Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258490 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

xianity is EVIL

Wheatley, Canada

#175934 Aug 30, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>You are an idiot!
Mathematically proven debunked.
Violates the laws of science.
That position is not held in the mainstream.
youre PROJECTING
and
LYING
you must be kristain
xianity is EVIL

Wheatley, Canada

#175935 Aug 30, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
Ok QUANTUM BOB here goes your answer, on why you CAN"T PROVE there was no creator of the universe. You can't prove how The Universe was started. No one could. People have been working on this for many years. The Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory. Respected good guess, that triggered off many spin offs. Even ideas shared that there was a big bang but it was not the very beginning. Until you could prove the beginning you can't prove details of the beginning. And again, I know you can't do that period. How you did not pick out this was that I was leading to is beyond me.
you need to keep up with the times,bud

http://youtu.be/nZiROWO6iVs

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#175936 Aug 30, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, for...
I can extract a positive message from "Kilroy Was Here".
The difference between thee and me is, I don't give a toss whether you extract the same message.
And I'm certainly not going to attempt to alter your behaviour based on my vision.
You are clueless.
xianity is EVIL

Wheatley, Canada

#175937 Aug 30, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
No I don't. The fact you can't recognize it means you are out of luck. Or you are lying and seeking attention. Either way, have nothing to prove. Agnostics trying to teach or recruit gnostic is backwards and that is your goal. Spreading atheism is backwards.
au contraire

Several weeks ago, a ground-breaking study on religious belief and social well-being was published in the Journal of Religion & Society. Comparing 18 prosperous democracies from the U.S. to New Zealand, author Gregory S Paul quietly demolished the myth that faith strengthens society.

Drawing on a wide range of studies to cross-match faith – measured by belief in God and acceptance of evolution – with homicide and intimate behavior, Paul found that secular societies have lower rates of violence and teenage pregnancy than societies where many people profess belief in God.

Top of the class, in both atheism and good behavior, come the Japanese. Over eighty percent accept evolution and fewer than ten percent are certain that God exists. Despite its size – over a hundred million people – Japan is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world. It also has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy of any developed nation.

Next in line are the Norwegians, British, Germans and Dutch. At least sixty percent accept evolution as a fact and fewer than one in three are convinced that there is a deity. There is little teenage pregnancy , although the Brits, with over 40 pregnancies per 1,000 girls a year, do twice as badly as the others. Homicide rates are also low -- around 1-2 victims per 100,000 people a year.

At the other end of the scale comes America. Over 50 percent of Americans believe in God, and only 40 percent accept some form of evolution (many believe it had a helping hand from the Deity). The U.S. has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and homicide rates are at least five times greater than in Europe and ten times higher than in Japan.

All this information points to a strong correlation between faith and antisocial behavior -- a correlation so strong that there is good reason to suppose that religious belief does more harm than good.

At first glance that is a preposterous suggestion, given that religions preach non-violence and intimate restraint. However, close inspection reveals a different story.

All believers learn that God holds them responsible for their actions. So far so good, but for many, belief absolves them of all other responsibilities.
Consciously or subconsciously, those who are "born again" or "chosen" have diminished respect for others who do not share their sect or their faith. Convinced that only the Bible offers "truth", they lose their intellectual curiosity and their ability to reason. Their priority becomes not the world they live in but themselves.

The more people prioritize themselves rather than those around them, the weaker society becomes and the greater the likelihood of antisocial behavior.
Hence gun laws which encourage Americans to see each other not as fellow human beings who deserve protection, but as potential aggressors who deserve to die.

