Comments by AtheistAspy

Comment #151988 by AtheistAspy on March 29, 2008 at 9:54 pm

That's all well and good, but this story is getting old fast. Me thinks this is a case of megalomania run amuck.

Comment #149397 by AtheistAspy on March 25, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Bonzai

Nietzsche said it best, we have art so that we don't die of the truth.

That's interesting. My psychology textbook claims some self-delusion is necessary for personal happiness. In fact, a study was done showing that clinically depressed people made more accurate predictions of a football game's outcome than happy people. I remember reading it at Skeptic.com.

Steve Zara

Religion surely does make many people happier than they would otherwise be. I guess what matters is the trade-off between that and the harm it can certainly do. Just to give one example - the belief shared by a large proportion of the population of the United States that this world is temporary and Jesus will be returning soon may provide huge comfort, but it also encourages a lack of concern for the state of the world, which is a dangerous situation in the only remaining superpower and a major polluter. Religion affects votes.

I'm actually very skeptical of that. It sounds like an atheist strawman to say that believers don't care about tomorrow. Theists only seek comfort in an afterlife when death is close at hand. Usually, they do in fact plan for tomorrow, but heavily compartmentalize their beliefs.

justanotheratheist

I would love to believe that one day I will be reunited with loved ones who have passed away. Really, I would. Nothing would make me happier. However, the firm belief that it will never happen means I waste no time thinking about it and get on with the business of enjoying life without superstitious bullshit.

Wanting to believe something is not the same as wanting it to be true. I'd like to have a $1,000,000 in savings, but I don't want to believe that unless it really is true.

53. Evolution Of New Species Slows Down As Number Of Competitors Increases

Comment #149385 by AtheistAspy on March 25, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Maybe this is the reason for the Cambrian explosion (there were niches before then).

54. The science of religion: Where angels no longer fear to tread

Comment #148992 by AtheistAspy on March 24, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Evolutionary biologists tend to be atheists

Notice how biologists are always referred to as "evolutionary biologists" when religious claims are being investigated? Don't biologists in general tend to be atheists? Why call them "evolutionary biologists" if not for the sake of dissociating biologists in general from any criticism of religious claims?

Bonzai:

"Truth" is *meaningful* only to intentional agents that can ascribe and grasp meanings, if "truth" says intention is an illusion, meanings will become void as well, in that event "truth" would mean nothing.

You should look into the deflationary theory of truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflationary_theory_of_truth

Not to say I agree with it necessarily.

55. Sci-fi guru Clarke to have secular funeral

Comment #148309 by AtheistAspy on March 22, 2008 at 3:50 pm

I'd like to die by physician-assisted suicide when I'm old and already close to death. I'd also like to have friends and family there when it happens (I don't want to die alone). I'll probably donate my body, though I'm not sure how much good they can do with a shriveled old corpse. Maybe if I died young they could do something with it.

56. Two More Fleas

Comment #148057 by AtheistAspy on March 21, 2008 at 10:57 pm

Maybe wooter is just a troll. I mean, no one's this stupid, right? Sometimes it's hard to tell whether the person's a real fundie or just playing dumb.

Is it just me, or has wooter's posts become more articulate all of the sudden?

57. EXPELLED!

Comment #147598 by AtheistAspy on March 21, 2008 at 12:14 am

CanadAdam: Thanks.
I'm glad that's cleared up. I just try not to fall prey to bias or group think.

58. EXPELLED!

Comment #147586 by AtheistAspy on March 20, 2008 at 11:51 pm

Seriously, I know no one wants to address the issue, but what happened? According to a theist's link by Bigorra, PZ Myers was kicked out for being disruptive and not having a ticket.

59. EXPELLED!

Comment #147582 by AtheistAspy on March 20, 2008 at 11:34 pm

Sweet! I hope to see a review by Richard Dawkins.
From here
http://lookingcloser.wordpress.com
/2008/03/20/richard-dawkins-crashes-the-party-at-a-screening-of-expelled:

I just happened to be standing directly in line behind Dawkins' academic colleague. Management of the movie theatre saw a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in. Management then approached the man, asked him if he had a ticket, and when he confirmed that he didn't, they then escorted him off the premises. Nowhere was one of the film's producers to be found, and the man certainly didn't identify himself. If a producer had been nearby, it's possible that he would have been admitted, but the theatre's management didn't want to take any chances.

