It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

10 Pieces of Redundant Dogmatic Religious Anti-Atheist Rhetoric

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


But if we and all other matter (and energy) rose out of what science calls a "unified field," and if we are aware of this unified field that makes us up, does that make the unified itself "self-aware"?




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   


What are you talking about? Where are you getting "nothing" from?



Ok I' ll post it again.


Ok? Is this it down here VVVV




Silly silly humans trying to find meaning for their lives only never realizing that for this plane of existence there is only here and now to be experienced THAT SHOULDN'T BE SPENT WORRYING ABOUT IMPRESSING SOME RIDICULOUSLY HUMANLY CONCEIVED DEITY! Such foolishness



Silly silly humans. Wtf is wrong with you?


Its the same as using 'humanity'. Again I don't mention "nothingness" anywhere, I can assume you are confusing "...never realizing that for this plane of existence there is only here and now..." let me shorten this to, "this plane of existence".



Titus :1 -2 in the hope of eternal life which God who cannot lie promised
before time began.

Isaiah : 42- 5 Thus saith God the lord he that created the heavens.


Oh yes! Every christians secret weapon! The Bible! Way to bring circular reasoning into the thread!

I don't even know whether arguing with you is going to have any positive outcome with such a reference as the bible!


I guess I should ask, what version of the bible do you enjoy more??? Do you believe everything in the bible? Surely if its the word of god how could one pick and choose!? No one answered why your god would bother taking 7 days to create the heavens and the earth when it obviously had the power to do so in the blink of an eye.


My point is, no matter how high and mighty you make yourself out to be.
You are just a puny, insignificant nothing who, along with the rest of humanity, is making an attempt to live with out the father here to guide him.

Who is making themselves out to be high and mighty? I have yet to say I am better than you (though I am quickly be lead to believe it), and yet you say I am just a puny insignificant nothing. Do you think yourself to hold a higher voice to god than its other followers??? I assume you don't. I have already stated I am humble, however my internet personality would beg the differ.

Not "guided" by the "father" am I guided by satan then? Perhaps I am guided by the spirit of Micheal Jackson?
How does one know he is being "guided" by the "father"? Are you sure you aren't being lied to? Or does the "father" tell you in your dreams or prayers that he is "the way" or perhaps you mean the more human bound father? If your prayers are answered or you receive messages in your dreams how do you know it to be from a benevolent source??? Why not a cunning demon or some psychic predator???



Look how insignificant this whole planet is in comparison to the universe
even if the half baked lie of evolution were true to the fullest extent.

Why don't you look at how insignificant this all is? Does the mention of infinity bother you or something?

Evolution!?! You really want to bring up such things?
FIRST: MODS PLEASE NOTIFY TO KEEP THREAD ON TOPIC its quickly turning into the typical religious thread.
Second: So what is your explanation for hair on the human body, or whales. Why do we have molars or canine teeth? The evidence of evolution is so tangible it can only be denied either through ignorance or just straight denial. I find the evolution of the human species a slight exception but that is best saved for the subjects of forbidden archaeology.


You can't see that some where something would have gone horribly wrong
like the earth getting sucked into the sun instead of balanced perfectly in space. It is assinine to believe the law of averages would not have caught up to us a long time ago.
That's why without God we are done for
if it is only us against the
universe. Gods will keeps the universe in line. If he walked away
do you know how long we would last? Think outside the universe not just the box.

Asinine!? I think you were born inside a box painted with pretty pictures and someone by your side to tell you how the world works. Your ideas that a perfect earth existing as being very slim is typical uneducated christian rhetoric and I am only stating this not for the purpose of insults but rather ignorance.

Let me introduce you to a friend of mine, his name is Thunderfoot from the YouTube and he is actually a scientist. I would like you to take part in watching his series:

Now there is a video in there somewhere that explains exactly how it is that the earth is a livable space.

