UnderGround Forums
 

UnderGround Forums >> How many fighters are athiest?


1/15/13 3:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Porkchop
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/26/07
Posts: 8327
DiscipleDojo - 

I belive Nate has said that while he was raised in a strict Jehovah's Witness family, he rejects those beliefs and has become somewhat agnostic since.  I know many people who use "agnostic" to mean less than the technical definition of the term. Usually something like "I think there's probably a God, or higher supreme power, but I don't believe any religions are correct in defining him/her/it" etc.

I could be wrong, but I feel like I read something along these lines in an interview he did a few years back.

 


I think you mean a deist. Agnositcs sit on the fence and say that since a god can't be dis-proven that they refuse to take a side in the argument.

Any self described "agnostic" who says that they believe in a god but not one of the major religions of today is simply confused as to the meaning of the word.

Agnostics are fence sitters.

But now that you mention it, I think I remember something about Nate being a Jehovah's witness too. I've been wrong already about him in this thread though so I should shut up about his faith/former faith lol.
1/15/13 4:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
donkypunch55
205 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/20/09
Posts: 4066
Porkchop -
Auron Heidenrach - 
Porkchop - 
TheBoognish - 
Nate 'Rock' Quarry - I'm an agnostic. Just for fun I really enjoy googling proof that the Bible was true and proof that the Bible was false. It's entertaining.


No more green name? Should still have it even tho you're retired IMO.

As for the thread, we won't know who's atheist because they're not gonna shove their beliefs down your throat every chance they get. We know you believe in god Benson, anything else you'd like to talk about sometime? Phone Post



That's not Nate Quarry. Nate Quarry is actually very religious.

It is Nate. I remember on Nate's old Myspace page, it said he's Agnostic. It's him.

I'm very confident in this.

I haven't asked him personally but on facebook he talks about god quite a bit.

I don't know any agnostics that talk about any gods the way I've seen him talk about it.

I can't speak for him though. I can just say what I've seen. Apparently you have seen the opposite so I guess we cancel each other out.

Edit - I'm wrong on this. I looked up Nate's account on the UG and found a thread where his name is still green and it has the same join date and a few less posts.

My bad Nate. I honestly thought I heard you talking about religion and how you were religious. My memory failed me. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/news/378779/Nate-Quarry-thanks-UG-for-new-MMA-talk-show-role/

^ Proof that this is Nate's account.
For all of you religious folk out there, I want you to look closely at what porkchop did here because it has some bearing on the thinking displayed by the rational.
He had an opinion. He THOUGHT he was locked in to this opinion. However, evidence that ran contrary to his original stance was unveiled. Upon examining this new evidence he changed his mind.
This is a very scientific approach to handling a situation. Much like 1,000 yrs ago accepting the premise that earth was only 5-6 K yrs old but once the proof of carbon dating (or countless other methods and discoveries) showed this to in fact be false the logical and scientific among us adjusted our opinion based on new evidence. The people on this board who claim to be logical, science loving Christians are contradictory at best and straight lying at the worst. I think the devout are using the word "logical" in place of "smart". They feel they are intelligent people and believe that intelligence = logical. Obviously this is not so. You can be intelligent yet refuse (consciously) to apply logic. It doesn't mean you fellas are dumb but stop claiming logical. That word is reserved for those of us willing to adjust an opinion based on new information.
The religious have shown they are unwilling to do this. Phone Post
1/15/13 5:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DiscipleDojo
647 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/1/11
Posts: 2336
Disciple Dojo, L3C, Founder

Porkchop,

Religious convictions aside, I think we can all agree that the REAL error is the fact that you haven't seen the Princess Bride since you were a kid.

C'mon man...that's a cinema classic!  

;)

 

But to your point, I think it's ignorant (and I'm using that in the technical sense, not as an insult) to claim that rational minds (even by your definition of the term) do not or cannot hold to religious worldviews. You simply CANNOT read the works of people like Alister McGrath, Henry Schafer, Francis Collins, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton or Alvin Plantinga and come to the conclusion that they are "irrational" or "unscientific" (remember, Collins is the guy who oversaw the entire human genome mapping...by geneticists from all over the WORLD!).

At least, you can't claim such people are "irrational", "illogical" or any other similar charges while maintaining any degree of intellectual honesty and credibility. You can say they are wrong or are in error, but an honest thinker who's well-versed in areas of philosophy of religion or philosophy of science, etc., would never make the claim that religious conclusions are all on the same level and all irrational and based on lack of evidence.  Many who've taken a semester of philosophy or who've read the various New Atheist's manifestos make such claims regularly. But they are also taken to task by their fellow skeptics for sloppy thinking, it's worth noting. 

