Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255503 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173243 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you claiming that God doesn't exist?
There is less evidence for a deity than there is for the luminous ether. I don't believe the luminous ether exists either.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#173244 Aug 2, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope not the only avenue, but atheism in itself can be enlightenment to an ex christian who is then free to think freely without the fetters of faith.
Hey that's a good idea, lets try that!

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173245 Aug 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
No I said a house in Bethlehem as stated in Matthew where they lived for two years before fleeing to Egypt and afterwards moved to Nazareth. In Luke they live in Nazareth and were traveling for the census and stopped off in Bethlehem where she gave birth in. Manger.
You seriously can't see the contradictions and errors there? Seriously?
<quoted text>
It doesn't state that in either Matthew 1 or 2. Here, read for yourself.

Matthew 1

New Living Translation (NLT)
The Ancestors of Jesus the Messiah

1 This is a record of the ancestors of Jesus the Messiah, a descendant of David[a] and of Abraham:

2 Abraham was the father of Isaac.
Isaac was the father of Jacob.
Jacob was the father of Judah and his brothers.
3 Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah (whose mother was Tamar).
Perez was the father of Hezron.
Hezron was the father of Ram.[b]
4 Ram was the father of Amminadab.
Amminadab was the father of Nahshon.
Nahshon was the father of Salmon.
5 Salmon was the father of Boaz (whose mother was Rahab).
Boaz was the father of Obed (whose mother was Ruth).
Obed was the father of Jesse.
6 Jesse was the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon (whose mother was Bathsheba, the widow of Uriah).
7 Solomon was the father of Rehoboam.
Rehoboam was the father of Abijah.
Abijah was the father of Asa.[c]
8 Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat.
Jehoshaphat was the father of Jehoram.[d]
Jehoram was the father[e] of Uzziah.
9 Uzziah was the father of Jotham.
Jotham was the father of Ahaz.
Ahaz was the father of Hezekiah.
10 Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh.
Manasseh was the father of Amon.[f]
Amon was the father of Josiah.
11 Josiah was the father of Jehoiachin[g] and his brothers (born at the time of the exile to Babylon).
12 After the Babylonian exile:
Jehoiachin was the father of Shealtiel.
Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel.
13 Zerubbabel was the father of Abiud.
Abiud was the father of Eliakim.
Eliakim was the father of Azor.
14 Azor was the father of Zadok.
Zadok was the father of Akim.
Akim was the father of Eliud.
15 Eliud was the father of Eleazar.
Eleazar was the father of Matthan.
Matthan was the father of Jacob.
16 Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary.
Mary gave birth to Jesus, who is called the Messiah.

17 All those listed above include fourteen generations from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the Babylonian exile, and fourteen from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah.
The Birth of Jesus the Messiah

18 This is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But before the marriage took place, while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit. 19 Joseph, her fiancé, was a good man and did not want to disgrace her publicly, so he decided to break the engagement[h] quietly.

20 As he considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream.“Joseph, son of David,” the angel said,“do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For the child within her was conceived by the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will have a son, and you are to name him Jesus,[i] for he will save his people from their sins.”

22 All of this occurred to fulfill the Lord’s message through his prophet:

23 “Look! The virgin will conceive a child!
She will give birth to a son,
and they will call him Immanuel,[j]
which means ‘God is with us.’”

24 When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded and took Mary as his wife. 25 But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173246 Aug 2, 2013
Matthew 2

New Living Translation (NLT)
Visitors from the East

2 Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the reign of King Herod. About that time some wise men[a] from eastern lands arrived in Jerusalem, asking, 2 “Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star as it rose,[b] and we have come to worship him.”

3 King Herod was deeply disturbed when he heard this, as was everyone in Jerusalem. 4 He called a meeting of the leading priests and teachers of religious law and asked,“Where is the Messiah supposed to be born?”