As for sex… Faith encourages ignorance rather than responsible behavior. In other countries, sex education includes contraception, reducing the risk of unwanted pregnancies. Such an approach recognizes that young people have the right to make their own choices and helps them make decisions that benefit society as a whole. In America faith-driven abstinence programs deny them that right -- "As a Christian I will only help you if you do what I say". The result is soaring rates of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

Abstinence programs rest on the same weak intellectual foundation as creationism and intelligent design. Faith discourages unprejudiced analysis.

i think this shatters the thinking that morality is lost when societies become secular.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#175939 Aug 30, 2013
xianity is EVIL wrote:
au contraire
Several weeks ago, a ground-breaking study on religious belief and social well-being was published in the Journal of Religion & Society. Comparing 18 prosperous democracies from the U.S. to New Zealand, author Gregory S Paul quietly demolished the myth that faith strengthens society.
http://www.americanhumanist.org/hnn/archives/...

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#175940 Aug 30, 2013
xianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
you need to keep up with the times,bud
http://youtu.be/nZiROWO6iVs
Enjoyable. It is a good THEORY. As stated in title.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#175941 Aug 30, 2013
xianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
au contraire
Several weeks ago, a ground-breaking study on religious belief and social well-being was published in the Journal of Religion & Society. Comparing 18 prosperous democracies from the U.S. to New Zealand, author Gregory S Paul quietly demolished the myth that faith strengthens society.
Drawing on a wide range of studies to cross-match faith – measured by belief in God and acceptance of evolution – with homicide and intimate behavior, Paul found that secular societies have lower rates of violence and teenage pregnancy than societies where many people profess belief in God.
Top of the class, in both atheism and good behavior, come the Japanese. Over eighty percent accept evolution and fewer than ten percent are certain that God exists. Despite its size – over a hundred million people – Japan is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world. It also has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy of any developed nation.
Next in line are the Norwegians, British, Germans and Dutch. At least sixty percent accept evolution as a fact and fewer than one in three are convinced that there is a deity. There is little teenage pregnancy , although the Brits, with over 40 pregnancies per 1,000 girls a year, do twice as badly as the others. Homicide rates are also low -- around 1-2 victims per 100,000 people a year.
At the other end of the scale comes America. Over 50 percent of Americans believe in God, and only 40 percent accept some form of evolution (many believe it had a helping hand from the Deity). The U.S. has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and homicide rates are at least five times greater than in Europe and ten times higher than in Japan.
All this information points to a strong correlation between faith and antisocial behavior -- a correlation so strong that there is good reason to suppose that religious belief does more harm than good.
At first glance that is a preposterous suggestion, given that religions preach non-violence and intimate restraint. However, close inspection reveals a different story.
All believers learn that God holds them responsible for their actions. So far so good, but for many, belief absolves them of all other responsibilities.
Consciously or subconsciously, those who are "born again" or "chosen" have diminished respect for others who do not share their sect or their faith. Convinced that only the Bible offers "truth", they lose their intellectual curiosity and their ability to reason. Their priority becomes not the world they live in but themselves.
The more people prioritize themselves rather than those around them, the weaker society becomes and the greater the likelihood of antisocial behavior.
Hence gun laws which encourage Americans to see each other not as fellow human beings who deserve protection, but as potential aggressors who deserve to die.
As for sex… Faith encourages ignorance rather than responsible behavior. In other countries, sex education includes contraception, reducing the risk of unwanted pregnancies. Such an approach recognizes that young people have the right to make their own choices and helps them make decisions that benefit society as a whole. In America faith-driven abstinence programs deny them that right -- "As a Christian I will only help you if you do what I say". The result is soaring rates of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.