 

Now go rewatch Princess Bride to atone for your shameful neglect of all things Andre the Giant related.  ;)

1/15/13 5:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DiscipleDojo
647 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/1/11
Posts: 2337
Disciple Dojo, L3C, Founder

donkypunch55,

Your post is similarly showing a basic ignorance of the role religious believers have played within the area of science itself. Remember, it was people like Lyell, Mendel, Maxwell and other scientists who were openly theistic who made the very discoveries you're talking about.

Most people, skeptics and religious alike, are unaware of these facts. That's why I teach an entire seminar on the subject (which I'd encourage people who are passionate about debating religion/science in any measure to watch).

Implying there is some sort of conflict between the two fields of thought simply shows a lack of familiarity with basic facts of history, religion and science itself.

1/15/13 6:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Outlaw'd by Lytle
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/14/11
Posts: 6500
DiscipleDojo -

donkypunch55,

Your post is similarly showing a basic ignorance of the role religious believers have played within the area of science itself. Remember, it was people like Lyell, Mendel, Maxwell and other scientists who were openly theistic who made the very discoveries you're talking about.

Most people, skeptics and religious alike, are unaware of these facts. That's why I teach an entire seminar on the subject (which I'd encourage people who are passionate about debating religion/science in any measure to watch).

Implying there is some sort of conflict between the two fields of thought simply shows a lack of familiarity with basic facts of history, religion and science itself.

People mainly have an issue with religious folk preaching religion as a fact. Whether they have an interest in Science as well is largely irrelevant. Phone Post
1/15/13 6:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Porkchop
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/26/07
Posts: 8330
DiscipleDojo - 

Porkchop,

Religious convictions aside, I think we can all agree that the REAL error is the fact that you haven't seen the Princess Bride since you were a kid.

C'mon man...that's a cinema classic!  

;)

 

But to your point, I think it's ignorant (and I'm using that in the technical sense, not as an insult) to claim that rational minds (even by your definition of the term) do not or cannot hold to religious worldviews. You simply CANNOT read the works of people like Alister McGrath, Henry Schafer, Francis Collins, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton or Alvin Plantinga and come to the conclusion that they are "irrational" or "unscientific" (remember, Collins is the guy who oversaw the entire human genome mapping...by geneticists from all over the WORLD!).

At least, you can't claim such people are "irrational", "illogical" or any other similar charges while maintaining any degree of intellectual honesty and credibility. You can say they are wrong or are in error, but an honest thinker who's well-versed in areas of philosophy of religion or philosophy of science, etc., would never make the claim that religious conclusions are all on the same level and all irrational and based on lack of evidence.  Many who've taken a semester of philosophy or who've read the various New Atheist's manifestos make such claims regularly. But they are also taken to task by their fellow skeptics for sloppy thinking, it's worth noting. 

 

Now go rewatch Princess Bride to atone for your shameful neglect of all things Andre the Giant related.  ;)


haha I may have to watch it even though I tend to avoid anything that has the term "princess" in the name. Your recommendation may be enough to get me to give it another chance...

As for those people you named, those are some very intelligent people who are well versed in their respective fields.

I can't say that everyone who has ever believed in religion is a total write off. People believe for different reasons. Some people believe because religion helps them deal with the pain of some great tragedy in their life, some people believe because they think that it is better to be safe than sorry, some people believe because they were brought up that way and the fear of hell is too much to shake after a youth of indoctrination, some people believe because they need an answer to the origin of the universe and religion provides them with a theory that satisfies them, and some believe it word for word because they honestly believe that it makes the most sense when compared to the discoveries of science.

I would argue that most people believe for reasons like the first four reasons, and that fewer believe because of the last one I mentioned. Since they are not believing in the last way that I mentioned, it is fair to assume that they would have to reconcile their faith with science in different ways (likely conceding certain scientific truths) (Now, I just riffed off a few reasons why people might believe and didn't really try to look under every stone for reasons why someone might believe - those reasons are just a few that I might add to if I gave it more time of deliberation.)

Of those reasons that I listed, I'd argue that the only reason that is a good reason, is the last reason. It also, however, seems to me to be the reason that implies the weakest faculties for critical and logical thinking. The reasons before that are instances where a non-believer could understand a person's belief while not necessarily agreeing with it. The last reason, in my opinion, is cause to question the person's mental capacity.