5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they said,“for this is what the prophet wrote:

6 ‘And you, O Bethlehem in the land of Judah,
are not least among the ruling cities[c] of Judah,
for a ruler will come from you
who will be the shepherd for my people Israel.’[d]”

7 Then Herod called for a private meeting with the wise men, and he learned from them the time when the star first appeared. 8 Then he told them,“Go to Bethlehem and search carefully for the child. And when you find him, come back and tell me so that I can go and worship him, too!”

9 After this interview the wise men went their way. And the star they had seen in the east guided them to Bethlehem. It went ahead of them and stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were filled with joy! 11 They entered the house and saw the child with his mother, Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasure chests and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

12 When it was time to leave, they returned to their own country by another route, for God had warned them in a dream not to return to Herod.
The Escape to Egypt

13 After the wise men were gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream.“Get up! Flee to Egypt with the child and his mother,” the angel said.“Stay there until I tell you to return, because Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”

14 That night Joseph left for Egypt with the child and Mary, his mother, 15 and they stayed there until Herod’s death. This fulfilled what the Lord had spoken through the prophet:“I called my Son out of Egypt.”[e]

16 Herod was furious when he realized that the wise men had outwitted him. He sent soldiers to kill all the boys in and around Bethlehem who were two years old and under, based on the wise men’s report of the star’s first appearance. 17 Herod’s brutal action fulfilled what God had spoken through the prophet Jeremiah:

18 “A cry was heard in Ramah—
weeping and great mourning.
Rachel weeps for her children,
refusing to be comforted,
for they are dead.”[f]
The Return to Nazareth

19 When Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt. 20 “Get up!” the angel said.“Take the child and his mother back to the land of Israel, because those who were trying to kill the child are dead.”

21 So Joseph got up and returned to the land of Israel with Jesus and his mother. 22 But when he learned that the new ruler of Judea was Herod’s son Archelaus, he was afraid to go there. Then, after being warned in a dream, he left for the region of Galilee. 23 So the family went and lived in a town called Nazareth. This fulfilled what the prophets had said:“He will be called a Nazarene.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...

Feel free to show me where in the bible it says they lived in Bethlehem for two years. I provided both chapters of Matthew that describe the conception and birth of Jesus.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#173247 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't state that in either Matthew 1 or 2. Here, read for yourself.
Matthew 1
New Living Translation (NLT)
The Ancestors of Jesus the Messiah
1 This is a record of the ancestors of Jesus the Messiah, a descendant of David[a] and of Abraham:
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac.
Isaac was the father of Jacob.
Jacob was the father of Judah and his brothers.
3 Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah (whose mother was Tamar).
Perez was the father of Hezron.
Hezron was the father of Ram.[b]
4 Ram was the father of Amminadab.
Amminadab was the father of Nahshon.
Nahshon was the father of Salmon.
5 Salmon was the father of Boaz (whose mother was Rahab).
Boaz was the father of Obed (whose mother was Ruth).
Obed was the father of Jesse.
6 Jesse was the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon (whose mother was Bathsheba, the widow of Uriah).
7 Solomon was the father of Rehoboam.
Rehoboam was the father of Abijah.
Abijah was the father of Asa.[c]
8 Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat.
Jehoshaphat was the father of Jehoram.[d]
Jehoram was the father[e] of Uzziah.
9 Uzziah was the father of Jotham.
Jotham was the father of Ahaz.
Ahaz was the father of Hezekiah.
10 Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh.
Manasseh was the father of Amon.[f]
Amon was the father of Josiah.
11 Josiah was the father of Jehoiachin[g] and his brothers (born at the time of the exile to Babylon).
12 After the Babylonian exile:
Jehoiachin was the father of Shealtiel.
Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel.
13 Zerubbabel was the father of Abiud.
Abiud was the father of Eliakim.
Eliakim was the father of Azor.
14 Azor was the father of Zadok.
Zadok was the father of Akim.
Akim was the father of Eliud.
15 Eliud was the father of Eleazar.
Eleazar was the father of Matthan.
Matthan was the father of Jacob.
16 Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary.
Mary gave birth to Jesus, who is called the Messiah.
17 All those listed above include fourteen generations from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the Babylonian exile, and fourteen from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah.
The Birth of Jesus the Messiah
18 This is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But before the marriage took place, while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit. 19 Joseph, her fiancé, was a good man and did not want to disgrace her publicly, so he decided to break the engagement[h] quietly.
20 As he considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream.“Joseph, son of David,” the angel said,“do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For the child within her was conceived by the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will have a son, and you are to name him Jesus,[i] for he will save his people from their sins.”
22 All of this occurred to fulfill the Lord’s message through his prophet:
23 “Look! The virgin will conceive a child!
She will give birth to a son,
and they will call him Immanuel,[j]
which means ‘God is with us.’”
24 When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded and took Mary as his wife. 25 But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
So this Jesus was not related to David in any way.
Glad we cleared THAT up.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173248 Aug 2, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
A new born is born with no concept of go, no belief in any god.
When a human has no belief in god they are atheists, i.e. the default position is atheism
What is learned later, whether it is by exploration or teaching is not the default position.
Atheism is not simply lack of knowledge of God. That would be classified as ignorance. When you don't have knowledge of something, one is ignorant regarding that subject. Atheism is willful rejection of belief in God. A baby has no cognitive knowledge of God but does have the inquisitive mind to explore the world he or she is a part of. So the baby isn't an atheist. A baby is an open minded exploring human being. To be able to say "I'm an atheist" one has to know what atheism is, and one has to be aware that this is a conscious choice.