Or perhaps you take this like a grain of salt, which you probably will, I first suggest we end our conversation since your just going to possibly repeat the same rhetoric of your "brothers" and "sisters". Perhaps other gods failed or did not desire other universes with inhabitable planets
I think not. Or perhaps your god killed the other gods in a fit since they would not worship him or follow his rules. If your god existed he was probably the outcast for being such a #ing square.


[edit on 6-12-2009 by GenLo]

[edit on 6-12-2009 by GenLo]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
But if we and all other matter (and energy) rose out of what science calls a "unified field," and if we are aware of this unified field that makes us up, does that make the unified itself "self-aware"?


Well, no. Not necessarily. I mean the notion that I come from A and am aware of A, doesn't mean that A is self-aware. Think of nature. Hurricanes come from nature. I am aware of hurricanes. That doesn't mean that nature is self aware.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
You can't see that some where something would have gone horribly wrong
like the earth getting sucked into the sun instead of balanced perfectly in space. It is assinine to believe the law of averages would not have caught up to us a long time ago.
That's why without God we are done for
if it is only us against the
universe. Gods will keeps the universe in line. If he walked away
do you know how long we would last? Think outside the universe not just the box.


[edit on 6-12-2009 by randyvs]


You've fallen for a very basic logical fallacy involving circular reasoning - the anthropic principal. This is the belief since we get along pretty good in our little corner of the universe, it must have been created just for us. The fallacy is in assuming first we were created, then the universe. But logic demands, and the theory of evolution predicts, that the reverse is true - that we evolved to be perfectly suited to our universe.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GenLo
 


Ok you have taken some descent shots and have remained civil. At least you haven't become an absolute wack job. One thing if I may? Do you realise how insulted I am by some of the things you post. Before we have even said two words in exchange. By the way thanks for not calling me on my grammar, you should have seen it six months ago. This is the
improvement.lol
Back on topic: What is the difference if I pull a few verses from a book
( any book) and you pulling up a vid. I mean if there is a difference here that we don't see eye to eye on and that I am missing.
You are most likely right that we can't have a conversation. If however you were just being condescending then.......

I will watch your vid.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   


You've fallen for a very basic logical fallacy involving circular reasoning - the anthropic principal. This is the belief since we get along pretty good in our little corner of the universe, it must have been created just for us. The fallacy is in assuming first we were created, then the universe. But logic demands, and the theory of evolution predicts, that the reverse is true - that we evolved to be perfectly suited to our universe.
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Aren't you just focusing on the facts of the example in the context of"the law of averages"? thjink of the possibilities.

What i'm trying to convey here is, the order we find in the universe, is
without arguement, unacheivable if we have only a big bang and
Newtons law of inertia.

It's obvious at certain points, that lifestyle, dictates everything for you.,
including your beliefs.
Sorry about your luck, later.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Well, no. Not necessarily. I mean the notion that I come from A and am aware of A, doesn't mean that A is self-aware.


But you didn't just come from "A," you still are "A." See? You were never separated from the unified field. Even if it took it all this time to get to creating you, before it could realize itself, I still believe it finally has.



Think of nature. Hurricanes come from nature. I am aware of hurricanes. That doesn't mean that nature is self aware.


But humans are self-aware, and aware of this "unified field" in one form or another, from which all else has arisen. We are the unified field, in intelligent, self-aware form.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Wow I am surprised you took what I said so well. Often times I view my own writing as being quite rude.

Grammar? Who's worried? I can already see several of my own mistakes, my grammar is terrible.

The reason I brought up the subject of your verses is because of it leading into circular reasoning. The video I posted will probably make you feel flabbergasted, its a long series and I can only hope you can bare to sit through the whole viewing, but since you claim to think "outside the box" perhaps your mind is open enough to watch the series in its entirety. As a reward I will agree, if offered, to watch religious propaganda. This is an offer I make only because I hate be offered by religious folk to watch their videos so I can imagine that the feeling might be mutual, plus it gives me the opportunity to debunk the video either on YouTube or even make a new thread. Generally doesn't take much to do so less they ask the impossible or something only a scientist could answer for sure, which it doesn't require that educated of a person to explain, so I don't completely mind it.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You mean consciousness?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
We are the unified field, in intelligent, self-aware form.


