’ve sought out spiritual experiences, and I don’t care to have others decide I’m incomplete just because I don’t want or need such things in my life.
November 14th, 2006 at at 3:08 am
I’ll assume, for the sake of logical discussion, that your response does not come from a presuppositional bias against predictive prophecy
What is your own conclusion on the issue?
November 14th, 2006 at at 7:24 pm
Well Roy, do you really think that Isaiah had a stenographer following him around Judea taking down everything he said and then hundreds of years later Hebrew priests read it and we’re like “Wow, look what Isaiah said 400 hundred years ago! It all came true!
No, it was more like Isaiah and the other OT prophets were fictional characters written as if they were trying to warn the Israelites in the past what would happen to them if they did not follow the commandments of God and such.
November 15th, 2006 at at 8:40 am
On the verses mentioned concerning the supposed resurrection conflicts, I have written a detailed analysis of this issue. http://www.reachtheweb.net/resurrectionreconciliation.htm. This article is not in the best format (I have not had time to work through it and get it looking pretty), but it shows clearly how and why the 4 Gospels accounts were given as they were. There are no discrepencies.
On the dating of Daniel. Of course, this is a tough issue I do not claim expertise in the area of dating ancient documents, but there is clear internal and external evidence that Daniel was a historical figure writing in the 6th century BC. Read this article for example, http://www.westminster.edu/staff/brennie/daniel.htm. Of course, this is hard to prove, but those who postulate a late date because of an anti-supernatural bias, have to twist a bit harder to make it late or to make Daniel out to be a pure fictional character (as Tommykey seems to indicate).
“Plus, a lot of the Old Testament references in the Gospels are really just quote mining, because if you read the quoted verses in context, they are not applicable to Jesus at all. I hope to have a post about that on my blog in the near future.”
This is a good point and I look forward to your post. I think that the Gospel writers took some liberties as far as their hermeneutic goes, but not so much that damages their credibility. Especially when the culture of the folks they were writing to initially is considered. I am thinking mostly of Matthew’s primarily Jewish audience, who would have been very familiar with the OT texts.
Also, I think one must take in the OVERALL message of OT prophecy as well, namely that a Branch would come out of Jessie, a Scepter out of Judah, a prophet like Moses, etc. In other words it is basically all about the coming Messiah.
November 15th, 2006 at at 8:54 am
Sorry, I posted an article above that supports the late date theory of Daniel (still a pretty fair article). I meant to post this one http://www.tektonics.org/guest/danielblast.html. This one is pretty lengthy, but provides a great deal of support for the early date view.
November 16th, 2006 at at 6:22 pm
Dollar:
I used only two quick examples to make a point. There are a lot of discrepancies to be found, and I won’t go into all of them. Admittedly I don’t know half of them. However, although your link makes sense in a lot of ways, it’s still difficult to fathom all of the different discrepancies. It just seems as though they all saw different things, although I know you’ll get different accounts of an incident from different witnesses. My point wass the number of discrepancies, not the individual ones I mentioned. As for the first example mentioned, Matthew saw THE angel of the Lord descended from heaven. You would think that if two angels had descended, he would have mentioned it, such as Luke does when he says TWO men stood by them in shining garments. I know this may be nitpicking, but this along with the others casts doubt over the entire text. Perhaps the second angel appeared separately and was not at first noticed. Who knows?
November 16th, 2006 at at 8:20 pm
“My point wass the number of discrepancies, not the individual ones I mentioned.”
And it is a good point. Only I would be more skeptical if they all agreed perfectly, since that is not the way humans work. We say things the way we see them and that will normally involve a different style and emphasis than others, even if we are truthfully describing the same event.
I think atheists would fair better arguing against the possibility of a dead man coming back to life as opposed to discrepancies in the text. Even though it is an important topic, it is clear that the case for discrepancies is weak at best.
November 16th, 2006 at at 9:57 pm
I’ve argued against the resurrection in other venues and other posts. And since we’re already off the topic of shoe commercials and thanking god for beating the other team, I’ll leave the resurrection issue alone.
November 17th, 2006 at at 12:06 am
Yeah, but Dollar, if the Gospels were 100% consistent about the resurrection, you know that some Christians would argue that as proof that the resurrection happened and that the Gospels were divinely inspired. True believers will always find a way to spin things to favor their viewpoint.