So ultimately Dawkins' first complaint was irrelevant. His second complaint was that any statement he made in the film was in fact under the assumption that he was being interviewed by Ben Stein (and by Mark Mathis) for a film that was to take an even-handed look at the Intelligent Design/Evolution controversy. Unfortunately, the entire audience, minus Dawkins' posse, agreed that that the film's main point was that Intelligent Design should be taught in conjunction with Evolution.

Makes me wonder what happened. I'm open to the possibility that there may be some truth to the above statement, though I definitely need more information (not to mention some way to asure a little objectivity).

60. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147578 by AtheistAspy on March 20, 2008 at 11:17 pm

I notice a lot of posters condemn inflammatory use of the word "gay" (e.g., "that stupid movie's so gay") but use words like "retard," "sped," or "short bus." Why is wrong to use the word "gay," but okay to use words like "retard"?

61. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147547 by AtheistAspy on March 20, 2008 at 9:46 pm

Gordy:

I tend to agree that homosexuality isn't a choice.
I just don't think it matters either way.

al-rawandi:

There was a young man who came out about this. He said his parents (Mormons) arranged for him to go, all it did was increase his shame and contributed to his psychological deterioration.

There's a group for gay Mormons, believe it or not. Their website is here: http://www.affirmation.org/

I'm just wondering, but how many of you would approve of those with severe and moderate learning disabilities having children (e.g., Down Syndrome, autism, Asperger's, ADHD, etc.)?
I don't know about you, but I wholeheartedly approve of it.

62. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147484 by AtheistAspy on March 20, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Henri Bergson:

This book is meaningless after Nietzsche.

Secular liberalism is slave morality (Christianity in disguise).

No one gives a shizz what nee chee thought. The guy rejected rationality for supposedly restricting creativity and was opposed to "female values" (whatever that means). His whole concept of morality made no sense. It was based on the is-ought fallacy and assumed that evolution meant progress, though it only means change as any biologist will tell you. The only thing at all that evolution has to do with morality is that it determines how people tend to behave. Even then, people across all cultures tend to behave in ways that are at odds with nee chee's standards.

63. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147468 by AtheistAspy on March 20, 2008 at 2:23 pm

I don't see why it matters whether homosexuality is normal or a choice. It's usually a choice to have kids but that doesn't make it wrong not to. It's not normal to live in a pink house or marry someone 400 lbs overweight, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't.

I also don't see what good "love the sinner, hate the sin" is for gays. Surely, it's important to feel that others approve of a major part of your personality. As far as gay rights go, restricting their freedom due to either hatred or mere disapproval makes no difference. Either way, someone's freedom is taken away.

I think we ought to just abolish the marriage license.

64. Two More Fleas

Comment #146968 by AtheistAspy on March 19, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Perhaps evolution could be justified based on past observations. Based on that conclusion, then perhaps someone could argue that we had to have to the capacity to understand the world around us in order to survive as a species. I'm not sure how plausible this sounds.

I heard the book "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science" by E.T. Jaynes attempts to offer a solution.
A review by an Amazon.com customer states:

Beginning with three simple reasoning desiderata, Jaynes derives two theorems from which the whole of probability theory as the logic of plausible reasoning is inferred. Deductive, Aristotlean logic, it turns out, is but a theoretical by-product affirming logical certainty. If you're drowning in a flood of epistomelogical doubt concerning the foundations of probability theory, specifically, or inductive reasoning in general, and wish for a cogent, literate account of both, this book is for you. Examples abound, including an analysis of Bertrand's paradox. The text is lively and engaging throughout. Jaynes has poured over 30 years of thought into this work, a masterpiece of clear thinking that interprets probability as a measure of our imperfect information about the world. This book is for truth seekers, mathematicians, scientists, and open-minded philosophers of science and mathematics ready to sort through the facts rather that make a-priori pronouncements about reality. The author's warnings regarding the mind projection fallacy and the paradoxes associated with infinite point sets alone is worth the cost of this extroadinary work.

