Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

Atheism predates Jesus by at least 500 years

367 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Walker

quote-we-are-all-atheists-about-most-of-the-gods-that-societies-have-ever-believed-in-some-of-us-just-go-richard-dawkins-48224.jpg

e5a73d10dbbf668234da460df2d1b2bf.jpg

The second T shirt is misleading. I assume it refers to the mitochondrial dna in all humans stretching back to the hominid eve from africa, but some of us also contain dna from non african origins including Neandertal and even a couple of other sites in asia and Europe Thus, while being clever it actually, and ironically, is also "racist"

It should read, " I am afro /euro/ asian" or "We all potentially have genetic components from Africa Asia and Europe in our make up' But that wouldn't be so cool or pointed, and the latter wouldn't fit on the T shirt. . I personally would prefer the logo, "We are all human."

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

The second T shirt is misleading. I assume it refers to the mitochondrial dna in all humans stretching back to the hominid eve from africa, but some of us also contain dna from non african origins including Neandertal and even a couple of other sites in asia and Europe Thus, while being clever it actually, and ironically, is also "racist"

No.

The shirt refers to humanity's origins in Africa. All of humanity originally evolved there, including Neanderthals (and others). If you want ti read into it and claim that it is racist, that's entirely on you.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

I'm sorry, but how is it actually coming up the idea of God exactly then? Was God invented to put in the space? I can understand the intuitive thinking, and the philosophical musings, but there are many paths the results from that can go down. I feel my own path is like that, from my secular upbringing to my experiences in life, but I didn't go down the Christian path, I went down mine. And, it was with the secular thinking of seeing reality right in front of me.

Ok, this makes sense.

I do feel, though putting EEHC's and psyche's posts together, and I feel there might be a way of how it is looked and what does happen really to those who either go down an Atheist's path or a believer's. Like me. :D

Yeah me too.

Good point. I sometimes wonder at how some in Atheism have some form of 'practicing' or going to a 'place' at a once a week situation, when you are actually just doing things that could be anything.

Yeah, when it is in the form of I think, it is their opinion. But I agree with you. The reality of the world, and it's evidences to it, does to me, show how things really are.

The word supernatural, I guess is the word sometimes to describe it. I would say mysterious, but that's me. :D

I maybe in the same line of what I believe, and sometimes feel a 'mysterious' situation is still there, but I know, evidences of realistic and natural situations are what is a default. I just think, that there is so much more, that is still................ 'out there', that you cannot explain, ...just yet.

But, I would agree with you, psyche. :)

Again, loooooove that phrase!!! :D :D

The frustrating part is I know what EEHC is on about, the notion of a Finely Tuned Universe, and I have seen WIlliam Lane Craig say the same things he did, and I have seen Sean Carroll tear his argument down and explain how it is cherry picked and means nothing like the conclusion he reaches.

I have given him the debate several times now, and yet he repeats the same cherry picked mistakes that WIlliam Lane Craig messed up in their debate.

It is like he keeps saying 2+2=39 and I keep putting the maths down and showing 2+2=4 yet he then repeats Ohhh this is interesting look here = apparently 2+2=39!!!!

The man is obviously crazy, lets face it.

tumblr_n8745dRP6J1s373hwo1_500.gif

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

The second T shirt is misleading. I assume it refers to the mitochondrial dna in all humans stretching back to the hominid eve from africa, but some of us also contain dna from non african origins including Neandertal and even a couple of other sites in asia and Europe Thus, while being clever it actually, and ironically, is also "racist"

It should read, " I am afro /euro/ asian" or "We all potentially have genetic components from Africa Asia and Europe in our make up' But that wouldn't be so cool or pointed, and the latter wouldn't fit on the T shirt. . I personally would prefer the logo, "We are all human."

No it is not, your knowledge is short, Lucy is a common ancestor to us all. A. afarensis is ancestor to all the species you mention.