November 18th, 2006 at at 4:35 am
You cannot deny that there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth. You may even go as far as putting him on the cross, but when you get to the tomb the buck stops there. Were not the scriptures written by real men? If so, then what is it to their advantage to tell any of us about Jesus? How where they going to profit from their story especially in the midst of being persecuted? If there was no profit or benefit, they were obviously out of their mind. Jesus did not tell them to go evangelize the world until after He came out of the tomb which is where you got stuck. Only after the resurrection did Jesus tell them to wait in Jerusalem until they received the promise of the Holy Spirit, on that day, the Great Commision began. At the end of any of these discussions, it will always come back to the testimony of a witness, whether or not to believe the WORDS that were spoken. Jesus testified about being the WORD and the disciples were His witnesses. Its sad to think, but some people could believe in Beowulf quicker than Jesus of Nazereth.
November 21st, 2006 at at 10:28 pm
Actually Immanuel, for some 50 years after Jesus’ supposed death, no one wrote about him at all. Seems strange if he was such a wonderous figure don’t ya think?
November 22nd, 2006 at at 11:04 pm
Jesus’ supposed death…
Are you denying his death and existence?
November 23rd, 2006 at at 1:51 am
Actually Immanuel, for some 50 years after Jesus’ supposed death, no one wrote about him at all. Seems strange if he was such a wonderous figure don’t ya think?
Delta, it doesn’t seem strange to me because the disciples were still alive during those 50 years, why write, when they could still testify to what they had seen and heard. Wouldn’t you believe an eyewitness account before you would believe a written one? And don’t forget the signs and wonders following the preaching of the good news and not the reading of it, they would share about Jesus and then the sick would be healed, the dead raised, demonic set free from the laying on of hands or sometimes even the shadow of one of the disciples would bring about the miraculous. They didn’t have time to write, yet, because they were to busy performing the work of the kingdom of heaven.
November 28th, 2006 at at 10:55 am
Of course, if there were books written about the supposed Jesus during that 50 year stretch, then Immanuel would cite those as proof of his authenticity.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
Biblical folks get to have it both ways and nyah nyah on the rest of you.
November 28th, 2006 at at 1:09 pm
Funny then how some Jews considered Simon bar Kochba to be the Messiah when he won some initial victories against the Roman legions during the second Roman-Jewish war during the early second century. Guess Jesus did not make a strong enough impression on them.
November 28th, 2006 at at 10:59 pm
Of course, if there were books written about the supposed Jesus during that 50 year stretch, then Immanuel would cite those as proof of his authenticity.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
Biblical folks get to have it both ways and nyah nyah on the rest of you.
So, what is your explanation for the 50 year stretch? where did the apostles go? Are you denying that a man named ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ ever existed?
November 28th, 2006 at at 11:03 pm
Funny then how some Jews considered Simon bar Kochba to be the Messiah when he won some initial victories against the Roman legions during the second Roman-Jewish war during the early second century. Guess Jesus did not make a strong enough impression on them.
The Jews were and still are looking for the Messiah. Their idea of Messiah is the one who will become king to rule over them and deliver them from their enemies. They thought is was Jesus but it wasn’t time for his kingdom to be established. TommyKey, you are quite the history buff.
December 11th, 2006 at at 5:06 pm
I take issue with moral relativism–as an atheist and a general philosopher I honestly find the idea both repugnant, and an argument that contains immediate logical fallacy. I take this excerpt from a philosophy website; “For example, someone might think that abortion is wrong relative to his moral theory, and that all violent means are justified in order to prevent women from having abortions, including the killing of doctors and nurses who might participate in such matters. For a moral relativist, such a position is just as valid as thinking that abortion should be protected, and so no reason can be given to stop any such violent campaign against abortion. The obvious conclusion is that it would be a big mistake to think that moral relativism supports any kind of liberal moral outlook. Under relativism, any non-liberal or absurd position is just as valid as any other. ”
Aside from the fact that it allows you to commit THIS fallacy, moral relativism fails an even simpler test. By claiming an absolute–that there is no absolute right or absolute wrong, it fails as even a logical statement, as the statement ITSELF can be neither right nor wrong, and thusly fails the test of propositional logic. (I also fail to trust any theory where you can just write something off as “that’s entirely relative.”)
I really think you should perhaps reclassify your view is “Moral Contextualism,” also described later in the same article. Under this moniker, you state that there are instances where something that would normally be wrong, can in fact be right, given the proper circumstances. Moral relativism fails not to the lens of any religion, but from the very light of logic and reason itself.
There is increasing evidence from the scientific community that traits as altruism and fairness are a part of our genetic code, giving powerful force to the idea that there are in fact, moral absolutes. Across human societies, it is largely considered wrong to murder, to take what is not yours, etc. This is fundamental to being a human being; something does not have to come from a mystical being in order to be an absolute.
Matt S.
Biotech Major,
Philsophy Minor
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p17.htm
http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/value/relativism.php
July 29th, 2007 at at 7:35 pm
miroxadofojipicn…
nice post…
August 30th, 2007 at at 2:37 am
frahk…
I was thinking the same thing…