This quote can be found at http://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theory-E-T-Jaynes/dp/0521592712/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205567104&sr=8-1

65. Two More Fleas

Comment #146726 by AtheistAspy on March 19, 2008 at 10:12 am

Mphil:

Well, I think there are no real 'solutions', because it's a fact that you can never have absolute certainty from induction.

To clarify, I'm referring to the following:
(1) We can only determine from past observations that the past has been consistent, not that patterns observed in the past will continue into the future because it is conceivable that the future will be different.
(2) Inductivism is not tautological like logical axioms are.
(3) Any attempt to justify inductive reasoning by reference to inductive reasoning begs the question.

This argument means that we cannot form even probabilistic conclusions.

Still, as we know - every observation is theory-laden, and therefore every such induction also contains connotations, expectations and is part of an overarching interpretation-schema - and thus there is no such thing as 'pure induction'.

True, but based on the above problem, we could just as easily assume the future will be radically different.

66. Two More Fleas

Comment #146369 by AtheistAspy on March 19, 2008 at 2:19 am

MPhil,

What are the best responses or potential solutions to
Hume's Problem of Induction?

The problem really annoys me.

67. Selling science to the masses

Comment #146249 by AtheistAspy on March 18, 2008 at 8:17 pm

Steve Zara:

Assuming that the conservation laws won't continue seems to me to be begging the question about the existence of magic! That is the way I like to think about it, anyway. It seems to me that there are many hidden assumptions in what seems like simple statements.

That's true, but you're committing what's called the tu quoque fallacy.
It's the same mistake a theist makes when trying to justify faith by comparing religious faith to believing that the sun will rise tomorrow. Even if the analogy held, the only logical conclusion would be that neither religious faith nor belief in tomorrow's sunrise is justified.

epeeist:

Popper replaces Hume's inductivism by hypothetico-deductivism. You still don't get truth, but you do get verisimilitude and falsifiability.

Falsifiability is only a partial solution (e.g., how do you support the statement that all metals melt at a certain temperature?).

Also, why does anyone listen to Plantinga? I can seriously find teenage Christians with better "arguments" than him.

68. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146209 by AtheistAspy on March 18, 2008 at 7:00 pm

Honestly, I think the religious can always come up with a more palatable world view, but that's precisely because religion is based on fantasy.

Also, I'm noticing a lot of posters are making arguments from personal incredulity (e.g., "in my experience...").

But most importantly, if you want to limit religion's influence, then you MUST emphasize the emotional benefits of a secular world view.

Yeah, happiness has nothing to do with whether religion is true, but I think a lot of theists know that and don't care.

Intellectual arguments alone will not change most people's religious views. As crass as it sounds, you'll have to appeal to their feelings.

69. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #146058 by AtheistAspy on March 18, 2008 at 2:36 pm

skeptical of skepticism

I love when idiots try to sound clever.

70. Religious groups want Russian cartoon channel shut down

Comment #146053 by AtheistAspy on March 18, 2008 at 2:31 pm

"Through the use of cartoons this channel is pumping, day and night, an ideology into the consciousness of minors of perversion and other vices," said the council in a statement released this week.

The channel, which has about a 2 per cent audience share, has said its target audience is men aged 16 to 30, not children.

But, what about the children!?

Only the faithful would nanny adults.

71. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146031 by AtheistAspy on March 18, 2008 at 1:50 pm

We need to make atheism emotionally palatable to the average person rather than focusing purely on intellectual matters.

I don't know why this article is news. We've known for quite a while that religion is correlated with happiness.

72. Fleabytes

Comment #145340 by AtheistAspy on March 17, 2008 at 1:48 pm

How come only asshole theists post on this site?

I've met far more genial theists than what we've seen (maybe they act less genial on the Internet, but I doubt the same is true of more socially liberal theists, like my past philosophy professor).