I think this is a very valid point and belief. But it's a theory, right? And not a scientific theory at that. It's just a speculation. A belief. Which is fine.

I actually have a speculation that we are all connected and form a one-ness, spiritually, that contains all the intelligence and information there is. But that's not a separate being, as "God" is supposed to be. It's the unification of all. This Oneness does not judge, or rule or have a "son" and it has nothing to do with the religions of the world or a book written by man. It just is. This is part of my spiritual belief. But it is not "God" as most people think of God, and I could never think of it as "God" or a supreme being, or a deity. So that's why I take the atheistic stance that I do.

If someone asked me, "Do you believe in God"? To answer truthfully, I'd have to ask them to define God.
If they said something like you have said above, I might say that it's a distinct possibility.
If they said the being that is the creator and ruler of the universe, who will one day send us each to heaven or hell, I'd say absolutely not.

The word "God" has been defined for many years and is used by religions all over the world. If we are going to redefine it, then I think we should just use a different word to avoid confusion.

Am I understanding you?

[edit on 7-12-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by bsbray11
We are the unified field, in intelligent, self-aware form.


I think this is a very valid point and belief. But it's a theory, right? And not a scientific theory at that. It's just a speculation. A belief. Which is fine.


Assuming a unified field does exist (something scientists seem to take for granted), it actually WOULD be scientifically verifiable that we are aware of such a "unified field," and that it actively gives rise to us. The only problem is nailing down what the "unified field" must be, because the more we learn about it, it seems the more questions are raised, but that is fine (and natural) to me.


I actually have a speculation that we are all connected and form a one-ness, spiritually, that contains all the intelligence and information there is. But that's not a separate being, as "God" is supposed to be. It's the unification of all. This Oneness does not judge, or rule or have a "son" and it has nothing to do with the religions of the world or a book written by man. It just is. This is part of my spiritual belief. But it is not "God" as most people think of God, and I could never think of it as "God" or a supreme being, or a deity. So that's why I take the atheistic stance that I do.


I hear that. I used to be a staunch atheist myself and took every opportunity to denounce the word "God" and intentionally try to get under Christians' feathers with it. But then I figured, using the word where it (in traditional Christian theology) should not be used, is no worse and actually may even open up peoples' minds more to new ideas of what "it" could be. Who knows. At any rate it's just a word, and I never put any kind of stock into words, only the ideas they are meant to represent, because themselves words are totally meaningless. Just lines and squiggles.


Am I understanding you?


It seems like it to me.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenLo
You mean consciousness?


Probably, but I'm not sure what you're referring to.

If not, we might as well shift our consciousness to our consciousness, because there's nothing better to be aware of.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   


I smell success.


If there's something strange talking in your head, who ya gonna call?

THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE!
512-477-2288

[edit on 11-12-2009 by GenLo]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Alright, everyone ?


I read this original post with some interest, and it does raise some points worthy of note, but it appears to be too vague in a lot of the points, imo.
Firstly, you can't lump atheists in as a whole, as there are different types of atheism ( just as there are different views on God), for example there are: scientific atheists, philosophical atheists, spiritual atheists etc.
I believe the points that are being countered in this blog post are mainly those that are generally aimed at ''scientific atheists'', and the original points attributed to religious people make more sense in that context. Also, I feel a lot of these claims raised by religious people themselves are originally counter claims to some scientific atheist.


1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

I haven't seen this argument before. I think the more common point aimed at atheists is that they don't tend to believe that life has purpose, and derive their own personal meaning to life. ''Existence preceeds essence'' and all that.