If we ask a person "Do you believe in God?" the default answer of ignorance would be "What is God?" If I ask you, you're going to say that you don't believe in any god. It's not a position of ignorance you hold. It's one of conscious choice to willfully reject the existence of any God.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#173249 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you claiming that God doesn't exist?
There is certainly no evidence to suggest any god exists.

That complete lack of evidence therefore suggests that no gods exist.

Take trees for example. If there were no trees anywhere and no evidence of trees ever existing anywhere would you consider that trees existed?

Likewise there is no observable god, there is no evidence nor has there ever been evidence of a god entity, therefore no gods exist.

Science can verifiably explain much about the universe, the babble can explain nothing of the universe. Therefore who are we to believe, the babble with no evidence or science with multiple lines of evidence?

Science says we don’t know how this universe came about but we have several theories that to varying degrees match the known data. Sseveral even account for the unknown such as hot spots in the CMB and entire galaxies (Andromeda for example) travelling contrary to the motion of the universe and we are working to narrow those theories into a definitive answer,

Religions says we don’t know how this universe came about so we will guess with no evidence of any god that a goddidiit by magic and we will attempt to refute and deny and even lie, threaten and injure (or kill) to keep our faith.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#173250 Aug 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey that's a good idea, lets try that!
Tried it, it works beyond the wildest imagination

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173251 Aug 2, 2013
ignorance [&#712;&#618;gn&#6 01;r&#601;ns]
n
lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorance

a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

dis·be·lief (dsb-lf)
n.
Refusal or reluctance to believe.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief

These are the definitions of ignorance, atheism, and disbelief. As you can see, ignorance is simply lack of knowledge. Atheism is disbelief or denial of God.
Disbelief is a conscious thought process and is synonymous with denial.

The default human position regarding God, is ignorance. Not atheism.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173252 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is not simply lack of knowledge of God. That would be classified as ignorance. When you don't have knowledge of something, one is ignorant regarding that subject. Atheism is willful rejection of belief in God. A baby has no cognitive knowledge of God but does have the inquisitive mind to explore the world he or she is a part of. So the baby isn't an atheist. A baby is an open minded exploring human being. To be able to say "I'm an atheist" one has to know what atheism is, and one has to be aware that this is a conscious choice.
If we ask a person "Do you believe in God?" the default answer of ignorance would be "What is God?" If I ask you, you're going to say that you don't believe in any god. It's not a position of ignorance you hold. It's one of conscious choice to willfully reject the existence of any God.
I definitely have tendencies towards ignosticism. There is a fundamental problem even in defining the concept of 'God'. For example, if you identify God with the universe or the laws of physics, then I believe in God. But I also feel that such an identification is a misuse of the word 'God'.

