|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 13, 2020 23:41:38 GMT
Nope. I stay clear of "groups" and "leaders".
They can kiss it.
IMDB is a group. R, F & S is a more specific group. I'm sorry I can't help you with the kissing though. I guess you meant atheist groups. Here's a "group" that I hope he has the good sense to stay clear of. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 14, 2020 0:51:41 GMT
Okay, but after Christianity is wiped off the face of the earth, the ones who are complaining so loudly now might have to realize that they were better off before. One thing I can't stand is people forcefully talking about stuff when the other person doesn't want to, other atheists included. Have some tact people. Religious street types who I have encountered get a blunt "none of your business" when they try to push their stuff on me. If they keep pushing I will become more aggressive in my way of speaking. The same goes for anybody trying to talk to me about stuff when I don't want to talk about it and this includes other atheists that I disagree with. I just want people to think about stuff and listen, instead of just waiting their turn to talk. The Christians who either criticize or condemn atheists forget the atheist is generally responding to theist criticisms. And for the theist, an atheist simply claiming himself as such isn’t enough. The atheist then has to defend his rationale for being an atheist. And even then, the theist will often not accept the answer. They cannot accept that an atheist is really sincere saying, the atheist really does believe in something and that something is God, but the atheist does not know this because the true rational human mind cannot help but believe in God and the atheist is not rational because he refuses to acknowledge his atheism is actually a belief system.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 14, 2020 1:05:38 GMT
One thing I can't stand is people forcefully talking about stuff when the other person doesn't want to, other atheists included. Have some tact people. Religious street types who I have encountered get a blunt "none of your business" when they try to push their stuff on me. If they keep pushing I will become more aggressive in my way of speaking. The same goes for anybody trying to talk to me about stuff when I don't want to talk about it and this includes other atheists that I disagree with. I just want people to think about stuff and listen, instead of just waiting their turn to talk. The Christians who either criticize or condemn atheists forget the atheist is generally responding to theist criticisms. And for the theist, an atheist simply claiming himself as such isn’t enough. The atheist then has to defend his rationale for being an atheist. And even then, the theist will often not accept the answer. They cannot accept that an atheist is really sincere saying, the atheist really does believe in something and that something is God, but the atheist does not know this because the true rational human mind cannot help but believe in God and the atheist is not rational because he refuses to acknowledge his atheism is actually a belief system. I know all that. I am talking about atheists who just can't shut up about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 14, 2020 1:08:43 GMT
The Christians who either criticize or condemn atheists forget the atheist is generally responding to theist criticisms. And for the theist, an atheist simply claiming himself as such isn’t enough. The atheist then has to defend his rationale for being an atheist. And even then, the theist will often not accept the answer. They cannot accept that an atheist is really sincere saying, the atheist really does believe in something and that something is God, but the atheist does not know this because the true rational human mind cannot help but believe in God and the atheist is not rational because he refuses to acknowledge his atheism is actually a belief system. I know all that. Gee, I thought you’d be interested as I agree with a lot of your points and enjoy your posts. But you just told me to fuck off. Will do, pal.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 14, 2020 1:14:05 GMT
Gee, I thought you’d be interested as I agree with a lot of your points and enjoy your posts. But you just told me to fuck off. Will do, pal. That wasn't my intention at all. It was more just a quick response, because I am in a lazy mood right now. I can talk further in a bit. Sometimes I mean to be rude, this isn't one of those times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 14, 2020 1:29:16 GMT
One thing I can't stand is people forcefully talking about stuff when the other person doesn't want to, other atheists included. Have some tact people. Religious street types who I have encountered get a blunt "none of your business" when they try to push their stuff on me. If they keep pushing I will become more aggressive in my way of speaking. The same goes for anybody trying to talk to me about stuff when I don't want to talk about it and this includes other atheists that I disagree with. I just want people to think about stuff and listen, instead of just waiting their turn to talk. The Christians who either criticize or condemn atheists forget the atheist is generally responding to theist criticisms. And for the theist, an atheist simply claiming himself as such isn’t enough. The atheist then has to defend his rationale for being an atheist. And even then, the theist will often not accept the answer. They cannot accept that an atheist is really sincere saying, the atheist really does believe in something and that something is God, but the atheist does not know this because the true rational human mind cannot help but believe in God and the atheist is not rational because he refuses to acknowledge his atheism is actually a belief system. How to tell who lacks belief in a god - I think this evidence indicates a god.