LOL, you think Australopithecus and Neanderthal existed in the same time frames do you????

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Science says this? Which scientists? Which studies? Where is the source showing that we have a default of "belief"?

Asked and answered many times including recently This is pretty much mainstream understanding across numerous academic disciplines especially in the cognitive sciences which look at things like how humans learn to think and process information. The idea only originated a couple of decades or so back, but has developed with a lot of testing and studies of very young children around the world Even the children of atheists develop their own belief in "gods" ie magical powerful self directed entities . Formalised religion IS a cultural construct but so is formalised atheism. Belief is an entirely personal construct and constructed before children can speak well enough to learn the beliefs and religious thoughts of other human beings. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

Asked and answered many times including recently This is pretty much mainstream understanding across numerous academic disciplines especially in the cognitive sciences which look at things like how humans learn to think and process information. The idea only originated a couple of decades or so back, but has developed with a lot of testing and studies of very young children around the world Even the children of atheists develop their own belief in "gods" ie magical powerful self directed entities . Formalised religion IS a cultural construct but so is formalised atheism. Belief is an entirely personal construct and constructed before children can speak well enough to learn the beliefs and religious thoughts of other human beings. .

K great, whatever. Do you have a link? Any proof of this? Because I find nothing asserting your claims after spending time on google scholar or Ebsco Host. Provide evidence or admit that you're speaking about either opinion or anecdotal accounts.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Asked and answered many times including recently This is pretty much mainstream understanding across numerous academic disciplines especially in the cognitive sciences which look at things like how humans learn to think and process information. The idea only originated a couple of decades or so back, but has developed with a lot of testing and studies of very young children around the world Even the children of atheists develop their own belief in "gods" ie magical powerful self directed entities . Formalised religion IS a cultural construct but so is formalised atheism. Belief is an entirely personal construct and constructed before children can speak well enough to learn the beliefs and religious thoughts of other human beings. .

Might just be my memory, but as I remember, when you finally provided sources, they did not say this at all, you had misinterpreted the articles, and were the only one on the thread who saw it your way. Perhaps you should just link to the original discussion as opposed to having it yet again?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Science says this? Which scientists? Which studies? Where is the source showing that we have a default of "belief"?

It already got analised and debunked extensively in another thread during another waker diversion ... now, more people put him on ignore so he can bring it up again and have less people oppose his posted 'truths backed up by data ' .

I wont argue it here as it has been done beofre and , gain, shown waalker bent and twisted and read into the data to try and get the result he wants .

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

The second T shirt is misleading. I assume it refers to the mitochondrial dna in all humans stretching back to the hominid eve from africa, but some of us also contain dna from non african origins including Neandertal and even a couple of other sites in asia and Europe Thus, while being clever it actually, and ironically, is also "racist"

It should read, " I am afro /euro/ asian" or "We all potentially have genetic components from Africa Asia and Europe in our make up' But that wouldn't be so cool or pointed, and the latter wouldn't fit on the T shirt. . I personally would prefer the logo, "We are all human."

there is no evidence of the origins of HSN ( and 'other sites' is too vague a 'reference' to comprehend ) originated from pre-species outside of Africa .

If you claim this wrong, please show where HSN ancestors originated .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Asked and answered many times including recently This is pretty much mainstream understanding across numerous academic disciplines especially in the cognitive sciences which look at things like how humans learn to think and process information. The idea only originated a couple of decades or so back, but has developed with a lot of testing and studies of very young children around the world Even the children of atheists develop their own belief in "gods" ie magical powerful self directed entities . Formalised religion IS a cultural construct but so is formalised atheism. Belief is an entirely personal construct and constructed before children can speak well enough to learn the beliefs and religious thoughts of other human beings. .

so in other words , no, you cant back it up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Might just be my memory, but as I remember, when you finally provided sources, they did not say this at all, you had misinterpreted the articles, and were the only one on the thread who saw it your way. Perhaps you should just link to the original discussion as opposed to having it yet again?

