Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258044 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

#173728 Aug 7, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the problem with your hypothesis Bob. It's your level of expectation that is limiting you. You're super-imposing your modern ideals onto an ancient culture. You're thinking in terms of what **ought** to have happened compared to what **did** happen. The modern standards cannot be applied to ancient standards.
But modern standards *should* be applied to beliefs. They should be applied to the question of whether the evidence we have is enough to support the claims made. If the culture in the past didn't record sufficient evidence to convince us, now, then we have to remain in non-belief.

If, furthermore, the claims made are against known laws of physics, and if the historical record is insufficient to show that those laws were really broken, it is reasonable to say that those claims are unproven and almost certainly wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173729 Aug 7, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't...I don't really think the Taliban existed back then. Or were connected to those other terrorists. I've followed the money trail myself and didn't see a cross-time, cross-language money trail.
Sorry, Poly. I just have to disagree with you here.
An analogy, HFY. An analogy. These religious extremists were Jewish, but were just as happy to cause problems for those who didn't believe as the Taliban are today. I do not claim any type of connection other than that.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173730 Aug 7, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Check out here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR...
For verily I declare unto thee, thou shalt surely uncover IANS thence!
Thank you!! I was also wondering where IANS went.

Satan is the one true god

Since: Aug 13

Winter Park, FL

#173731 Aug 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
How about 'because it isn't convincing'? And since it won't get any better, it won't ever get any more convincing.
<quoted text>
But the reason it isn't convincing is that the quality of evidence isn't enough to demonstrate the most important points. It isn't even a question of a little bit more evidence would be sufficient. It isn't enough *by far* to demonstrate that there is a God and that Jesus was divine.
And if the lack of evidence is such that the existing evidence isn't convincing on such an important point, and if the evidence isn't going to get better, then the best thing to do is admit the proposition isn't proved and continue with a *lack of belief*, which is atheism.
no laws of physics were broken... and if Romanmoron believes they were, he is a bigger dimwit than I imagined..

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#173732 Aug 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
An analogy, HFY. An analogy. These religious extremists were Jewish, but were just as happy to cause problems for those who didn't believe as the Taliban are today. I do not claim any type of connection other than that.

In topix Atheists are the Taliban to the topix Christian army.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173734 Aug 7, 2013
This is Erhman says that basically the gospels are so error filled and ridiculous they just have to be based on a real guy right? They would have done a better job had they just made the whole thing up right?

Unfortunately this is looking at their style through our modern standards. Now here's what we know about the early documentation of Jesus. It began as stories of a spirit man appearing in dreams and hallucinations, which was very common in those days. Now throw in the fact that many early Christians were converted Essenes who were known to be self sacrifice loving raving zealots and realize the mind set of these people who told roman scribes the stories and honesty I am surprised at the basic cohesion we have in the gospels.

Raving zealots are not known for well thought stories. Since they themselves were lowly, humiliated and often suffered at the hands of authority for their outrageous behaviors, it would only make sense that their messiah stories would reflect that as reinforcing their actions.

If they had made Jesus look better and more heroic it wouldn't match with their demeanor and it wouldn't attract the lowly masses that they sought after.
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>I dont buy the Jesus myth theory, because I think that if they gospels were a pure fabrication, you could expect them to be better written. Being as they are a mish-mash of stories and myths, contradicting each other and with many absurdities. This I think would fit in with the creation of legends and myths around a hero figure in the past, written decades after the events.

The same idea that has been proposed for the Greek gods and myths, which I think I am right in saying, some later Greeks thought were based loosely on real people and hero cults, which evolved over time into the gods and legends of greek mythology.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173735 Aug 7, 2013
Lol! Awesome! I especially liked the historical part about giving them beer which at the time was like a form of currency!
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>Hey, Pharoh?

What's up, General in charge of trade?

Uh...we just lost 40 000 slaves. Yeah. And an army. They just took off and their deity saved them.

Oh. Well, what's the ramifications of that?

Well, we're goi-

Hahaha! General, I made a pun!

What, sir?

A pun! Don't you get it? Rami-fi-cations! I'm Ramses! hahaha, I'm so awesome. I'm a god, you know.

Yes, sir, very funny. Yes, you're a living god. The son of Ra. All heaven smiles upon you, sir.

So, what? What about these slaves and our army?

Well, and there's these plagues going around. We probably wouldn't be able to feed ourselves because the slaves left, but now that's not a problem because the plagues are killing everyone.

Huh. Ok, a net even then.