2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

In my experience this claim is usually levelled at atheists who have first stated something like: ''Look at all the problems that religion has caused the world''.
The writer of this blog appears to just brush off atheist leaning regimes that cause death and misery as ''religious by another name''. That is a poor point, because this does not invalidate the fact that these regimes were driven by an atheist ideology.
In my opinion, it is unfair to blame atheism for the crimes committed by non-believers, but it is also equally unfair for atheists to bring up the same point about God-fearing regimes that have caused death and misery.

3) Atheism is dogmatic.

I believe that both believers and non-believers in God can be dogmatic, but I think it depends on the person espousing the views and not on the actual viewpoint that they believe in.

4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.

I believe this point is aimed exclusively at scientific atheists, and in my opinion it is a valid point.
Scientific atheists tend to argue that an intelligent designer is an ''unnecessary plurality'' in the universe. If there was no design in the creation of the universe, then - by defintion - it must have arisen by chance.
I would contend that ''chance'' is no more or less an unnecessary plurality than design is. If you accept the big bang theory then isn't everything we witness in the universe the result of that, and not chance ?
Therefore, surely it's contestable as to whether anything can even happen by chance or accident.
The blogger also doesn't do his case any favours by bringing up evolution; this has nothing to do with the premise of his article, as it has absolutely no relevance to atheism or belief in God.

5) Atheism has no connection to science.

Again, in my experience this is usually aimed at atheists who rely on empiricism to come to their conclusions. I believe the point is valid, because atheism is no more or less supported in science than God is.
The truth is, that science hasn't yet ( if ever ) been able to work out how to answer this great question.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
6) Atheists are arrogant.

Another argument that depends on the person in question, I imagine, and less on their worldview. I think the theory that atheists are arrogant is based on the fact that by not believing in a higher power some become a law unto themselves by believing that there is nothing greater than them in the universe.
In my opinion, not too many atheists actually fall into this category - although they ( like anyone else ) can be arrogant in other ways too.

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.

I'm a bit confused by this, because I always thought that spiritual relates to a belief in the slightly more supernatural sense, or the soul.
While the above doesn't stop some atheists being spiritual, it does hold true to those that believe in empiricism as the core of their beliefs.

8 ) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.

I don't believe this is correct. I've never encountered the above point, but I certainly don't think it holds true in most cases.

9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.

Once more, I believe this is usually a response to the ''what about all the problems religions cause in the world''. The reply is usually aimed at the fact that the atheist who uses this argument is selectively picking wars, persecution etc. that religion is responsible for, but ignoring the benefits that religion brings too, like charity, moral and legal absolutes etc.

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.

This is a point that I can't see how atheists can refute. Surely, the very fact that atheists don't believe in any higher source for morality and right or wrong means that there can be no ''moral base'' other than that of each person.
I can only see individual morality being compatible with atheism, because anything else would be forcing your own belief of what is right and wrong on other people - which in itself is immoral ( if you see what I mean
).



Also, I too balked at this line in the article: ''Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society''.
Where did the blogger get this from ?



Cheers



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
So why is it that the superstitious always claim that being an atheist takes more faith than believing in their sky daddy?

On the contrary... it takes zero faith. Faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence. Atheists accept what their senses and intellect tells them. That there is no evidence of any kind of god. Not believing in something you've never seen takes no faith at all.

Actually let me amend that... faith is telling yourself and others that you believe in something that underneath it all you know isn't true.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benji1999
Alright, everyone ?


I read this original post with some interest, and it does raise some points worthy of note, but it appears to be too vague in a lot of the points, imo.
Firstly, you can't lump atheists in as a whole, as there are different types of atheism ( just as there are different views on God), for example there are: scientific atheists, philosophical atheists, spiritual atheists etc.
I believe the points that are being countered in this blog post are mainly those that are generally aimed at ''scientific atheists'', and the original points attributed to religious people make more sense in that context. Also, I feel a lot of these claims raised by religious people themselves are originally counter claims to some scientific atheist.