Anything past that and I need more specifics to know whether I believe, disbelieve, or am uncommitted to your particular God. I definitely do not believe in Thor, Athena, Zeus, Yahweh, Ahura Mazda, Allah, or Coyote.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173253 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
ignorance [&#712;&#618;gn&#6 01;r&#601;ns]
n
lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorance
a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
dis·be·lief (dsb-lf)
n.
Refusal or reluctance to believe.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief
These are the definitions of ignorance, atheism, and disbelief. As you can see, ignorance is simply lack of knowledge. Atheism is disbelief or denial of God.
Disbelief is a conscious thought process and is synonymous with denial.
The default human position regarding God, is ignorance. Not atheism.
If you do not believe because of lack of evidence, is that a refusal to believe?

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#173254 Aug 2, 2013
Divine Alien wrote:
When we leave this world, we are going back to God himself.
You will, as you do know yourself, others here are God's drones. They do know themselves.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#173255 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
ignorance [&#712;&#618;gn&#6 01;r&#601;ns]
n
lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorance
a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
dis·be·lief (dsb-lf)
n.
Refusal or reluctance to believe.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief
These are the definitions of ignorance, atheism, and disbelief. As you can see, ignorance is simply lack of knowledge. Atheism is disbelief or denial of God.
Disbelief is a conscious thought process and is synonymous with denial.
The default human position regarding God, is ignorance. Not atheism.
When you're brave enough to prove the god you're here to lie about, your opinions will matter more.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#173256 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
It's one of conscious choice to willfully reject the existence of any God.
Most creationists don't accept atheism. They always need to see atheism in the context of faith, belief, satanism, or any other attempt to manipulate the actual definition to please the infected mind of the mentalluy ill creationists.

Creationists love to try to redefine atheism on their own terms, which shows you how deceitfully they think.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173257 Aug 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
When you're brave enough to prove the god you're here to lie about, your opinions will matter more.
Do you realize this is a contradictory (and therefore self-refuting) statement?

You're stating that I'm lying and that I need bravery to prove the thing you think I'm lying about. How am I to prove it if you already carry the presupposition that I'm lying? You would have to remove that presupposition, which would then endanger your worldview. Since you don't know me, you're forced by your presuppositions to believe that I'm lying, which is an example of blind faith. You hold this opinion with no evidence for it.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173258 Aug 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Most creationists don't accept atheism. They always need to see atheism in the context of faith, belief, satanism, or any other attempt to manipulate the actual definition to please the infected mind of the mentalluy ill creationists.
Creationists love to try to redefine atheism on their own terms, which shows you how deceitfully they think.
I didn't try to define it based upon my own terms. I showed the dictionary definitions along with the links. They all correlate to each other within the context of atheism. By doing so, I showed no evidence of deceit. Further, an assertion of mental illness via the internet and without a valid license to practice psychology or psychiatry violates the ethics of the medical profession and the basic methodologies of science which require observation in accordance with established criteria for making said diagnosis.