Nope, he wont do that .

here is the tactic

1. claim ones prejudices as fact .

2. state they are fact and it is backed up by research

3. when challenged, just state it is so

4. if challenged further put up data and reinterpret it to try and show it proves you prejudice

5. when exposed obfuscate and Walkerate until thread is closed or people put him on ignore and hope the others will not remember

6 ... wait ....

7. back to 1, and hope the others are gone and new people will be mugs ... if busted accuse them of obfuscation trolling and bullying

:su

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Might just be my memory, but as I remember, when you finally provided sources, they did not say this at all, you had misinterpreted the articles, and were the only one on the thread who saw it your way. Perhaps you should just link to the original discussion as opposed to having it yet again?

... and have himself exposed again ? :no:

best to bring it up here and start all over again ... in yet another thread . :whistle:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
willowdreams

My daughter, who like me is an atheist, will say often that if she must believe in something, it is that the universe is alive, and we all are simple microbes or even less. maybe black holes is the way the universe reproduces.

But we are a very simple microbes in a vast living entity.

The findings of this Cambridge University study suggest that atheism was also common in the ancient world. It's nothing new. Disbelief, or non-belief in some form or another has always existed. It's still around today because it makes sense to some people. I personally think that rational theism or deism is perfectly compatible with modern scientific understanding. Some data may even be suggestive of an Intelligence behind the Universe but that's an opinion, of course.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

My daughter, who like me is an atheist, will say often that if she must believe in something, it is that the universe is alive, and we all are simple microbes or even less. maybe black holes is the way the universe reproduces.

But we are a very simple microbes in a vast living entity.

936297d59d4df7ad8fd620e85d1bc5fd.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Might just be my memory, but as I remember, when you finally provided sources, they did not say this at all, you had misinterpreted the articles, and were the only one on the thread who saw it your way. Perhaps you should just link to the original discussion as opposed to having it yet again?

Ive had this debate four or five times on UM since it first arose and provided sources every time . I don't keep links stored on my computer.

As far as i am concerned having sourced and proven something once, it becomes established knowledge.

I think some people believe i am "religious: and thus think that i read more into these articles than I do. i studied infant cognition and language development as part of eduction at uni in a post degree course, and have remained interested in it ever since.

I point out precisely what they say. Human children from all over the world, before any introduction from outside sources, construct their own "god " concepts and constructs. They don't think of them as gods unless this name is introduced to them, but these entities in the child's mind have all the properties humans invest in our gods ie they are magical entities which do invisible things for their own purposes, like put seeds inside a maraca gourd

So belief in mystical magical powerful beings is one of the FIRST thought processes made by children in an attempt to explain their world. Because of this, all human remain cognitively predisposed to belief, until or unless they are taught to see the world differently, or gather enough understanding to do so. I have tried to get some of the original sources from the New Scientist but had to subscribe to it to do so and wasn't prepared to do that. Others found and linked similar case studies and findings .

So it is conclusive that children do not get god concepts from others. They formulate them themselves, in the first couple of years of development and would do so, even if they were taught the internal language skills needed to think, by an atheist computer. with no human intervention. ( I don't think they could develop these concepts without human level internal language skills, as no other animal develops them, but as they learn to think and process their external world, this process is an integrated and inseparable part of the learning process.).

However, parents and society will SHAPE the particular form such a child's belief might take, as it grows old enough to learn what others believe and seeks their approval. .

And so children are not born atheists, and are indeed born with a cognitive need to explain the inexplicable, which they meet by constructing god constructs.

i am not going to spend time hunting down the sources again and indeed they can be a bit hard to find without the right search words. But they are there, disproving claims that children are born atheists, or have to be taught /indoctrinated in belief or religion. Every child, if raised alone, would form its own religious belief structure, to support its inner, individually constructed, understanding of the world around it. That is absolutely inevitable, given what we now know about infant cognitive development and processing.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

It already got analised and debunked extensively in another thread during another waker diversion ... now, more people put him on ignore so he can bring it up again and have less people oppose his posted 'truths backed up by data ' .