73. Selling science to the masses

Comment #145067 by AtheistAspy on March 17, 2008 at 8:13 am

Steve Zara,

Yeah, but that begs the question. You're assuming induction is valid to show it's valid whenever you appeal to past observations.

74. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144878 by AtheistAspy on March 17, 2008 at 12:28 am

Does anyone have a solution to Hume's Problem of Inductivism? I've been racking my brains for a solution but have yet to come up with one. The problem is as follows:

(1) We can only determine from past observations that the past has been consistent, not that patterns observed in the past will continue into the future because it is conceivable that the future will be different.
(2) Inductivism is not tautological like logical axioms are.
(3) Any attempt to justify inductive reasoning by reference to inductive reasoning begs the question.

This argument means that we cannot form even probabilistic conclusions, and was originally laid out by David Hume.

A discussion can be found here (you'll need to set up an account):
http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=1278916#1278916

75. Two More Fleas

Comment #142637 by AtheistAspy on March 12, 2008 at 11:16 pm

Comment by MPHIL:

Furthermore, as long as the theists claim their God is "omnipotent" - they have already lost. Omnipotence is a contradictory concept. It is an attribute that nothing could have. Therefore, any omnipotent God (under any interpretation of the word I have seen) is impossible.

Except that "omnipotent" is usually defined among theologians as having the power to do anything that does not imply a contradiction.

76. Two More Fleas

Comment #142633 by AtheistAspy on March 12, 2008 at 11:01 pm

Comment by Brian English:

It's interesting that you would quote that bit of question begging logic. :)
I wonder if you know why it is an unjustifiable statement?

I get it, though I feel a bit stupid for not noticing it earlier. I suppose you could also question one of the premises from an eliminativist perspective (i.e., deny the existence of mental states).

77. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142632 by AtheistAspy on March 12, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Comment by LorienRyan:

Michael Heller wrote in the Templeton prize press conference, and reiterated in an Australian national radio interview that I heard this morning: "Science gives us Knowledge, and religion gives us Meaning".

It's even worse than that. A lot of theists don't know what they're arguing. I remember one Christian who claimed all non-Christians are damned. I then asked him about Jews. He started to fudge but never quite stated his opinion.

Also theists will say "you can rationalize anything" or "truth is relative." The meaning of either statement is unclear, unless they mean that we can always come up with an argument (which may be unsound) and that we disagree on what is objectively true, both of which would be trivial points anyways.

78. Two More Fleas

Comment #142630 by AtheistAspy on March 12, 2008 at 10:48 pm

Swearing and slandering does not help you give an answer to the analogy of pharmacy, oppositely, it makes it worse.

point for clear minds.

Sorry, I'm not a three-year-old.

79. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #142627 by AtheistAspy on March 12, 2008 at 10:43 pm

Wealth/education and religion are not mutually exclusive. If they were, religion would have no power in the world.

No, but there's definitely a negative correlation between the two.

80. Two More Fleas

Comment #142611 by AtheistAspy on March 12, 2008 at 8:51 pm

Geoff

Thanks, I had to use google cache to see it. It only claims that religious is decreasing throughout time across all age groups, not that young people are becoming less religious or are remaining non-religious. Any decrease in religious belief might just be due to more young people or greater willingness to be open about one's views, and so on.

clearmind's logic is as clear as a mud-covered fucktard.

Clearmind, don't tell me "it's demonstrated by logic and reason." SHOW me it is. Explain your reasoning rather than just stating your conclusions.

81. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #142609 by AtheistAspy on March 12, 2008 at 8:39 pm

I think we should downplay any uncertainty about God's existence like the following:

Dawkins joked that he's not absolutely positive there is no God. "Only in the sense that I'm not absolutely positive there is no large china teapot in orbit in the solar system."

In my experience, theists claim that we don't know at all whether God exists and then chide us for being uncertain, no matter how one-sided the evidence is. The theist rebuttal isn't a valid argument, but any explicit claim of weak as opposed to strong atheism may not work as a debate tactic.

82. Two More Fleas

Comment #142586 by AtheistAspy on March 12, 2008 at 7:51 pm

Geof, the link isn't working. What does it refer to?