- I think this evidence does not indicate a god.
- I'm going for a soda. Does anyone want me to bring something?
'C' lacks beliefs in a god (as far as we can tell).
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 14, 2020 1:36:04 GMT
One thing I can't stand is people forcefully talking about stuff when the other person doesn't want to, other atheists included. Have some tact people. Religious street types who I have encountered get a blunt "none of your business" when they try to push their stuff on me. If they keep pushing I will become more aggressive in my way of speaking. The same goes for anybody trying to talk to me about stuff when I don't want to talk about it and this includes other atheists that I disagree with. I just want people to think about stuff and listen, instead of just waiting their turn to talk. The Christians who either criticize or condemn atheists forget the atheist is generally responding to theist criticisms. And for the theist, an atheist simply claiming himself as such isn’t enough. The atheist then has to defend his rationale for being an atheist. And even then, the theist will often not accept the answer. They cannot accept that an atheist is really sincere saying, the atheist really does believe in something and that something is God, but the atheist does not know this because the true rational human mind cannot help but believe in God and the atheist is not rational because he refuses to acknowledge his atheism is actually a belief system. I think you are talking about the type of religious people who believe that atheists are in denial or lying, because the theist is too dense to understand anything but their own POV. Some of these are the types that are told that the word of God is written on everybody's hearts and so they claim to know us better then we know ourselves because a fucking book says so. You are also bringing up something deeper about some theists philosophical POV that the world can't make sense without God. Theists have a very hard time accepting "I don't know" as an answer. It is like their mind is wired a different way. This isn't just religious people and deists, but also people who believe in anything "supernatural." I completely agree that atheists deserve to get aggressive if they are confronted first, but I am more talking about anyone who wants to force you into an argument just because they feel like it. When people start forcing their opinions on me is when I agitated and that is what I was referring to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 14, 2020 1:46:00 GMT
The Christians who either criticize or condemn atheists forget the atheist is generally responding to theist criticisms. And for the theist, an atheist simply claiming himself as such isn’t enough. The atheist then has to defend his rationale for being an atheist. And even then, the theist will often not accept the answer. They cannot accept that an atheist is really sincere saying, the atheist really does believe in something and that something is God, but the atheist does not know this because the true rational human mind cannot help but believe in God and the atheist is not rational because he refuses to acknowledge his atheism is actually a belief system. How to tell who lacks belief in a god - I think this evidence indicates a god.
- I think this evidence does not indicate a god.
- I'm going for a soda. Does anyone want me to bring something?
'C' lacks beliefs in a god (as far as we can tell).
B is ludicrous. Just like if there is zero crime, then there is zero evidence. If there is zero (no) evidence for a God, then zero (no) God can be postulated. There’s no starting point in the evidence to begin a positive argument for the existence of God. This does not necessarily rule out the existence of a God, but you can’t argue “I’m right and you’re wrong” until you firmly prove with evidence that can be tested by everybody in the argument you are right. As of now, no theist since the theists have been around has proven the existence of God, because they have presented no empirical, testable data for one.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 14, 2020 2:00:46 GMT
How to tell who lacks belief in a god - I think this evidence indicates a god.
- I think this evidence does not indicate a god.
- I'm going for a soda. Does anyone want me to bring something?
'C' lacks beliefs in a god (as far as we can tell).