A challenger appears!
I am impressed that you know of the different atheist communities, most haven't even heard of such social groupings, I think the only one you left out was nature or natural atheists? Anyway I don't believe in titles to describe atheist beliefs since it suggests sects but I do describe myself as a spiritual atheist which would take a different thread to have to explain but I am sure you have some knowledge of.

Could you tell me a bit about yourself though? Just curious as to how you have come to know the atheist community.

The blog article is a generality made by the author containing statements I have found all to true in my own dealings. Its not there to cover all the bases, its generic and there to relate to other personal experience that many, like myself, have encountered.



1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

I haven't seen this argument before. I think the more common point aimed at atheists is that they don't tend to believe that life has purpose, and derive their own personal meaning to life. ''Existence preceeds essence'' and all that.

Its an argument that in my experience is spat by evangelicals, but you'd be better off asking the author if you want his answer. My thoughts are that the planet as well as its inhabitants are insignificant, why should one believe that there is an omni-being that exists just for you. The contradictions in believing such a fallacy are immense and I will not go into them now.



2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

In my experience this claim is usually levelled at atheists who have first stated something like: ''Look at all the problems that religion has caused the world''.
The writer of this blog appears to just brush off atheist leaning regimes that cause death and misery as ''religious by another name''. That is a poor point, because this does not invalidate the fact that these regimes were driven by an atheist ideology.
In my opinion, it is unfair to blame atheism for the crimes committed by non-believers, but it is also equally unfair for atheists to bring up the same point about God-fearing regimes that have caused death and misery.

One has to really know their history and conspiracies to discuss how the author points out something that is quite right. This would take a whole other thread to explain but I don't think you can ever say that anything that caused the deaths of anybody was, "...in the name of atheism!" where as it being replaced with a more popular phrase would be quite the opposite.



3) Atheism is dogmatic.
I believe that both believers and non-believers in God can be dogmatic, but I think it depends on the person espousing the views and not on the actual viewpoint that they believe in.

Couldn't agree more, though for some atheists, its seems to be the subject matter that makes for dogmatic arguments, such as evolution. Evolution is backed up with evidence, however there are several anomalies. These anomalies are not non-supportive of evolution but instead challenge what has been fundamentally established, Forbidden Archaeology as it is called. Again something for a new thread.


4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.
I believe this point is aimed exclusively at scientific atheists, and in my opinion it is a valid point.
Scientific atheists tend to argue that an intelligent designer is an ''unnecessary plurality'' in the universe. If there was no design in the creation of the universe, then - by defintion - it must have arisen by chance.
I would contend that ''chance'' is no more or less an unnecessary plurality than design is. If you accept the big bang theory then isn't everything we witness in the universe the result of that, and not chance ?
Therefore, surely it's contestable as to whether anything can even happen by chance or accident.
The blogger also doesn't do his case any favours by bringing up evolution; this has nothing to do with the premise of his article, as it has absolutely no relevance to atheism or belief in God.

Oh I hate having to explain such things, takes far too much time. In short I'll just put in my two cents. Everything is both chaos and order because of the existence of time eternal and the infinity. I can acknowledge the existence of your god only if you acknowledge the existence of mine (the spaghetti monster). For everything that happens here something not necessarily opposite happens somewhere else in infinity. To say that something has a beginning implies that something also has an end and therefore believers, i.e. christians, cannot believe in the infinite less they radically change the foundations for their beliefs. And I'll just leave it at that for now.



5) Atheism has no connection to science.
Again, in my experience this is usually aimed at atheists who rely on empiricism to come to their conclusions. I believe the point is valid, because atheism is no more or less supported in science than God is.
The truth is, that science hasn't yet ( if ever ) been able to work out how to answer this great question.