Some brilliant people have believed in religion over the years, without a doubt. Some people who had an appreciation for both science and religion. While it is nice to see that some religious people are able to appreciate the beautiful truths of science and the scientific spirit of/thirst for discovery, it is always different from person to person where they draw the line between science and faith. I almost respect the hard line religious people more for having more conviction in their beliefs that the bible is the word of god to be followed at all times (while simultaneously finding them to be totally deluded). The people who trade some parts of their religion to reconcile with inescapable truths make me wonder why they cling to any of the remaining beliefs at all. What's the point of believing any of it when you already know that a lot of it isn't worth believing?

I am forever in debt to Francis Collins for putting the religious debate aside to pay special attention to one of the greatest champions of the atheist perspective, Christopher Hitchens. He gave Hitch priority in health care and even though they had VASTLY different views on religion, they had, as Hitch described it "an armed truce" and he may have bought Hitch some time with which he could continue to write. I just finished reading "Mortality" by Hitch and he talks a lot about the treatments he was receiving and he wrote much of that book in a hospital bed. Those writings will forever have an impact on me and I should assume to owe some gratitude to Collins that we got to spend some more time with Hitch. How much of an impact he had, it's hard to say because as Hitch describes in the book, he was at a more advanced stage of his cancer than many of the cutting edge treatments could help with. He mentioned that he wished to give his body to Collins in the hope that, if he couldn't be saved himself, he could at least benefit patients after him by being a glorified lab rat. So who helped who more may be up for debate but I still respect Collins none-the-less for that work.

There is also a level of intelligence that is required, or at least ability to reason and think critically, that is required for the kind of work Dr. Collins is involved in. He is on the cutting edge of genetic research and it must be incredibly exciting to be so close to so many wonderful discoveries in that field.

Having said all that (in an effort to display my respect for his work and aptitude for it) there is something to be said about a person who admits to believing in a talking snake in the garden of eden that can't be overlooked. I study Biotechnology and have a thorough appreciation for the work he does, but the fact that I know a number of people who have strange theories outside of this area of study but continue to do well in school, leads me to believe that he may be a similar type of individual. He may be one of the best geneticists in the world but as we all know, being good at something doesn't mean you are good at everything. Being able to sequence the genetic code at work, then going home to believe in a talking snake when you know full well that snakes don't have the capacity to communicate verbally, makes me question how in the hell one could reconcile these beliefs. The inner conflict must be unbearable. I don't know if I could ever understand just how a person can have that sort of mental makeup.

In reality, people at the cutting edge of scientific discovery are almost exclusively non-believers. There will always be some out there who make an effort to reconcile both the world of science and the beliefs of religion, but they are few and far between.

The people you mentioned are capable and bright people of different backgrounds, but the thing that they all have in common is that they reconcile their faith in different ways by conceding certain things in their faith can't be true.

And I question at that point - What's the point of believing any of it if you can't believe all of it?
1/15/13 6:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Porkchop
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/26/07
Posts: 8331
It is also worth noting that in the years when science was emerging, many scientists emerged from the churches because the churches had the funds to make studies possible. So some of them may be associated with religious beliefs that they didn't necessarily have. At the same time, it is important to appreciate these progressive churches for aiding in the progression of human knowledge and scientific fact. Odd that a church would invest in such scientific studies, but it's true and we owe those churches appreciation for their contributions to science.
1/15/13 7:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
donkypunch55
205 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/20/09
Posts: 4070
Outlaw'd by Lytle -
DiscipleDojo -

donkypunch55,

Your post is similarly showing a basic ignorance of the role religious believers have played within the area of science itself. Remember, it was people like Lyell, Mendel, Maxwell and other scientists who were openly theistic who made the very discoveries you're talking about.

Most people, skeptics and religious alike, are unaware of these facts. That's why I teach an entire seminar on the subject (which I'd encourage people who are passionate about debating religion/science in any measure to watch).

Implying there is some sort of conflict between the two fields of thought simply shows a lack of familiarity with basic facts of history, religion and science itself.

People mainly have an issue with religious folk preaching religion as a fact. Whether they have an interest in Science as well is largely irrelevant. Phone Post
Thank you Outlaw'd, I couldn't have said it better.