B is ludicrous. Just like if there is zero crime, then there is zero evidence. If there is zero (no) evidence for a God, then zero (no) God can be postulated. There’s no starting point in the evidence to begin a positive argument for the existence of God. This does not necessarily rule out the existence of a God, but you can’t argue “I’m right and you’re wrong” until you firmly prove with evidence that can be tested by everybody in the argument you are right. As of now, no theist since the theists have been around has proven the existence of God, because they have presented no empirical, testable data for one. I don't believe a God exists for multiple reasons, but mainly because it is unbelievable in the way that God is described. I was an agnostic theist for a while when I was young, but even then it was more because this idea is everywhere and not because it made much sense to me. It wasn't something I thought about much or even cared about. I mostly just liked the idea of Heaven in a generic sense. Even in catechism the stories sounded like make believe to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 14, 2020 2:29:05 GMT
B is ludicrous. Just like if there is zero crime, then there is zero evidence. If there is zero (no) evidence for a God, then zero (no) God can be postulated. There’s no starting point in the evidence to begin a positive argument for the existence of God. This does not necessarily rule out the existence of a God, but you can’t argue “I’m right and you’re wrong” until you firmly prove with evidence that can be tested by everybody in the argument you are right. As of now, no theist since the theists have been around has proven the existence of God, because they have presented no empirical, testable data for one. I don't believe a God exists for multiple reasons, but mainly because it is unbelievable in the way that God is described. I was an agnostic theist for a while when I was young, but even then it was more because this idea is everywhere and not because it made much sense to me. It wasn't something I thought about much or even cared about. I mostly just liked the idea of Heaven in a generic sense. Even in catechism the stories sounded like make believe to me. Guys like Ar lump every atheist into one category that he has labeled and can’t understand that most people who identify specifically as atheists have probably thought long and hard about it. I’ve ran the gambit in my “spiritual” journey logging in thousands of hours in formal and personal study. So, I’m pretty comfortable with my “belief system” as is that does not have a God in it. This is not because I never looked, but because I looked and looked and looked and kept coming up empty. Ar does not believe this is possible...he thinks there is a God and it’s the atheist’s fault for not finding him.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 14, 2020 2:44:39 GMT
I don't believe a God exists for multiple reasons, but mainly because it is unbelievable in the way that God is described. I was an agnostic theist for a while when I was young, but even then it was more because this idea is everywhere and not because it made much sense to me. It wasn't something I thought about much or even cared about. I mostly just liked the idea of Heaven in a generic sense. Even in catechism the stories sounded like make believe to me. Guys like Ar lump every atheist into one category that he has labeled and can’t understand that most people who identify specifically as atheists have probably thought long and hard about it. I’ve ran the gambit in my “spiritual” journey logging in thousands of hours in formal and personal study. So, I’m pretty comfortable with my “belief system” as is that does not have a God in it. This is not because I never looked, but because I looked and looked and looked and kept coming up empty. Ar does not believe this is possible...he thinks there is a God and it’s the atheist’s fault for not finding him. That doesn't change that the atheist doesn't believe. I am not going to be helping your case, because I don't have the interest, patience or even understanding to study deep into it. Should I have to go out looking for aliens or bigfoot to not believe they exist? It is a terrible argument for theists to make. Do you know how much time and intelligence this would take. A person would have to study every religion and God claim in immense detail in order to be unbiased. They would have to look up every claim and every rebuttal to every claim. Most people don't have the time or interest to do this, especially if they don't even care that much. I am not too concerned with what theists or most people think about me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 14, 2020 3:11:17 GMT
Guys like Ar lump every atheist into one category that he has labeled and can’t understand that most people who identify specifically as atheists have probably thought long and hard about it. I’ve ran the gambit in my “spiritual” journey logging in thousands of hours in formal and personal study. So, I’m pretty comfortable with my “belief system” as is that does not have a God in it. This is not because I never looked, but because I looked and looked and looked and kept coming up empty. Ar does not believe this is possible...he thinks there is a God and it’s the atheist’s fault for not finding him. That doesn't change that the atheist doesn't believe. I am not going to be helping your case, because I don't have the interest, patience or even understanding to study deep into it. Should I have to go out looking for aliens or bigfoot to not believe they exist? It is a terrible argument for theists to make. Do you know how much time and intelligence this would take. A person would have to study every religion and God claim in immense detail in order to be unbiased. They would have to look up every claim and every rebuttal to every claim. Most people don't have the time or interest to do this, especially if they don't even care that much. This is true about Bigfoot,* but most atheists, particularly in the USA, are either culturally attached or culturally adjacent to Christianity. So, most folks who bother to consider whether God exists or not, start from the widely held societal assumption God exists (In God We Trust is on our money) and it’s often up to the atheist to justify their case why they are not conforming to society. There are many folks I’m sure who claim atheism because they don’t want to be bothered about thinking about and others say they are Christian because they likewise don’t want to be bothered. I doubt any these people are in this forum. * But unlike Bigfoot which can be written off as something not expected to harm our social status if we do or don’t believe in it. Even now, peopled surveyed say atheists are less moral than Christians.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 14, 2020 3:18:43 GMT