Also, I think we might be giving these fleas free publicity. Then again, we do need to respond to their "arguments." Then again, we could do that without referencing their books. Not sure where I stand on that issue.

83. Two More Fleas

Comment #142584 by AtheistAspy on March 12, 2008 at 7:49 pm

Comment by Bonzai:

Perhaps young people are in general more idealistic and rigid in their views, which extends also to religion if they do become religious.

I don't know why young people would be more rigid though the rest of your post seemed to make sense.
(BTW, are you a social scientist or student in that area? You seem to be from your posts.)

84. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142581 by AtheistAspy on March 12, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Comment by lievemebe:

The Templeton Foundation should fund more research into the intertwining of intellectualism and religion.

I am disturbed by the enormous capacity of some individuals to compartmentalise.

Reminds me of a Mormon psychiatrist I got into a debate with. She said God was all-good and powerful enough to bend the laws of logic. We argued that for at least ten frikken minutes, with me repeating the same arguments because she didn't understand them. Finally, and with a surprised look on her face, she said, "well, I guess I just don't believe that"!

Another time she said that if the earth was created in 6 days, then it would make sense for it to be only several thousand years old. I said that didn't make sense. She said it did. I pointed out that the age of something has nothing to do with the time it took to make it, and she agreed with me, not even realizing she contradicted herself!

I swear these theists are immune to reason, especially Mormons.

85. Crossing the Divide

Comment #142574 by AtheistAspy on March 12, 2008 at 7:23 pm

Comment by Richard Morgan:

Judges, perhaps, but my references concerned ordinary, untrained, jury members.
I am also wondering in what kind of situation there would be a real choice between eye-witnesses and physical evidence?
Could you tell me?
Because we're always having this kind of problem in debates with theists!!

Well, an example given by my professor contrasted a court's evaluation of finger print and DNA evidence with the words of eye witness testimony. If there was a conflict between what the witness said and what the evidence implied, the court could side with the witness if he "stuck to his guns" and was assertive in his claims.

As for atheism-religion debates, I don't think there's eye witness testimony we could use unless you count scientists whose jobs, after all, are to interpret observations of the physical world and answer such questions as how we got here.

Sorry, I didn't respond sooner(I didn't see new posts since I've been busy).

86. Two More Fleas

Comment #142571 by AtheistAspy on March 12, 2008 at 7:10 pm

Comment by AfraidToDie:

Reason and atheism IS "the light". You cannot return to "the dark side". OK, perhaps one exception, and that is to lie for personal (monetary) gains. When you have so many fraudulent "born agains" bilking millions from the misguided, perhaps we have some good insight as to why someone with a math and science background might want to "cash in" too. Prostitution has many forms!

Not to defend theism, but that's not actually true. I remember reading that 20% of those under 18 are atheists, while the number was much lower among adults (sorry, but I can't remember the source). Also, as the God Delusion points out, religious belief actually increases with age, probably because of the fear of death.

87. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141436 by AtheistAspy on March 10, 2008 at 12:14 pm

How the hell did you reach level 7? I only got to level 5.

88. Out of the Blue

Comment #140834 by AtheistAspy on March 8, 2008 at 6:16 pm

What if we were to create a "god" in the distant future, except this "god" is an all-loving super computer?

What if we were to upload our minds into some program created by this "god" that would mimic "heaven"?

BTW, has anyone read Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question"? That story kicked ass.

Edit: I don't know how plausible any of this is. I wish the physicists would enlighten me.

89. Crossing the Divide

Comment #140832 by AtheistAspy on March 8, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Richard Morgan:

Secondly - studies have shown that in courts of law, juries tend to believe witnesses who are apparently convinced of the truthfulness of what they are saying, however implausible it may be, rather than people simply relating the facts, in a calm, reasonable manner.

Funny, I recently learned in psychology that judges will prefer eye witnesses over physical evidence.

90. Crossing the Divide

Comment #140534 by AtheistAspy on March 7, 2008 at 5:21 pm

It only makes sense to debate which world view is more plausible, not which one is more desirable.

Whether a world view is more desirable depends only on individual value-judgments, not the actual truth or rationality of that world view.