Abstinence programs rest on the same weak intellectual foundation as creationism and intelligent design. Faith discourages unprejudiced analysis.
i think this shatters the thinking that morality is lost when societies become secular.
OK "YOU" die and ........ Bully for you. Misery loves company. You still can't prove anything.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#175942 Aug 30, 2013
xianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
au contraire
Several weeks ago, a ground-breaking study on religious belief and social well-being was published in the Journal of Religion & Society. Comparing 18 prosperous democracies from the U.S. to New Zealand, author Gregory S Paul quietly demolished the myth that faith strengthens society.
Drawing on a wide range of studies to cross-match faith – measured by belief in God and acceptance of evolution – with homicide and intimate behavior, Paul found that secular societies have lower rates of violence and teenage pregnancy than societies where many people profess belief in God.
Top of the class, in both atheism and good behavior, come the Japanese. Over eighty percent accept evolution and fewer than ten percent are certain that God exists. Despite its size – over a hundred million people – Japan is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world. It also has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy of any developed nation.
Next in line are the Norwegians, British, Germans and Dutch. At least sixty percent accept evolution as a fact and fewer than one in three are convinced that there is a deity. There is little teenage pregnancy , although the Brits, with over 40 pregnancies per 1,000 girls a year, do twice as badly as the others. Homicide rates are also low -- around 1-2 victims per 100,000 people a year.
At the other end of the scale comes America. Over 50 percent of Americans believe in God, and only 40 percent accept some form of evolution (many believe it had a helping hand from the Deity). The U.S. has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and homicide rates are at least five times greater than in Europe and ten times higher than in Japan.
All this information points to a strong correlation between faith and antisocial behavior -- a correlation so strong that there is good reason to suppose that religious belief does more harm than good.
At first glance that is a preposterous suggestion, given that religions preach non-violence and intimate restraint. However, close inspection reveals a different story.
All believers learn that God holds them responsible for their actions. So far so good, but for many, belief absolves them of all other responsibilities.
Consciously or subconsciously, those who are "born again" or "chosen" have diminished respect for others who do not share their sect or their faith. Convinced that only the Bible offers "truth", they lose their intellectual curiosity and their ability to reason. Their priority becomes not the world they live in but themselves.
The more people prioritize themselves rather than those around them, the weaker society becomes and the greater the likelihood of antisocial behavior.
Hence gun laws which encourage Americans to see each other not as fellow human beings who deserve protection, but as potential aggressors who deserve to die.
As for sex… Faith encourages ignorance rather than responsible behavior. In other countries, sex education includes contraception, reducing the risk of unwanted pregnancies. Such an approach recognizes that young people have the right to make their own choices and helps them make decisions that benefit society as a whole. In America faith-driven abstinence programs deny them that right -- "As a Christian I will only help you if you do what I say". The result is soaring rates of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.
Abstinence programs rest on the same weak intellectual foundation as creationism and intelligent design. Faith discourages unprejudiced analysis.
i think this shatters the thinking that morality is lost when societies become secular.
Good post and points.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#175944 Aug 30, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text> Good post and points.
It would be if it had anything to do with what it responded to. I hope he cut copy and pasted it.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#175945 Aug 30, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmm..
I guess you wouldn't believe my nine incher, either, huh?
OK, tell us about yours again. With more detail than before. If you don't have the details and the memories, then it was definitely a dream on your part.
Typical self esteem issues. Just keep trying to top one lie with a bigger one, next time it'll be a 12 incher....I wouldn't believe you if you told me it was a 5 incher.