I wont argue it here as it has been done beofre and , gain, shown waalker bent and twisted and read into the data to try and get the result he wants .

Wrong.

Some people argued the point (and couldn't seem to get what i was) but the facts stand as they are. This is either a deliberate lie or a lack of comprehension on your part. Prove i am wrong or stop making false accusations. It is easy to lie and accuse but harder to prove your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

so in other words , no, you cant back it up.

I do not need to do this every time the debate arises. Once established as fact, it remains as fact . if you think i have interpreted something from these many studies wrongly, show every one HOW. I will be happy to debate.

... and have himself exposed again ? :no:

best to bring it up here and start all over again ... in yet another thread . :whistle:

Prove me wrong. or stop telling lies.

jeez Louise I must be far too nice it took me 5 seconds to find this one article

Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.

He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.

"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."

In a lecture to be given at the University of Cambridge's Faraday Institute on Tuesday, Dr Barrett will cite psychological experiments carried out on children that he says show they instinctively believe that almost everything has been designed with a specific purpose.

http://www.telegraph...mic-claims.html

Then there is this

Led by two academics at Oxford University, the £1.9 million study found that human thought processes were “rooted” to religious concepts.

But people living in cities in highly developed countries were less likely to hold religious beliefs than those living a more rural way of life, the researchers found.

The project involved 57 academics in 20 countries around the world, and spanned disciplines including anthropology, psychology, and philosophy.

It set out to establish whether belief in divine beings and an afterlife were ideas simply learned from society or integral to human nature.

One of the studies, from Oxford, concluded that children below the age of five found it easier to believe in some “superhuman” properties than to understand human limitations.

http://www.telegraph...ford-study.html

or this

The work of psychologist Deborah Kelemen and her research colleagues may enable us to now fill the explanatory gaps I have described. Drawing on her own and others’ research programs, Kelemen, director of the Child Cognition Laboratory at Boston University, has found that children around the world “evidence a general bias to treat objects and behaviors as existing for a purpose” (Kelemen 2004, 295). There is now overwhelming evidence that children are innately prone to “promiscuous teleological intuitions,” preferring teleological, purpose-based rather than physical-causal explanations of living and nonliving natural objects (Kelemen et al. 2013).

For example, young children do not see raining as merely what a cloud does but as what it is “made for.” If asked why prehistoric rocks are pointy, children will greatly prefer “so that animals could scratch on them when they got itchy” over “bits of stuff piled up for a long time.”

Early parenting or explaining makes little difference to this strong tendency. It appears to be modifiable only from around ten years of age. For example, the children of both religious fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist parents, when asked why a certain animal exists, favor “God made it” or “a person made it” over “it evolved” or “it appeared.” This tendency declines only after eleven years of age and only in the children of non-fundamentalist parents.

Much research supporting and developing this hypothesis has been undertaken. From infancy, humans are excellent “agency detectors,” sensitive to others’ mental states. Even twelve-month-olds will follow the gaze direction of symbolic faces. Children’s complex imaginary companions, like supernatural agents, occur cross-culturally (Taylor 1999).

Kelemen’s explanatory hypothesis is that this generalized default view, that entities are intentionally caused by someone for a purpose, is a side effect of a socially intelligent mind that privileges intentional explanations.

It is not difficult to posit the evolutionary advantages of such “attribution of agency” among infants and children. An infant’s entire world comprises an intentional agent—its parent. The sooner and more thoroughly an infant can develop a “theory of mind” and respond accordingly, the better for it. It must attach. The parent must bond. It must anticipate and manipulate its world on the assumption of purposeful agency occurring all around it. An absence of such is starkly illustrated by the autistic child, to whom its parents are just another set of shapes in its visual field. No attachment occurs, and in less affluent, protected, aware times than we have now, such children rarely survived. They could not control their (almost entirely interpersonal) environment and starved, ate poison, or just wandered away.