Do you really think things through before you post?
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#173259 Aug 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is less evidence for a deity than there is for the luminous ether. I don't believe the luminous ether exists either.
Or...The evidence for God is at the same level as evidence for werewolves.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173260 Aug 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you do not believe because of lack of evidence, is that a refusal to believe?
Lack of evidence is an interesting subject in itself. What are the criteria for evidence? Is it "beyond reasonable doubt" i.e. certainty? Or, is it "preponderance of the evidence" meaning "more likely than not." I know you have stated that your standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" which equates to certainty or so near certainty as to be indistinguishable from certainty. My question though, is "why?" Why beyond reasonable doubt? My contention is that we all do things every day that do not require certainty. We get in our cars and go to work without even thinking of the probability of an accident. We step into the shower without considering the probability of a slip and fall accident. We cook without considering whether or not we will burn down our house. In all of these activities we can significantly reduce risks, but not to the extent that we can enjoy 100% certainty of success. So if we can do all of these activities with less than 100% certainty, then why require such a high standard for the evidence that points to the existence of God?
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#173261 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
ignorance [&#712;&#618;gn&#6 01;r&#601;ns]
n
lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorance
a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
dis·be·lief (dsb-lf)
n.
Refusal or reluctance to believe.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disbelief
These are the definitions of ignorance, atheism, and disbelief. As you can see, ignorance is simply lack of knowledge. Atheism is disbelief or denial of God.
Disbelief is a conscious thought process and is synonymous with denial.
The default human position regarding God, is ignorance. Not atheism.
Your obvious mistake here is in defining the word "ignorance" Lack of knowledge or information means that knowledge and information are available. There is NOT information on the existence of God, nor is there any information outside of your holy book. A better application of the word ignorance would be those who refuse to accept the facts of evolution. Here both information and knowledge ARE available, but some chose to ignore it. More aptly this is called willful ignorance. There can be NO ignorance when NO information or knowledge is non-existent. Please, the bible can not be used as a source for your argument as it is noting more than a circular argument, and personal experience NEVER constitutes proof. As has been pointed out to you, we are ALL born as Atheists, and become indoctrinated in a God belief later. Yes, the default position is Atheism.
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#173262 Aug 2, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Lack of evidence is an interesting subject in itself. What are the criteria for evidence? Is it "beyond reasonable doubt" i.e. certainty? Or, is it "preponderance of the evidence" meaning "more likely than not." I know you have stated that your standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" which equates to certainty or so near certainty as to be indistinguishable from certainty. My question though, is "why?" Why beyond reasonable doubt? My contention is that we all do things every day that do not require certainty. We get in our cars and go to work without even thinking of the probability of an accident. We step into the shower without considering the probability of a slip and fall accident. We cook without considering whether or not we will burn down our house. In all of these activities we can significantly reduce risks, but not to the extent that we can enjoy 100% certainty of success. So if we can do all of these activities with less than 100% certainty, then why require such a high standard for the evidence that points to the existence of God?
Please answer these honestly. Why don't you line your doorway with garlic? How frighten are you to go out for a walk at night that you will be attacked by werewolves? Are you ever apprehensive about crossing a footbridge wondering if a troll will come up and eat you?

My criteria for evidence IS high, and why should it be anything but? It is extremely important for me to know that my beliefs are TRUE. As my beliefs INFORM my actions. And I will go to great lengths to make sure that beliefs are as true as possible. I'm sorry that your standards for evidence are so low.

Of course nothing is certain, but we are NOT talking about certainty, we're talking about acceptable evidence. And when I say nothing is certain, I am talking about certainty as part of the naturalistic realm. You do like to play with word meanings, are trying to equate certainty with evidence.

The lack of evidence for vampires, werewolves and trolls is no different from the lack of evidence for God. You seem to put God on a higher pedestal than the other three, and laugh at the comparison. "Of course i don't believe in trolls and vampires and werewolves, but God, now that is completely different." And why is that? Because so many people accept God...argument for popularity, or because of your holy book? There are many holy books all making similar claims about a God thing. Because it seems more plausible to you personally? In the end, the evidence for your God is as non-existent As it is for vampires trolls and werewolves.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min woodtick57 1,394,797
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 3 hr Earthling-1 9,810
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 7 hr Brian_G 311,325
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Sat Bruin For Life 32,288
News What they're saying about Bulls draft pick Bobb... (Jun '15) Jun 20 Tretre 6
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jun 13 Dump Trump 201,862
I got my loan from [email protected] (Jun '13) Jun 6 James Harry 41
More from around the web