Well...it's kind of horrible out there. I mean, we've really got a lot of clean up.

Yeah, yeah. Look, don't write about this or anything. Just...sorta let it slide, ok?

What? That's hardly the point. I came to you for advice on rations, your holiness.

Yeah, sure, whatever. Just don't write about it. I'm embarrassed another deity beat me in saving slaves.

But you don't care about slaves. And...and...

What? What? Speak to your deity, worm!

Sir, just last week that other god beat you in soccer and we wrote about it. So why is this different?

Well, gosh, I don't know... That was like sports! This is like, gonna be history. I just don't want people from the future to believe in this upstart deity who really is a pain, you know?

Ramses, Ramses. We have a - I mean 'the'- greatest civilization to date! Let's just build some ships, follow those slaves, and kill the entire lot of them.

Hey! That's a great idea.

Awesome. Then we'll build some pyramids.

What??? Pyramids? Whatever for?

Well, sir, that's the other reason I came here. If I can just have a minute of your time...

Ok. Worm! Speak to your deity!

It's the latest thing in longevity, sir! First, we take 10 000 workers and pretend that they're really 100 000 slaves, and feed them meat and very expensive, hard to produce beer.

Where are you going with this?

And then, sir, after only 10 years, they will build for you a machine that will enable you to live forever.

Forever?

Yes, sir.

But I'm a deity! I will live forever.

Yes, but not really. I mean, you'll die. Tut died. You're going to die.

No I won't! I'm a deity!

We have to build this pyramid sir. It's the only thing.

<sign> Ok, by royal decree! But...but...

What, sir?

Look, I'm embarrassed about the whole thing. Go recapture those slaves and have them build it, but don't tell anyone.

What???

Yes. Don't tell anyone. I'll just go with you and re-part the Red Sea, because that's what us deities do, and you can re-capture them, and build this thing and we won't tell a damned person. Then you can let them all go again, and I'll part the Red Sea for them <yawn>.

Oh. Ok. Wow. This is getting complex.

<yawn>

I see, sir. You're tired. I'll leave.

Yeah. You go do that. Oh, and before you go, here let me break this bread and feed 10 000 men. Don't count the women or children, just give them food, ok?

Certainly, sir. And wine?

<sigh> Ok, ok, I'll make water into wine again for you. But, look, I'm tired! The tiredness that only a living god-king feels! I have to sleep soon. Send up ... I don't know, 3 women.

Done and done, sir!

(and that's how Exodus really happened)

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173736 Aug 7, 2013
You mean campfire stories. Entertaining myths handed down one generation to the next.
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>:) like the story. Seems like divine humans have been around a long while.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173737 Aug 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
But modern standards *should* be applied to beliefs.
That's not the point I'm making with regard to history. The historian cannot apply modern practices to ancient cultures. If he does, then the research is out of context and isn't honest.
polymath257 wrote:
They should be applied to the question of whether the evidence we have is enough to support the claims made.
Which in the case of Jesus' existence is more than sufficient to the majority of the world's academic scholars. Jesus Mythologists are in a very small minority, and for good reason.
polymath257 wrote:
If the culture in the past didn't record sufficient evidence to convince us, now, then we have to remain in non-belief.
Well that argument doesn't hold for a very simple reason. You used the word "sufficient" in a manner that allows for a sliding scale of convenience. It allows you to move the goal posts. That's intellectually dishonest. I think you're sensible enough to admit that goal post moving in a debate is dishonest regardless of which side does it. You're also making another a prior assumption that ancient historians didn't write anything down regarding Jesus. Maybe they did, and it hasn't been preserved. That doesn't mean that the events didn't happen. Also, historicity doesn't have the same rules that the hard sciences do. In history, events are assumed to be true if subjected to the ten tests of reliability and they pass those tests.

With regard to the NT, atheists complain if we say they were divinely inspired. So we say "Okay, let's treat them like secular historical documents." And then you complain about that too.
polymath257 wrote:
If, furthermore, the claims made are against known laws of physics, and if the historical record is insufficient to show that those laws were really broken, it is reasonable to say that those claims are unproven and almost certainly wrong.
Holding to the dogma of empiricism is really self-refuting and circular reasoning. So let me ask you a few questions about empirical science. If only empirical evidence is the only indicator of truth, how do we measure that statement? How do we scientifically prove that statement? Is there a scientific test we can apply to that statement? No. Therefore it's only a philosophy **about** physical science that can't prove itself using the empirical method.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173738 Aug 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
But the reason it isn't convincing is that the quality of evidence isn't enough to demonstrate the most important points. It isn't even a question of a little bit more evidence would be sufficient. It isn't enough *by far* to demonstrate that there is a God and that Jesus was divine.
And here I hope you understand that my following comments are not a personal attack even though I will call your reasoning into question.