That doesn't change that the atheist doesn't believe. I am not going to be helping your case, because I don't have the interest, patience or even understanding to study deep into it. Should I have to go out looking for aliens or bigfoot to not believe they exist? It is a terrible argument for theists to make. Do you know how much time and intelligence this would take. A person would have to study every religion and God claim in immense detail in order to be unbiased. They would have to look up every claim and every rebuttal to every claim. Most people don't have the time or interest to do this, especially if they don't even care that much. This is true about Bigfoot,* but most atheists, particularly in the USA, are either culturally attached or culturally adjacent to Christianity. So, most folks who bother to consider whether God exists or not, start from the widely held societal assumption God exists (In God We Trust is on our money) and it’s often up to the atheist to justify their case why they are not conforming to society. There are many folks I’m sure who claim atheism because they don’t want to be bothered about thinking about and others say they are Christian because they likewise don’t want to be bothered. I doubt any these people are in this forum. * But unlike Bigfoot which can be written off as something not expected to harm our social status if we do or don’t believe in it. Even now, peopled surveyed say atheists are less moral than Christians. I was only using bigfoot in the way of lacking belief, I wasn't saying that they are the same in every other way. Atheism is just lack of belief that God exists in the way I use it. Though, yes, this is something I have thought about in more detail than many people. I am just saying that I am not going to waste my time on it when I have other stuff I am far more interested in. Also, the theist that is expecting the atheist to do all this work, they need to do all the work as well in stead of just believing because everybody else does. If they don't, then they are a hypocrite. I have learned that I know more about this stuff than most of the theists I have talked to. I am convinced God doesn't exist, I am not on the fence about it. I can give my reasons on command as well. Whether or not a theist accepts those reasons is not my problem. There is nothing I can do about what another person thinks about my POV after I have explained it to them as well as I know how. Many theists come off as egomaniacs to me. People who are terrified of the void and questions that can't be answered. Why does the universe exist? I don't know and I don't even care all that much. I talked to this one theist who just couldn't accept that I am not afraid of no longer existing. These people need answers to big questions and I don't. In fact, I love the mystery. I would rather not know the answers and just forever wonder. My answer to Pascal's Wager? I'll find out when I am dead, won't I. If there is a God and I end up in Hell? Well, that's a whoopsy.  It is all rather humorous to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 14, 2020 3:50:11 GMT
This is true about Bigfoot,* but most atheists, particularly in the USA, are either culturally attached or culturally adjacent to Christianity. So, most folks who bother to consider whether God exists or not, start from the widely held societal assumption God exists (In God We Trust is on our money) and it’s often up to the atheist to justify their case why they are not conforming to society. There are many folks I’m sure who claim atheism because they don’t want to be bothered about thinking about and others say they are Christian because they likewise don’t want to be bothered. I doubt any these people are in this forum. * But unlike Bigfoot which can be written off as something not expected to harm our social status if we do or don’t believe in it. Even now, peopled surveyed say atheists are less moral than Christians. I was only using bigfoot in the way of lacking belief, I wasn't saying that they are the same in every other way. Atheism is just lack of belief that God exists in the way I use it. Though, yes, this is something I have thought about in more detail than many people. I am just saying that I am not going to waste my time on it when I have other stuff I am far more interested in. Also, the theist that is expecting the atheist to do all this work, they need to do all the work as well in stead of just believing because everybody else does. If they don't, then they are a hypocrite. I have learned that I know more about this stuff than most of the theists I have talked to. I am convinced God doesn't exist, I am not on the fence about it. I can give my reasons on command as well. Whether or not a theist accepts those reasons is not my problem. There is nothing I can do about what another person thinks about my POV after I have explained it to them as well as I know how. Many theists come off as egomaniacs to me. People who are terrified of the void and questions that can't be answered. Why does the universe exist? I don't know and I don't even care all that much. I talked to this one theist who just couldn't accept that I am not afraid of no longer existing. These people need answers to big questions and I don't. In fact, I love the mystery. I would rather not know the answers and just forever wonder. My answer to Pascal's Wager? I'll find out when I am dead, won't I. If there is a God and I end up in Hell? Well, that's a whoopsy. It is all rather humorous to me. Exactly
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 14, 2020 11:08:56 GMT
How to tell who lacks belief in a god - I think this evidence indicates a god.