Tell you about my what again? Penis???? I'm sure I haven't said anything about it since I don't sport one, Sparky;0)

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#175946 Aug 30, 2013
LCNlin wrote:
<quoted text>
Old theology "cherry picked" as usual,
rather than a defense of the atheist religion.
Science is silent on atheism,
Since there is no "religion" of atheism there is no defense. Yes, science is silent on atheism because atheism makes no claims. Science deals with the tangible world that we live in, that which can be observed, measured, quantified.

Science doesn't refute the unexplainable, it merely waits until possible explanations are available and tests them to see if they are constant. Since supernatural deities cannot be observed, science is silent on that subject as well.

Got it;0)

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#175947 Aug 30, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Regulated for the benefit of the slave/servant. If you believe the Bible supports or approves of slavery, abuse of slave then make your case.
I'm sorry, I always make the mistake of assuming the other knows the subject which they're defending. You apparently don't know the mitzvah regarding slavery. You apparently don't know of the historical uses of the Bible passages regarding Ham, a passage tailor-made for the task. You apparently don't know of the multiple passages throughout the Conquest in which some "God" is claimed to command the taking of slaves from those whom they're not commanded to slaughter.

Which is odd because it's the very pasages to which you're referring when you speak of "regulating". If you can speak of that, obviously slavery is covered in the Bible....

...and is not condemned.

And that is the totality of my point. The owning of another of God's creation - God's "image" - is not condemned. You can rationalize all you like about degrees of "benefit" of being owned by another man, with the Bible-sanctioned ability to punish, to use, to sell, to breed, to auction precious mate and offspring, and if you're careful to do it right, to kill, but it took humans to realize, and fight, against those arguing directly from the Bible, that owning another human as so much livestock is fundamentally wrong. The God of the Bible was of little help in that regard.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> More moralizing and God blaming. Just can't grasp the concept.
I think you're wrong. I think you're presuming what I'm saying through your own biases rather than doing the simple human courtesy of reading what I actually said. I don't see that I've "blamed God" for anything, anything at all. I release God from such hopeful foolishness. I don't expect God heals any more than it causes pain. That ain't what I said. I said that the book from which you operate is purely and empirically the work of man. No God, no God to "blame". Man.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Stop crying like a bitch. You select quoted from one of my posts and ignored others which would have added context. Like this.
Ouch. Such nastiness in this one, Obi-Wan. And he claims not to be frustrated. hmm...
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Slavery was universal and far more cruel and inhumane then the regulated slavery depicted in the Old Testament.
You're not clear here, but apparently you're making some kind of arbitrary distinction between slavery in one era versus another era? And you know this, how again? You have a time machine, I presume? You know what daily life was like for a slave in bronze-age Palestine? You're rationalizing yet again. "It wasn't so bad, coulda been worse, " is that it? Ooo-kay. That kind of argument fits neatly among those tacitly perpetuating the travesty of slavery for centuries after the "message from God".

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#175948 Aug 30, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Corporal punishment was a normal form of punishment in the ancient world. You are unbelievable hypocrites when you whine about slavery depicted in the Bible, besides that most are biblical illiterates. They don't know what they are talking about and really don't want to learn anything. God depicted in Scripture always works withing the system to bring about results. Including slavery. You have zero objective basis to condemn slavery and your problem is more the Bible than actual slavery. Slavery is just a means to rant at the Bible.
Again, I think you presume far more than was revealed in my little post. I've got no problem with the Bible, as a work of historical literature. I believe Isaiah is one of the most fascinating of ancient works, with it's playful use of acrostics and chiasms, not to mention the national longing revealed in the lovely song cycles, although it's sad how Christianity crassly sliced and diced them into shards of self-serving "prophecy". Ecclesiastes is a seminal work of existential philosophy and has always been a personal favorite. Song Of Solomon contains some of the most kinky images outside of The Penthouse Letters. You presume much when you say I hate the Bible., just as you also presume as to my knowledge thereof, without even doing me the courtesy of inquiring. I suspect I've read my Bible as much as any layman, certainly more than the vast majority of "Christians" I've run across, but I don't say that as a brag, merely because I find myself accused with no evidence. Such is the way in conversing with a defensive Christian, ain't it? That reckless attitude would have fit right in with the Court of Assizes in 1690 Salem.

In truth, you Completely missed my point. I don't care how "regulated" the crime of slavery was in the Bible. What I said was, it's alleged to be a Word direct from God. A Word Of God would surely demand man rise above his depravities, not concede and seek to "regulate" them.

Imagine a parent acting that way. For instance, a child is naturally selfish and hurtful. By this "God's" standard, we wouldn't hold them to a higher standard to think beyond themselves and learn compassion. We would accept it and merely seek to "regulate" their selfish and hurtful impulses. Wait, now I think about it, that's what many do. I guess they are God-like.

So, yes, I totally agree with you - the Bible does not specifically prescribe slavery. It merely accepts it, and "regulates" treating other humans as chattel. And it wasn't so bad. So I'm told.