1) The evidence has been convincing to millions around the world through the span of 2,000 years. What makes you think that you're entitled to a higher standard of evidence? This asks you to assess your own worthiness for evidence against people from all walks of life from the past 2,000 years. Are you claiming to be smarter than ALL of them?

2) To preemptively counter your answer to the above question, I'm going to tell you that some very intelligent people (some smarter than both you and I) have become convinced on the basis of the very same evidence I have provided in this forum. So not all Christians have come to the conclusion by blind faith. Some of the best apologists in modern times started out as skeptics.

3) I am going to let you in on some personal information. I was an agnostic until seven years ago, and then I looked into the evidence with an open mind. I had to drop my presuppositions and yet still keep a critical mind. A critical mind and critical thinking doesn't mean a skeptical mind. An "a priori" skeptical mind is actually a sign of **non-critical thinking.** I thought Christians had blind faith too. Before I looked at the evidence I mentally elevated the standard of evidence in an "a priori" fashion with the thought that if the evidence was high enough, nobody could reach it and encroach upon my psyche. That's how I know what goes on in the mind of some skeptics. I was lying to myself, and I think to an extent so are you.

That's why I respect the atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel. He admits that he doesn't want it to be true. Want is a desire. An emotion. When we don't want something, it's also a desire. We desire that which offends us to be far removed from us.

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”(”The Last Word” by Thomas Nagel, Oxford University Press: 1997)”

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#173739 Aug 7, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
Speaking of escape...
'It ain't necessarily so'(IANS) has vanished from the forums. I miss the good old doc in Mexico have you heard from him?
He's been active over in Why Should Jesus Love Me.

He's been working them over pretty good.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173740 Aug 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
How about 'because it isn't convincing'? And since it won't get any better, it won't ever get any more convincing.
You don't know that. They now believe they have portions of Go Mark dated to well within the first century. That throws a bunch of modern scholarship out the window, once again! Any turn of the spade can bring about a new discovery which provides archeological evidence for say the Exodus which you reject in total in spite of the fact there are Egyptian records of the event referenced earlier. The Egyptian records has Egypt running off Israel because they were diseased. Interesting, don't ya think?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173741 Aug 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
In topix Atheists are the Taliban to the topix Christian army.
I don't feel that way. I actually like most atheists. What I don't like are the snarky egomaniacs on both sides. I also don't have much patience with intellectual dishonesty or laziness. You, Poly, Hiding, Quantum Bob, and Albtraum are all pretty cool. I mean that.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173742 Aug 7, 2013
People became Christians in mass due to the sword and missionary work where they have away things. Converted people raised their children to believe as they did.

This is not evidence in any way shape or form as any critical thinker would tell you.

So why did the bible chronicle the family heritage of Joseph if he wasn't the Father of Jesus again? Remember Jewish tradition holds that the messiah bloodline had to come through the Father so perhaps that's why? But if he is the father than Mary wasn't a virgin. If he isn't the father than Jesus' right to be the messiah is rightfully invalidated.:)

You seem to cower from that question much to my delight.:)
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
1) The evidence has been convincing to millions around the world through the span of 2,000 years. What makes you think that you're entitled to a higher standard of evidence? This asks you to assess your own worthiness for evidence against people from all walks of life from the past 2,000 years. Are you claiming to be smarter than ALL of them?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173743 Aug 7, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
And here I hope you understand that my following comments are not a personal attack even though I will call your reasoning into question.
1) The evidence has been convincing to millions around the world through the span of 2,000 years. What makes you think that you're entitled to a higher standard of evidence? This asks you to assess your own worthiness for evidence against people from all walks of life from the past 2,000 years. Are you claiming to be smarter than ALL of them?
Not at all. But my beliefs are based on what convinces me. I am entitled to the standard of evidence I use for everything else. And that means that *all* historical writings are taken with a bit of skepticism. If they imply a violation of the laws of physics, they are taken with a great deal of skepticism. Since many of those laws of physics were not discovered until recently, some things that would have convinced Newton would not convince Einstein and some things that would convince Einstein would not convince me.