- I think this evidence does not indicate a god.
- I'm going for a soda. Does anyone want me to bring something?
'C' lacks beliefs in a god (as far as we can tell).
B is ludicrous. Just like if there is zero crime, then there is zero evidence. If there is zero (no) evidence for a God, then zero (no) God can be postulated. There’s no starting point in the evidence to begin a positive argument for the existence of God. This does not necessarily rule out the existence of a God, but you can’t argue “I’m right and you’re wrong” until you firmly prove with evidence that can be tested by everybody in the argument you are right. As of now, no theist since the theists have been around has proven the existence of God, because they have presented no empirical, testable data for one. You are assuming incorrectly that there is "zero" evidence. To put that another way, you believe there is zero evidence. That is one reason (there are more) it is "ludicrous" (dish / take) to claim you lack belief. The internet is replete with such nonsense because for decades now in real science it has been increasingly obvious that science is hitting a brick wall and absolutely cannot explain how life could begin in any "natural" lifeless scenario whatsoever. A large number of people had assumed from the time of Darwin that science would one day "soon" demonstrate "animalcules" assembling by sheer chance. They had become accustomed to assuming that religion is totally irrelevant and even blaming it for all the trouble in the world. Bad habits are hard to break. There has been a backlash against the shining truth that religion might be misguided, but there definitely needs to be some. I mentioned other reasons. It is indeed more complicated. Quite often the problem in these arguments about the existence of god is that there are obviously different definitions of a god being used by each side. "Debating" makes no sense unless both sides debate the same topic. Usually atheists are defining god in a way that no one else would. Children are given the impression of god as an old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds. That however is only an accommodation to children who cannot understand abstract ideas very well yet. There are three things with distinctively different and independent characteristics that people mean when they talk about a god. - The abstract or indirectly identified forces in nature and society that assist society in developing ethical codes.
- A benevolent director of spiritual or "extrasensory" phenomena such as clairvoyance, premonition, and other knowledge by revelation.
- The answer to the question how life originated on a previously molten planet, which rather obviously is not found in lifeless nature, thus "supernatural" or intelligent.
To argue that there is "no evidence" for #1 is ludicrous because it is as evident as baseball. You can see the people going into and coming out of the buildings. It is important to understand that most people who attend religious services use this definition far above all others.
Arguments for extrasensory perception #2 are problematic in that it is so easily faked. However there are tests and evidence where first hand witnesses can see proof. If a child suddenly speaks a language never experienced or studied the mother will know it was a special revelation because she knows exactly where the child has been and with whom the child's entire life. The rest of the world will just assume the child did have exposure to the language or studied it from books. Various denominations have various attitudes toward spiritual phenomena. Some recognize it being possible in the modern world ("Pentecostals" for example) and some do not.