The tendency to attribution of agency extends beyond the world of man-made artifacts to the natural world. Children intuitively identify people as the designing agent of artifacts and God as the designing agent of nature (Kelemen 2004, 299). “All known folk religions involve nonnatural agents and intentional causation—the substrate of intuitive theism” (Kelemen 2004, 297).

Reasoning about all aspects of nature in non-teleological physical-reductionist terms is a relatively recent development in the history of human thought (Kelemen 1999a), and contemporary adults are still surprisingly bad at it. For example, evolution is generally misconstrued as a quasi-intentional needs-responsive designing force (Kelemen 2004). But our brains did not evolve “to enable consciousness.” Our brains evolved, and consciousness resulted. No purpose, just causes.

http://www.csicop.or...elieve_in_gods/

And for dessert

Why we are born to believe in God: It's wired into the brain, says psychologist

By ARTHUR MARTIN FOR THE DAILY MAIL

UPDATED: 18:18 EST, 7 September 2009

Humans are programmed to believe in God because it gives them a better chance of survival, researchers claim.

A study into the way children's brains develop suggests that during the process of evolution those with religious tendencies began to benefit from their beliefs - possibly by working in groups to ensure the future of their community.

The findings of Bruce Hood, professor of developmental psychology at Bristol University, suggest that magical and supernatural beliefs are hardwired into our brains from birth, and that religions are therefore tapping into a powerful psychological force.

All in the mind: Scientists have claimed we are born to believe in God

His work is supported by other researchers who have found evidence linking religious feelings and experience to particular regions of the brain.

They suggest people are programmed to receive a feeling of spirituality from electrical activity in these areas.

The findings challenge atheists such as Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion, who has long argued that religious beliefs result from poor education and childhood 'indoctrination'.

Professor Hood believes it is futile to try to get people to abandon their beliefs because these come from such a 'fundamental level'.

'Our research shows children have a natural, intuitive way of reasoning that leads them to all kinds of supernatural beliefs about how the world works,' he said.

'As they grow up they overlay these beliefs with more rational approaches but the tendency to illogical supernatural beliefs remains as religion.'

The professor, who will present his findings at the British Science Association's annual meeting this week, sees organised religion as just part of a spectrum of supernatural beliefs.

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz40Ztv3dwJ

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This is also an interesting read, offering other expert opinions and findings.

http://www.apa.org/m...12/believe.aspx

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

... and have himself exposed again ? :no:

That is something I never want to see.

cannot_unsee_by_0shiny0-d5hd3m0.png

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Ive had this debate four or five times on UM since it first arose and provided sources every time . I don't keep links stored on my computer.

You should, it is like command "D" not hard. If you are making a point that might be further discussed it is a good idea.

As far as i am concerned having sourced and proven something once, it becomes established knowledge.

We all seems to disagree as you also provide your own personal spin on said information which few, if any agree with. We are best to have the information at hand for evaluation and consensus.

And if provided before, you should be able to source the link from your previous efforts without too much difficulty, the search function makes short work of this.

I think some people believe i am "religious: and thus think that i read more into these articles than I do. i studied infant cognition and language development as part of eduction at uni in a post degree course, and have remained interested in it ever since.

Yes, I certainly feel that is very much the impression you give away, and your position with regards to defence of faith and belief well expose you as such.

Your studies do not seem to have provided a rational edge, with all that alleged knowledge, you still delve into the realms of superstition and fantasy.

I point out precisely what they say. Human children from all over the world, before any introduction from outside sources, construct their own "god " concepts and constructs. They don't think of them as gods unless this name is introduced to them, but these entities in the child's mind have all the properties humans invest in our gods ie they are magical entities which do invisible things for their own purposes, like put seeds inside a maraca gourd

Actually this is where the problem arises, what you point out seems to be your personal interpretation, which everyone else seems to interpret differently.

