Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

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. Full Story

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#175657 Aug 27, 2013
xianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
DEFINE Creator then well see,,
Claims that atheists have faith just like religious ,theists commit the fallacy of equivocation and that's why atheists dispute it.
Everyone believes some things on meager or inadequate evidence, but atheists don't disbelieve in gods on "faith" in the sense of not having any evidence whatsoever.
The sort of "faith" which apologists try to bring in here is usually just belief that falls short of absolute certainty, a confidence based on past performance. This is not "the substance of things hoped or" or "evidence of things unseen."
the moral virtue of Christian faith depends entirely on the Christian god existing.
If no gods exist, there is nothing virtuous about trusting in any gods and there is nothing immoral about not trusting in any gods.
In a godless universe, atheism isn't a vice or sin because there are no gods to whom we owe any allegiance or trust.
Since faith as belief without evidence is neither legitimate nor a moral issue, we come back to the obligation of believers to provide sound reasons to think their god exists. In the absence of such reasons, atheists' disbelief in gods is neither intellectually nor morally problematic.
Ok please read what you posted. 1st, I offended you by posting you have no soul. If you have no belief in God how in the world is that an offensive statement. This post really has me thinking you are not an Atheist or atheist. If atheism was the primary belief, ok I'll play your silly game. What most people believed, would you doubt them. I think so. In many cases, ok maybe not you, but....

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#175658 Aug 27, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
interesting reply to a true believer type. I think there is a specific passage in the NT - probably from Saul/Paul regarding "wives obey your husbands, slaves obey your masters." I would place more emphasis on kindness to living beings, rather than just on mankind, however. I think some animals are better creatures than some humans, and would consider it more evil to kill a good animal than to kill a bad human being. <quoted text>
Then you, sir or madam, are not a species-ist.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#175659 Aug 27, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
It was answering the statement you made. And I stand by it and most likely would have to repeat it as you repeat the cause of the effect.
Yes, well, it didn't make any sense to me.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#175660 Aug 27, 2013
xianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
DEFINE Creator then well see,,
Claims that atheists have faith just like religious ,theists commit the fallacy of equivocation and that's why atheists dispute it.
Everyone believes some things on meager or inadequate evidence, but atheists don't disbelieve in gods on "faith" in the sense of not having any evidence whatsoever.
The sort of "faith" which apologists try to bring in here is usually just belief that falls short of absolute certainty, a confidence based on past performance. This is not "the substance of things hoped or" or "evidence of things unseen."
the moral virtue of Christian faith depends entirely on the Christian god existing.
If no gods exist, there is nothing virtuous about trusting in any gods and there is nothing immoral about not trusting in any gods.
In a godless universe, atheism isn't a vice or sin because there are no gods to whom we owe any allegiance or trust.
Since faith as belief without evidence is neither legitimate nor a moral issue, we come back to the obligation of believers to provide sound reasons to think their god exists. In the absence of such reasons, atheists' disbelief in gods is neither intellectually nor morally problematic.
Ok I will now answer according to my opinions or beliefs. James T Kirk asked a being posing as God. "What does God need with a starship?' My opinion of The perfect one. Is he don't need anything. My beliefs that Atheist have no souls. Is based on The Universe pumping out too many intelligent beings. Now I will throw you another off the wall curve ball. There is a good chance we are a computer simulation. If so, how could The Perfect One keep up. Overall in my opinion God is not of human appearance. Maybe we are not even creatures of God in body, but we are in soul.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#175661 Aug 27, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I will give you credit. If all atheist posted with your etiquette. I would have a higher respect for THE ONLINE ATHEIST, which are Atheist, different from atheist. I do find an Atheist like yourself in about 20% of conversations. Here at topix, I blogged with one I liked. Yes just one. This includes many on youtube, which are more closed minded if you could imagine that. Just read for yourself. The issue I have with you here in this message tread is why aren't you directing your issues of etiquette with The Atheist sort. Honestly when I saw Christians blog with you guys on youtube the Christians did some policing of their own. As I mentioned there was one I liked and he did go both directions, when complaining about online manners. It does not bother me I do expect worm meat to behave like this. I wouldn't dream of complaining about how you guys post, when it is in response to comments that could also be considered heated. It is hypocrisy, but perhaps that is the goal of the self thought to have zero beliefs.
I always think I'm kind of bitchy, to be honest.