91. Fleabytes

Comment #136851 by AtheistAspy on March 1, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Holy shit! 53 pages!

92. Fleabytes

Comment #136844 by AtheistAspy on March 1, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Theists always claim that those with only some exposure to philosophy tend to be atheists while those with the most tend to be theists (I think Francis Bacon first said it).

Yet, while theist sites deal mainly in philosophy (though not very good philosophy), those on theist sites are usually philosophiles while those on sites like this one actually include philosophy professors.

I think there's a very good reason for this: the theist can only use philosophy because philosophy is the least objective field of inquiry. However, philosophy (usually) includes an emphasis on rationality. So those with more exposure to philosophy tend to atheists, despite philosophy's lack of objectivity.

93. Fleabytes

Comment #136843 by AtheistAspy on March 1, 2008 at 8:53 pm

1)A problem of referring: Entities are defined by their properties - if we cannot comprehend something, we cannot specify the properties of that assumed entity. We thus have no means of picking that entity out from the set of all things by referring to it, because we can only refer through a sufficiently definite description (even if implicit). It doesn't matter whether god exists or not for this - we can never even potentially refer to something if we cannot comprehend it.

Sounds like the argument from non-cognitivism.

94. Taking evidence seriously

Comment #135422 by AtheistAspy on February 29, 2008 at 12:02 am

Is this article by the same Alan Sokal who duped those postmodernists with an article he "wrote" using random gibberish?

95. The argument from oranges

Comment #129214 by AtheistAspy on February 18, 2008 at 9:38 pm

I'm not surprised that creationists are more arrogant than scientists and other educated people.

Justin Kruger and David Dunning of Cornell University's psychology department found that less competent individuals overestimated their level of competence, while more competent individuals tend to underestimate their level of competence.

You can always tell who's ignorance is greatest by who's arrogance is greatest.

96. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127556 by AtheistAspy on February 15, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Someone posted this on http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=15493:

Did you know that evangelical Christians in the UK donate NINE times as high a proportion of their income to charity as the average household. Studies show that Christians have higher IQs than atheists. 80% of philosophers believe in God, 90% of physicists and cosmologists, but it's a lot lower among historians and sociologists. This means that people who know what they're talking about are more likely to believe in God. God. God. God. Jesus. God. Peace. Galatians. Esther. Psalms... actually

Talk about making shit up.

97. Pleas for condemned Saudi 'witch'

Comment #126840 by AtheistAspy on February 14, 2008 at 10:42 am

This article just came up a second a go. There's a first.

I wonder why they are imposing the death penalty if the prosecution's case fails to meet Saudi standards of justice, however flimsy they may be.

It's a shame we buy oil from these guys.

98. My Saudi Valentine

Comment #126665 by AtheistAspy on February 13, 2008 at 8:25 pm

All these strictures do not mean that Saudis don't long for love. Songs and novels show how affectionate and passionate Saudi men and women can be. It's just that some believe love is that warm feeling a couple develop after their parents have arranged a match and the marriage contract has been signed.

Doesn't sound so romantic to me. I mean, it's not like someone can be *forced* to love someone. Forced to marry and have kids? Sure, but forced to love someone? There's no way that can possibly work.

99. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123941 by AtheistAspy on February 8, 2008 at 2:29 am

Some thing else what'shisname wrote:

Comment #30362 by DavidJMH on April 7, 2007 at 8:36 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
There is hope for the survival of the white race yet. We may have to rely upon the innate laziness, ignorance and stupidity of the aboriginal peoples rather than our own cleverness, but combined, both these traits should see us through. Darwinism; isn't it great?

I seriously think David might be a troll.

100. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123936 by AtheistAspy on February 8, 2008 at 2:25 am

Isn't it a fact of psychology that no one is entirely gay or straight? I've heard that most straight males will have consciously had a gay thought by the age of 50. I'm as straight as most, though I've probably had a gay thought or two at some point.

BTW, notice how that David fellow starts every post with "ladies and gentlemen"? I find it odd that an atheist would be homophobic, which is pretty rare. There are surely some weird-ass people out there.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 | Next