For instance, I see a world of difference between an alleged "God" and an imaginary friend. You do not seem to. In studies, or real life - referring to your backyard chats with God.

So belief in mystical magical powerful beings is one of the FIRST thought processes made by children in an attempt to explain their world. Because of this, all human remain cognitively predisposed to belief, until or unless they are taught to see the world differently, or gather enough understanding to do so. I have tried to get some of the original sources from the New Scientist but had to subscribe to it to do so and wasn't prepared to do that. Others found and linked similar case studies and findings .

It strikes me that this is how we attained and retain consciousness rather than a predisposition for belief. Making sense of the world with resources at hand, as we spend more time on this planet, more of those resources become second nature to us.

So it is conclusive that children do not get god concepts from others. They formulate them themselves, in the first couple of years of development and would do so, even if they were taught the internal language skills needed to think, by an atheist computer. with no human intervention. ( I don't think they could develop these concepts without human level internal language skills, as no other animal develops them, but as they learn to think and process their external world, this process is an integrated and inseparable part of the learning process.).

The development of consciousness as stated above, it seems rather obvious to me. What proves that children are not learning this by example?

However, parents and society will SHAPE the particular form such a child's belief might take, as it grows old enough to learn what others believe and seeks their approval. .

The development of intelligence to compliment consciousness. Yes they do shape it, and relgion has kept intelligence at a status quo for far too long, time to let go and move one.

And so children are not born atheists, and are indeed born with a cognitive need to explain the inexplicable, which they meet by constructing god constructs.

Yes they are - what God are children born believing in? Imagination is not any God. It is the substance of which God is made.

i am not going to spend time hunting down the sources again and indeed they can be a bit hard to find without the right search words. But they are there, disproving claims that children are born atheists, or have to be taught /indoctrinated in belief or religion. Every child, if raised alone, would form its own religious belief structure, to support its inner, individually constructed, understanding of the world around it. That is absolutely inevitable, given what we now know about infant cognitive development and processing.

Nope. If others saw it that way, I might be able to entertain your notion, but you seem to be the only one that interprets the "alleged data" like that. And whether you have provided sources in the past is superfluous, when you make a claim, you should supply them, just common decency although I suspect you madly Googled until you found an interpretation that you could twist to suit your religious agenda.

The data must be here for all to examine, NOT your interpretation of it which has already been heavily challenged. As you supply only your opinion, your credibility is directly proportional to the information provided.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Wrong.

Some people argued the point (and couldn't seem to get what i was) but the facts stand as they are. This is either a deliberate lie or a lack of comprehension on your part. Prove i am wrong or stop making false accusations. It is easy to lie and accuse but harder to prove your point.

Wasn't that the general consensus regarding your personal "interpretation" of the study?

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear Wessel

Debating with Walker is about as fruitful as beating a dead horse with a stick. It seems as if no matter WHAT you claim, his opinions/beliefs will not change. It is as if he is just so fixed on his superstition and fantasy that he cannot see reality for what it really is. Arguments with him just end up being circular.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Nothing new? Of course not, it is our natural state before indoctrination is forced upon one, or one is introduced to the idea. It is anything but a natural state or explanation. The very name "supernatural" Insists on it.

Does that therefore make it a superior position to hold? Just curious on your thoughts of this.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

I just love rhetorical questions. :whistle:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear Wessel

Does that therefore make it a superior position to hold? Just curious on your thoughts of this.

I don't see how it could be "superior", but more rational and logically sound? Absolutely--by a wide margin.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Debating with Walker is about as fruitful as beating a dead horse with a stick. It seems as if no matter WHAT you claim, his opinions/beliefs will not change. It is as if he is just so fixed on his superstition and fantasy that he cannot see reality for what it really is. Arguments with him just end up being circular.

Even a dead horse would see the logic sooner.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.