I would just expect a Word from God to transcend human frailties and depravities, not "accept" and "regulate" them. But you may have a lower standard for "God". If that works for you, well, I'm sure that's good for you. I'm sure you're not as nasty and defensive in real life as you are here. Right? You "regulate" such behavior out in the world, I hope.

You know what, Mr. Biblical-Literate? There is, in fact, one place in the Bible in which slavery is quietly denounced. It's one of the less popular writings, so unless you've actually studies the Bible, most folks ain't even aware of it's message. It is very subtle and nuanced, perhaps too much so, since even among the few that do know of it very often misunderstand it. The writer knows, just as you say, that it is socially revolutionary for the times, and so is very careful with his words, almost Socratic, in helping his audience to see it for himself, rather than have it dictated. The funny thing is, I've seen this Biblical slavery debate play out dozens of times in these forums, and >>not once<< have I seen one of you "Biblically-literate ", Biblical-slavery defenders bring it up. Even tho' it would be your strongest argument, not once have I seen it used. Now, ain't dat a hoot?

Peace in the light of knowledge and truth.
HipGnosis

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#175949 Aug 30, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, I always make the mistake of assuming the other knows the subject which they're defending. You apparently don't know the mitzvah regarding slavery. You apparently don't know of the historical uses of the Bible passages regarding Ham, a passage tailor-made for the task. You apparently don't know of the multiple passages throughout the Conquest in which some "God" is claimed to command the taking of slaves from those whom they're not commanded to slaughter.
Which is odd because it's the very pasages to which you're referring when you speak of "regulating". If you can speak of that, obviously slavery is covered in the Bible....
...and is not condemned.
And that is the totality of my point. The owning of another of God's creation - God's "image" - is not condemned. You can rationalize all you like about degrees of "benefit" of being owned by another man, with the Bible-sanctioned ability to punish, to use, to sell, to breed, to auction precious mate and offspring, and if you're careful to do it right, to kill, but it took humans to realize, and fight, against those arguing directly from the Bible, that owning another human as so much livestock is fundamentally wrong. The God of the Bible was of little help in that regard.
<quoted text>
I think you're wrong. I think you're presuming what I'm saying through your own biases rather than doing the simple human courtesy of reading what I actually said. I don't see that I've "blamed God" for anything, anything at all. I release God from such hopeful foolishness. I don't expect God heals any more than it causes pain. That ain't what I said. I said that the book from which you operate is purely and empirically the work of man. No God, no God to "blame". Man.
<quoted text>
Ouch. Such nastiness in this one, Obi-Wan. And he claims not to be frustrated. hmm...
<quoted text>You're not clear here, but apparently you're making some kind of arbitrary distinction between slavery in one era versus another era? And you know this, how again? You have a time machine, I presume? You know what daily life was like for a slave in bronze-age Palestine? You're rationalizing yet again. "It wasn't so bad, coulda been worse, " is that it? Ooo-kay. That kind of argument fits neatly among those tacitly perpetuating the travesty of slavery for centuries after the "message from God".
Hats off to you, sir! Well said.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#175951 Aug 30, 2013
xianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
youre PROJECTING
and
LYING
you must be kristain
I noticed you didn't claim my argument was wrong.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#175952 Aug 30, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text> Again, I think you presume far more than was revealed in my little post. I've got no problem with the Bible, as a work of historical literature. I believe Isaiah is one of the most fascinating of ancient works, with it's playful use of acrostics and chiasms, not to mention the national longing revealed in the lovely song cycles, although it's sad how Christianity crassly sliced and diced them into shards of self-serving "prophecy". Ecclesiastes is a seminal work of existential philosophy and has always been a personal favorite. Song Of Solomon contains some of the most kinky images outside of The Penthouse Letters. You presume much when you say I hate the Bible., just as you also presume as to my knowledge thereof, without even doing me the courtesy of inquiring. I suspect I've read my Bible as much as any layman, certainly more than the vast majority of "Christians" I've run across, but I don't say that as a brag, merely because I find myself accused with no evidence. Such is the way in conversing with a defensive Christian, ain't it? That reckless attitude would have fit right in with the Court of Assizes in 1690 Salem.
In truth, you Completely missed my point. I don't care how "regulated" the crime of slavery was in the Bible. What I said was, it's alleged to be a Word direct from God. A Word Of God would surely demand man rise above his depravities, not concede and seek to "regulate" them.
Imagine a parent acting that way. For instance, a child is naturally selfish and hurtful. By this "God's" standard, we wouldn't hold them to a higher standard to think beyond themselves and learn compassion. We would accept it and merely seek to "regulate" their selfish and hurtful impulses. Wait, now I think about it, that's what many do. I guess they are God-like.
So, yes, I totally agree with you - the Bible does not specifically prescribe slavery. It merely accepts it, and "regulates" treating other humans as chattel. And it wasn't so bad. So I'm told.
I would just expect a Word from God to transcend human frailties and depravities, not "accept" and "regulate" them. But you may have a lower standard for "God". If that works for you, well, I'm sure that's good for you. I'm sure you're not as nasty and defensive in real life as you are here. Right? You "regulate" such behavior out in the world, I hope.
You know what, Mr. Biblical-Literate? There is, in fact, one place in the Bible in which slavery is quietly denounced. It's one of the less popular writings, so unless you've actually studies the Bible, most folks ain't even aware of it's message. It is very subtle and nuanced, perhaps too much so, since even among the few that do know of it very often misunderstand it. The writer knows, just as you say, that it is socially revolutionary for the times, and so is very careful with his words, almost Socratic, in helping his audience to see it for himself, rather than have it dictated. The funny thing is, I've seen this Biblical slavery debate play out dozens of times in these forums, and >>not once<< have I seen one of you "Biblically-literate ", Biblical-slavery defenders bring it up. Even tho' it would be your strongest argument, not once have I seen it used. Now, ain't dat a hoot?
Peace in the light of knowledge and truth.
HipGnosis
Excellent, Hip.