I feel that DD is perhaps unable to separate "intelligent" from "logical".
All of the people you mentioned are very intelligent. Many of them are (usually) incredibly logical. To believe in something that is not provable and runs contrary to Ockams Razor is NOT Logical or rational and has no place in science.
What you have done DD is compile a list of usually rational people who hold some irrational beliefs, nothing more. Phone Post
1/15/13 7:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
donkypunch55
205 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/20/09
Posts: 4071
And what does the roll of religious scientists in science have to do with whether or not religion holds up under scientific scrutiny?
My buddy's dad is a GM mechanic yet he drives a ford. Does his belief that fords are better forbid him from tuning up a Chevy? Phone Post
1/15/13 7:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Joe_Drogan420
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/31/11
Posts: 1639
None.
Ever heard the saying "There's no atheists in the foxhole?"

Same thing applies to the octagon.
1/15/13 8:04 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
samcarr6
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/12/11
Posts: 582
Joe_Drogan420 - None.
Ever heard the saying "There's no atheists in the foxhole?"

Same thing applies to the octagon.
And because its a saying then it must be true...... Phone Post
1/15/13 8:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Outlaw'd by Lytle
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/14/11
Posts: 6502
donkypunch55 -
Outlaw'd by Lytle -
DiscipleDojo -

donkypunch55,

Your post is similarly showing a basic ignorance of the role religious believers have played within the area of science itself. Remember, it was people like Lyell, Mendel, Maxwell and other scientists who were openly theistic who made the very discoveries you're talking about.

Most people, skeptics and religious alike, are unaware of these facts. That's why I teach an entire seminar on the subject (which I'd encourage people who are passionate about debating religion/science in any measure to watch).

Implying there is some sort of conflict between the two fields of thought simply shows a lack of familiarity with basic facts of history, religion and science itself.

People mainly have an issue with religious folk preaching religion as a fact. Whether they have an interest in Science as well is largely irrelevant. Phone Post
Thank you Outlaw'd, I couldn't have said it better.

I feel that DD is perhaps unable to separate "intelligent" from "logical".
All of the people you mentioned are very intelligent. Many of them are (usually) incredibly logical. To believe in something that is not provable and runs contrary to Ockams Razor is NOT Logical or rational and has no place in science.
What you have done DD is compile a list of usually rational people who hold some irrational beliefs, nothing more. Phone Post
Plus, lots of early Scientists had to publicly state they were religious for fear of being branded a heretic. Their true beliefs were often buried to avoid the horrific repercussions.

Nowadays that issue is virtually non existent so finding a 'credible' truly religious Scientist is quite rare.

When you consider Scientists tend to deal with logic and known facts, Religious beliefs are simply incompatible.

I must stress I have no issue with people believing what they want. Just don't humiliate yourself by stating God exists as a fact. Phone Post
1/15/13 8:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
samcarr6
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/12/11
Posts: 583
DiscipleDojo -

I would agree that no baby is born with belief in any particular God/gods. But I believe everyone is born with an innate sense of the concept of the divine and/or supernatural. There's a near-universal longing on the part of humanity for connection with a higher power.

The skeptic of course attributes this to either an evolutionary phenomenon (such as Dawkins' concept of "Memes"), or primeval cultural/anthropological influences that originated in fear or attempt to control and have remained throughout human development over time.

Religious believers attribute it to various asepcts of God/god/gods interaction with humanity on a deeper spiritual level (for instance, the Judeo-Christian traditions see it as the natural and expected effect of the concept of humanity bearing the Imago Dei--the "image of God" as taught throughout the Old and New Testaments).

Both groups can make rational and, to various degrees, plausible arguments to support their position. Anyone who glibly dismisses either approach out of hand or for a rhetorical "score" in debates or for sound-bytes to sell books is showing they are either disingenuous or ignorant of the opposing view/s, IMO.

 

I think a lot of people do have a desire to feel safe and to want to feel content that they understand the universe and this can lead people, without anyone's influence, to belief in a higher power.
You may or may not be right about the 'feeling',or however you put it, people might have that leads them to belief in a higher intelligence, but trying to argue either way seems futile.
But what I will say is that if you bring up a million people from birth, independent of any religious influence, I would bet my life that not one of them would come close to the definition of a Christian, or any other major world religion. Phone Post
1/15/13 8:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
donkypunch55
205 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/20/09
Posts: 4072
i just voted you up Outlaw'd for the simple sentence:

"I must stress I have no issue with people believing what they want. Just don't humiliate yourself by stating God exists as a fact"

again you've used very few words to say quite a bit.

not my strong suit..... :)
1/15/13 8:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
donkypunch55
205 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/20/09
Posts: 4073
you too porkchop for absolutly bringing it in this thread.
1/15/13 10:09 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Porkchop
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/26/07
Posts: 8332
donkypunch55 - you too porkchop for absolutly bringing it in this thread.

cheers brother. This is an issue that I can't resist commenting on.
1/15/13 10:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Harmonica
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/11
Posts: 255
Joe_Drogan420 - None.
Ever heard the saying "There's no atheists in the foxhole?"