Valid? Really?
you lost me with this one. "...less supported in science than god is." I think the greater question is, "Why did god put this massive boil on my foot? I thought god designed my body to be perfect?" (not that I have a boil on my foot
)

[edit on 19-12-2009 by GenLo]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Benji1999
 


Wow




All that time working on a response and it gets refreshed and disappears...

I think I will respond another day so I can get over my rage right now



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GenLo
 


Alright, GenLo ?

For some reason the quote function is going higgledy-piggledy when I try and multi-quote, so I'll just italicise your points I'm replying to.

A challenger appears! I am impressed that you know of the different atheist communities, most haven't even heard of such social groupings, I think the only one you left out was nature or natural atheists? Anyway I don't believe in titles to describe atheist beliefs since it suggests sects but I do describe myself as a spiritual atheist which would take a different thread to have to explain but I am sure you have some knowledge of.

I don't look at it as challenging so much, but rather an exchange of views and opinions.

I'm interested in all the existential questions in life and think about these quite often.
I've come across all these different types of atheists in real life and on message boards, so I know there's a variety of reasons as to why some people come to form their atheist beliefs.
I realise it's not a good idea to label people, but I was just using those broad terms to differentiate the basic difference in some types of atheist.
I also respect everybody's views and beliefs as long as they do not harm anybody or anything other than themselves.


Its an argument that in my experience is spat by evangelicals, but you'd be better off asking the author if you want his answer. My thoughts are that the planet as well as its inhabitants are insignificant, why should one believe that there is an omni-being that exists just for you. The contradictions in believing such a fallacy are immense and I will not go into them now.

I would say that I don't think there are too many people that believe that God is around ''just for them'', but rather for everyone/everything as a whole.

One has to really know their history and conspiracies to discuss how the author points out something that is quite right. This would take a whole other thread to explain but I don't think you can ever say that anything that caused the deaths of anybody was, "...in the name of atheism!" where as it being replaced with a more popular phrase would be quite the opposite.

But does it matter if it's ''in the name of'' anything ? Surely it's the motivation behind it that's the important factor in this argument.
Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot may have been influenced to carry out their regimes of death and misery entirely because of a nihilistic disbelief in God, and believing that there was no consequences or nothing wrong with what they were doing purely because of their atheism.
The atheist Khmer Rouge regime murdered Buddhists, Christians and Muslims because they were religious. How can any one reconcile the opinion: ''religion causes all the problems'' when they can see that the atheists in the Khmer Rouge had exactly the same Modus Operandi as any repressive religious regime ?

Oh I hate having to explain such things, takes far too much time. In short I'll just put in my two cents. Everything is both chaos and order because of the existence of time eternal and the infinity. I can acknowledge the existence of your god only if you acknowledge the existence of mine (the spaghetti monster). For everything that happens here something not necessarily opposite happens somewhere else in infinity. To say that something has a beginning implies that something also has an end and therefore believers, i.e. christians, cannot believe in the infinite less they radically change the foundations for their beliefs. And I'll just leave it at that for now.

But do you believe that time and infinity exist for a purpose or by design ? I don't see how it matters whether there's a begginning or not, the very fact that something exists must be by chance surely if you don't believe in a purpose ?



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GenLo
 


Valid? Really? you lost me with this one. "...less supported in science than god is." I think the greater question is, "Why did god put this massive boil on my foot? I thought god designed my body to be perfect?" (not that I have a boil on my foot )

Yes, I would say that belief or disbelief in God is no more or less valid because the person in question is basing it on there own personal views and opinions. Science doesn't have an answer ( and maybe never will ) as to why/how anything exists at all, so people aren't basing their belief or disbelief on this.
It is my opinion that both design and purpose for the universe and chance and lack of purpose are all attributes that are given by humans and have no basis in science - both theist and atheist attributes that they give to the universe/existence are not scientific, imo.

All that time working on a response and it gets refreshed and disappears...

I know the feeling, bro !
What I do now if I'm writing/posting something long is to copy and paste it periodically to wordpad, then if something happens I've still got most of the post saved.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join