So well put.

Ain't that a pip?

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#175954 Aug 30, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent, Hip.
So well put.
Ain't that a pip?
Well it comes from a New England Ivy League education.

No I didn't.

Prove it.

That cycle was probably my favorite.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#175955 Aug 31, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
I noticed you didn't claim my argument was wrong.
What argument? You didnt present any evidence. No creationist liar ever does.

Go on, insult dawkins to make yourself feel better troll.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#175956 Aug 31, 2013
HipGnosis wrote:
I think you're wrong. I think you're presuming what I'm saying through your own biases rather than doing the simple human courtesy of reading what I actually said.
Lets assume you are correct and i did not read what you actually said. My whole point was you pulled out a particular quote and ignored everything else. You made all sorts of ignorant condescending assumptions. Do you expect others to read what you actually said and then exempt yourself from that same standard? Obviously you do.
I don't see that I've "blamed God" for anything, anything at all.
The overall tone of your post is contempt for God. You don't blame God for anything? With statements like this.

Could there be a more horrid example of the injustice of your God's apparent lassitude?
It is easy to see you are in denial.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#175957 Aug 31, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>In real life you will see them sitting in the coffee shop deep in conversation with themselves, sometimes in a very animate manner. That is why they are usually very alone, as others tend to sit at least a table or two away. They do that at bus stops, parks, and other places, too.
If you two are going to keep striking each other, would you at least have the decency to get a room.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Earl 1,508,829
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 17 min silly rabbit 313,658
News Buzzer-beating shot lifts Florida over Wisconsi... 11 hr BuzzerPhartss 2
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Fri AllPhartx 32,818
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite (Sep '16) Mar 16 MakePhartce 105
News North Carolina Governor Who Signed Bathroom Bil... Mar 15 Bath phart 2
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Mar 14 Into The Night 11,123
More from around the web