The mere fact that someone is smarter than me doesn't make them right. If I look at their arguments and am not convinced, I consider the possibility that they, like any human, can make a mistake and be convinced by insufficient evidence. I tis also a commonplace that very intelligent people in one subject can be very gullible in other subjects. That is why I would want the opinion of someone knowledgeable about 'magical' illusions to consider any evidence.
2) To preemptively counter your answer to the above question, I'm going to tell you that some very intelligent people (some smarter than both you and I) have become convinced on the basis of the very same evidence I have provided in this forum. So not all Christians have come to the conclusion by blind faith. Some of the best apologists in modern times started out as skeptics.
And if you are convinced by it, then please feel free to live by your convictions. I am not convinced by it. In fact, I am convinced that it is yet another round of superstition that managed to survive into the modern era. Nothing you have said has changed that belief.
3) I am going to let you in on some personal information. I was an agnostic until seven years ago, and then I looked into the evidence with an open mind. I had to drop my presuppositions and yet still keep a critical mind. A critical mind and critical thinking doesn't mean a skeptical mind. An "a priori" skeptical mind is actually a sign of **non-critical thinking.** I thought Christians had blind faith too. Before I looked at the evidence I mentally elevated the standard of evidence in an "a priori" fashion with the thought that if the evidence was high enough, nobody could reach it and encroach upon my psyche. That's how I know what goes on in the mind of some skeptics. I was lying to myself, and I think to an extent so are you.
I require no more to demonstrate the existence of a supernatural than I would require for the existence of dark matter. But I do require the existence of a supernatural before any historical evidence can be interpreted as a supernatural event.
That's why I respect the atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel. He admits that he doesn't want it to be true. Want is a desire. An emotion. When we don't want something, it's also a desire. We desire that which offends us to be far removed from us.
I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”(”The Last Word” by Thomas Nagel, Oxford University Press: 1997)”
So he prefers things one way.*shrug* I guess that is his right.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173744 Aug 7, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the point I'm making with regard to history. The historian cannot apply modern practices to ancient cultures. If he does, then the research is out of context and isn't honest.
I disagree. For example, the reports from the time of the black plague in Europe attribute it to many things, from poisoning of wells to a lack of religious fervor. We do not have to agree with those sources since we know that the plague is actually spread by a bacterium that infects fleas. We do and should apply our modern knowledge to those ancient cultures. We also have to know what those ancient cultures thought in order to understand their motivations, but that is not the same as saying we should take their word for things.
Which in the case of Jesus' existence is more than sufficient to the majority of the world's academic scholars. Jesus Mythologists are in a very small minority, and for good reason.
Again, I see it as fairly likely that a preacher of that sort actually taught in that area at that time. I do not see it as absolutely established, but I do see it as likely. I am interested in how the legend grew and merged with the mystery religions to become Christianity, but that doesn't mean I believe the reports of Jesus' resurrection are true, no matter how many people believed in them. In the same way that I do not believe the plague was spread by poisoning wells even though contemporary witnesses believed it was.
Well that argument doesn't hold for a very simple reason. You used the word "sufficient" in a manner that allows for a sliding scale of convenience. It allows you to move the goal posts. That's intellectually dishonest. I think you're sensible enough to admit that goal post moving in a debate is dishonest regardless of which side does it. You're also making another a prior assumption that ancient historians didn't write anything down regarding Jesus. Maybe they did, and it hasn't been preserved. That doesn't mean that the events didn't happen. Also, historicity doesn't have the same rules that the hard sciences do. In history, events are assumed to be true if subjected to the ten tests of reliability and they pass those tests.
We are not talking about simple history here. it is not a case of some battle being fought or someone making a political bid for power. Those are ordinary events that happen in a variety of ways all the time. We are talking about supernatural occurrences. And historical references, especially from a very superstitious culture (as all were a the time), are simply not sufficient. They can be quite good enough for battles (especially with archeological evidence) or even political intrigues (although some doubt as to the side of the author is reasonable), but they are not enough to show that the laws of physics and biology have to be revised.
With regard to the NT, atheists complain if we say they were divinely inspired. So we say "Okay, let's treat them like secular historical documents." And then you complain about that too.
Yes, let's treat them like other secular documents. I reject it when the Egyptians say that a deity gave them the victory in a battle. I reject it when the Hittites say that their dominance is due to being supported by a deity. I reject it when the Holy Roman Emperor says that he speaks for a deity. I reject it when Livy talks about Romulus and Remus. So, when I apply exactly the same standards to the Bible and other writings from the time, I see a collection of superstitions and attempted justifications for those superstitions.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173745 Aug 7, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Holding to the dogma of empiricism is really self-refuting and circular reasoning. So let me ask you a few questions about empirical science. If only empirical evidence is the only indicator of truth, how do we measure that statement? How do we scientifically prove that statement? Is there a scientific test we can apply to that statement? No. Therefore it's only a philosophy **about** physical science that can't prove itself using the empirical method.
First, I did not say that empiricism is the only indicator of truth. For example, mathematics is, from my perspective, a body of knowledge and truth (although probably not to the extent most people think it is).