The intelligent designer #3 is now a fact. Thus it is science not religion. The tornado-in-a-junkyard argument against assembly is well established. To claim there is a "false equivalence" between the biological construction and the tornado is that "backlash" against the obvious truth. The only people who assert a false equivalence are people who never use words as long as "equivalence" otherwise and think they sound intelligent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 14, 2020 11:15:33 GMT
B is ludicrous. Just like if there is zero crime, then there is zero evidence. If there is zero (no) evidence for a God, then zero (no) God can be postulated. There’s no starting point in the evidence to begin a positive argument for the existence of God. This does not necessarily rule out the existence of a God, but you can’t argue “I’m right and you’re wrong” until you firmly prove with evidence that can be tested by everybody in the argument you are right. As of now, no theist since the theists have been around has proven the existence of God, because they have presented no empirical, testable data for one. You are assuming incorrectly that there is "zero" evidence. To put that another way, you believe there is zero evidence. That is one reason (there are more) it is "ludicrous" (dish / take) to claim you lack belief. The internet is replete with such nonsense because for decades now in real science it has been increasingly obvious that science is hitting a brick wall and absolutely cannot explain how life could begin in any "natural" lifeless scenario whatsoever. A large number of people had assumed from the time of Darwin that science would one day "soon" demonstrate "animalcules" assembling by sheer chance. They had become accustomed to assuming that religion is totally irrelevant and even blaming it for all the trouble in the world. Bad habits are hard to break. There has been a backlash against the shining truth that religion might be misguided, but there definitely needs to be some. I mentioned other reasons. It is indeed more complicated. Quite often the problem in these arguments about the existence of god is that there are obviously different definitions of a god being used by each side. "Debating" makes no sense unless both sides debate the same topic. Usually atheists are defining god in a way that no one else would. Children are given the impression of god as an old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds. That however is only an accommodation to children who cannot understand abstract ideas very well yet. There are three things with distinctively different and independent characteristics that people mean when they talk about a god. - The abstract or indirectly identified forces in nature and society that assist society in developing ethical codes.
- A benevolent director of spiritual or "extrasensory" phenomena such as clairvoyance, premonition, and other knowledge by revelation.
- The answer to the question how life originated on a previously molten planet, which rather obviously is not found in lifeless nature, thus "supernatural" or intelligent.
To argue that there is "no evidence" for #1 is ludicrous because it is as evident as baseball. You can see the people going into and coming out of the buildings. It is important to understand that most people who attend religious services use this definition far above all others.
Arguments for extrasensory perception #2 are problematic in that it is so easily faked. However there tests and evidence where first hand witnesses can see proof. If a child suddenly speaks a language never experienced or studied the mother will know it was a special revelation because she knows exactly where the child has been and with whom the child's entire life, the rest of the world will just assume the child did have exposure to the language or studied it from books. Various denominations have various attitudes to spiritual phenomena. Some recognize it being possible in the modern world ("Pentecostals" for example) and some do not.
The intelligent designer #3 is now a fact. The tornado-in-a-junkyard argument against assembly is well established. To claim there is a "false equivalence" between the biological construction and the tornado is that "backlash" against the obvious truth. The only people who assert a false equivalence are people who never use words as long as "equivalence" otherwise and think they sound intelligent.
How do you believe in nothing? And it is not nearly as complicated as you make out. You either do or don't believe in God. That you believe in a specific god does add to the complication because not only do you have to prove there is a god but that god is Yahweh. You can pull out all the usual suspects like the watchmaker or first causes, but until you can definitively prove there is a small "g" god, you can't prove there is a big "G" one either. So no matter what I believe, you still got a handful of nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Nov 14, 2020 11:22:29 GMT
Nope. I stay clear of "groups" and "leaders".
They can kiss it.
IMDB is a group. R, F & S is a more specific group. I'm sorry I can't help you with the kissing though. I guess you meant atheist groups. It's a forum mainly to ask questions. Or answer them. These were all registered on imdb before they decided forums weren't kosher, and told us to eff off. So we all came on because we're movie buffs. But even then, I don't follow a select group of fans. I don't think some of them would approve of my tastes. 
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Nov 14, 2020 11:23:29 GMT
IMDB is a group. R, F & S is a more specific group. I'm sorry I can't help you with the kissing though. I guess you meant atheist groups. Here's a "group" that I hope he has the good sense to stay clear of.
I did join the Mickey Mouse Fan Club as a child....
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 14, 2020 11:31:25 GMT
Here's a "group" that I hope he has the good sense to stay clear of.
I did join the Mickey Mouse Fan Club as a child....
Seems innocent enough.... 
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 14, 2020 11:54:36 GMT
IMDB is a group. R, F & S is a more specific group. I'm sorry I can't help you with the kissing though. I guess you meant atheist groups. It's a forum mainly to ask questions. Or answer them. These were all registered on imdb before they decided forums weren't kosher, and told us to eff off. So we all came on because we're movie buffs. But even then, I don't follow a select group of fans. I don't think some of them would approve of my tastes. I have found your presence on this board or group or forum or whatever it's called a blessing so far. Now I sound like a flatterer, sorry.
|
|