Same thing applies to the octagon.
Gtfoohwtbs Phone Post
1/16/13 12:00 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
bob hir
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 2078
Porkchop - It is also worth noting that in the years when science was emerging, many scientists emerged from the churches because the churches had the funds to make studies possible. So some of them may be associated with religious beliefs that they didn't necessarily have. At the same time, it is important to appreciate these progressive churches for aiding in the progression of human knowledge and scientific fact. Odd that a church would invest in such scientific studies, but it's true and we owe those churches appreciation for their contributions to science.

Galelio might have argued that science as he saw it didn't exactly get him a fair shake from the church (but one would had to have gone to his house to speak with him, because he spent a fair portion of his remaining time on earth under house arrest for heresy).

2 of the 4 proposed reasons that the Library of Alexandria was burned to the ground also have roots in organized religions (2 different religions, but monothestic religions regardless).

lotta good, lotta bad, depends on how you look at things I guess

1/16/13 12:18 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
scaredy cat
52 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 406
Joe_Drogan420 - None.
Ever heard the saying "There's no atheists in the foxhole?"

Same thing applies to the octagon.

Hmm.... http://militaryatheists.org/

1/16/13 12:18 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ayk07
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/23/11
Posts: 54
Jimmy Rustler -
UGSlapshot - 
Jimmy Rustler -

Frank Mir is an atheist and he is teaching that crap to his kids too who are gonna grow up without God in their life... kinda sad situation

At least he's not pumping them full of bullshit.

Fucking Christians might not be the most nutty of the fruitcakes but they are definitely in the running for most arrogant and least intellectual. Phone Post

Albert Einstein believed in God, so there goes your argument, retard.

Einstein would get out of is grave and slap you silly for saying he is religious.

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. Phone Post
1/16/13 12:55 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Porkchop
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/26/07
Posts: 8333
bob hir - 
Porkchop - It is also worth noting that in the years when science was emerging, many scientists emerged from the churches because the churches had the funds to make studies possible. So some of them may be associated with religious beliefs that they didn't necessarily have. At the same time, it is important to appreciate these progressive churches for aiding in the progression of human knowledge and scientific fact. Odd that a church would invest in such scientific studies, but it's true and we owe those churches appreciation for their contributions to science.

Galelio might have argued that science as he saw it didn't exactly get him a fair shake from the church (but one would had to have gone to his house to speak with him, because he spent a fair portion of his remaining time on earth under house arrest for heresy).

2 of the 4 proposed reasons that the Library of Alexandria was burned to the ground also have roots in organized religions (2 different religions, but monothestic religions regardless).

lotta good, lotta bad, depends on how you look at things I guess


you are absolutely correct about all of that.

Looking back at the Library of Alexandria it's devastating knowing what the human race lost..... It honestly depresses me so much to think about it.

And poor Galelio got the raw deal too.

Believe me, I could go on about that stuff. I agree 100%
1/16/13 3:48 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Outlaw'd by Lytle
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/14/11
Posts: 6503
donkypunch55 - you too porkchop for absolutly bringing it in this thread.
Thank you sir, will return the compliment when next at a PC. Phone Post
1/16/13 4:11 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
andrewtregoning
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/22/11
Posts: 31
great thread!
1/16/13 6:52 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Outlaw'd by Lytle
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/14/11
Posts: 6504
Outlaw'd by Lytle -
donkypunch55 - you too porkchop for absolutly bringing it in this thread.
Thank you sir, will return the compliment when next at a PC. Phone Post
Quoted the wrong post! Phone Post
1/16/13 7:26 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
6ULDV8
82 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 14202

This is a pretty cool thread.  I find the existence of a benevelont God difficult to believe and honestly don't think any religion is 'correct'.

 

But whatever floats your boat.  I have no problem with that as long as you're not hurting anyone else or shoving your faith (or lack thereof) down anyone's throat.

 

I was blessed by John Paul II when I was 15 just because I had the chance to do so.  It was awesome and he seemed like a really great man.  I'm not catholic, but didn't want to pass up that chance.

 

Rock on dudes.  Gobless us every one.


Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.