For me, an indicator of truth is whether there is a dispute resolution procedure that, at least, shows which of two opposing viewpoints is false. For mathematics, this procedure is adherence to the accepted axioms and rules of deduction. If you wish to use other axioms and/or other rules of deduction, you must state that and abide by the axioms and rules you state.

For the sciences, the procedure is to find an experiment or observation that the two viewpoints predict different results from. Then, the experiment is done. While it may not determine who is correct, it can determine who is *wrong*. If no such experiment or observation is possible, then the two viewpoints are considered to be identical.

So, what procedure do you have to determine which among two viewpoints of the supernatural is wrong? In what way can a challenge be made if I disagree with your conclusions? What dispute resolution process is there for the supernatural?

So, for example, suppose we have two people. One says that there are 5 spiritual beings in my apartment and the other says there are only 3. How do we determine which one is wrong?

If there is no such process, there is no indicator of truth.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173746 Aug 7, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You don't know that. They now believe they have portions of Go Mark dated to well within the first century. That throws a bunch of modern scholarship out the window, once again! Any turn of the spade can bring about a new discovery which provides archeological evidence for say the Exodus which you reject in total in spite of the fact there are Egyptian records of the event referenced earlier. The Egyptian records has Egypt running off Israel because they were diseased. Interesting, don't ya think?
I am not sure why having a copy of the gospel of Mark, which is typically dated to the later part of the first century would be revolutionary if found from the later part of the first century. In any case, it still doesn't deal with the actual reliability of the document. Why should we believe what Mark says? Why should we not believe he was yet another superstitious person from that time and location that happens to believes what he writes, but is wrong about it?
Imhotep

Deltona, FL

#173747 Aug 7, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
He's been active over in Why Should Jesus Love Me.
He's been working them over pretty good.
He does that well!

Example:

---------- On A Lighter Note ----------

Re-posted and edited <by me> from the original author:'It Ain't Necessarily So'

The First Atheist Church of the Non Credo Quia Absurdum.

We have no buildings, no scriptures, no beliefs in common except by coincidence,(I refuse and nobody else is willing either), no dogma, no clergy, no missionaries, no holy book, no rituals, no observances, no special clothing or hats. We never meet, collect money, or even communicate with one another.

We do, however, demand tax exempt status.
All communications with other atheists will be exempt from legal discovery

As the self-ordained head of this church, I expect to be eligible for a job as a cruise ship chaplain or United Nations Atheist Ambassador.

Satan is the one true god

Since: Aug 13

Winter Park, FL

#173748 Aug 7, 2013
These attribution of authorship were accepted, almost without question, by Christians for close to two millennia. In the 19th century, with the use of the methods critical historical research to the books of the Bible, these traditional beliefs were slowly but relentlessly eroded.

The research has reached a point where almost all the books in the Bible are no longer held to be written by the people tradition thought them to be. This valid discovery, however, is very rarely communicated to the lay public. When it is conveyed at all, it is normally preceded with attempt on behalf of the scholars to cushion the "blow" on the reader. As a result, to this day most lay Christians and (of course) all fundamentalists hold firm to these traditional attribution of authorship.

Let us look at the problem of authorship:

Although Jewish and Christian traditions attribute the authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses, this attribution can easily be shown to be false.
Traditional attributions are also false for Joshua and Samuel.
At least some of the so-called Psalm of David could easily be shown to be of later composition.
In fact we know precious little about the author of many of the books in the Old Testament.
The gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
The two epistles attributed to the apostle Peter were definitely not written by him
Many of the epistles attributed to Paul were not written by the apostle.
Almost all the other NT books had dubious attribution of authorship.
Back to the top

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) 1 min OzRitz 1,460,165
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 6 min ThomasA 312,854
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 16 hr Pete_Carroll 32,616
News Western Michigan heads to Illinois as a favorite Wed Go Blue Forever 59
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Dec 5 Yin 17
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Nov 28 Local Warming 10,371
Should child beauty pageants be banned? (Sep '14) Nov 22 Heatherfeather 780
More from around the web