My atheist friends laugh that I come on here at all, so you're right about the difference between topix posters and not-topix posters.

When I see a believer and an atheist in a heated argument on here, I don't know what started it. Why would I jump into the fray and say "stop calling this believer bad names!"

An example:
Nano gets all upset and blames me for other people's posts for not doing what you suggested. But she writes nasty, nasty stuff. So her opinion is hardly objective concerning her own posts and the fighting she's embroiled herself in.

I guess the bottom line is, if a believer and an atheist choose to respond to each other in a demeaning way, well, it takes two to tango.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#175662 Aug 27, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
You take BS way too seriously.
Oh. Ok, I'll stop.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#175663 Aug 27, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations your post is funnier than many of the T Town Clowns post. You actually give a greater argument than I could give. Dude face it you're trying to put dong in a 3 piece suit
Obscene post reported.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#175664 Aug 27, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations your post is funnier
I will take that as your admission of defeat.

Since you did not offer any rebuttal.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#175665 Aug 27, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> If you knew anything about the subject at hand you would know it makes complete sense. This is what i wrote.
If you knew anything about science, you wouldn't argue with me.
In Christianity the Old is interpreted through the lens of the New. That is how we know the Salem witch Trials were objectively wrong. They used the Old exclusive from the New.(In part) If you want a summary the Apostles Creed will do.
So that means your deity, whom you imagine lives outside of time, actually changes throughout time, exactly as if it were an imagined being.
It has Jesus who claims to be Truth. That is its source of objectivity. Its proof card is bodily resurrection. Your statement is nothing more than dissenting opinion. That does not make your statement objectively true.
Jesus had no objective truth and didn't even know that bacteria existed.
That is your excuse. The real reason has to do with hostility towards God depicted in the Bible and the Bible itself. That is why non believers rant about slavery which is nothing more than a means to an end. The real foe is the Bible and God depicted. Slavery is used as an excuse. They are selective. They have no objective basis to condemn slavery. If there is no God and no judgement then slavery is simply a means to an end and is just as valid as not having slaves. It is simply option 1 or 2. Slavery conforms with the laws of nature where the strong dominate the weak. If there is no God then slavery is a valid option which conforms with nature.
You are just using distraction to get away from your claim that the Bible doesn't support slavery. It quite clearly does - and, throughout history, slave owners in Western nations have almost all been Christian.

Yes, part of the struggle against slavery began by a Quaker reading of the Bible that "all men were created equal." But other Christians held very different views - that were also interpretations of the Bible.

Now I understand why you need to deny these historical truths. You need to pretend your holy book is perfect, and the perfect source of morality. Well, it's not. It's just a collection of ancient myths - and some of them display terrible, terrible morality.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#175666 Aug 27, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
Yes they sound fine but if there is no God then certain groups could rationally be considered inferior for whatever reason. They could be used as slaves, sold as property or killed so the superior races would not be corrupted. Slavery under them circumstances could be considered an act of mercy. All this has historical precedent. It was legal. It conforms with the laws of nature and seems to be the natural state of man. If there is no God and no judgement then this position is equally valid to yours.
You don't seem to understand my moral position if you interpret it that way. It's based on the fact that all humans have the same abilities to feel, think and love as I do - as any of us do. It's further based upon the social contract of populations formalizing legal rights. Since they are agreements between formalized government, they not only have legal standing, but the support of peoples within their population.

You can't make those claims for other kinds of moral systems.

You also can't make the claim that morality isn't the product of evolution. It quite clearly is. So your discussions of what is natural and not natural aren't precise enough to be taken seriously.
Yes but it is not enforced or if it is it is selective which suggests favoritism. These ''feel good'' regulations (?) is as useful as tits on a tomcat. At best they are impotent.
Never heard of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights?
Like human governments forces people into prison! Slavery depicted is a result of disobedience to God. In other words we bring it on ourselves and by extension our children. That is what it teaches. I do not see an argument from Scripture. More of a emotional reaction.
I'm not going to argue from scripture - let slavers do that for me. You can get a decent, but not complete, history at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_...

I reject both your scripture, your deeply held beliefs, and know them to be the subjective experience of imagined beings, so I laugh at an argument that claims slavery is a result of disobedience of God.

You're claiming that God is the ultimate slaver. That's quite funny. Concurrently you claim that God is the source of all morality. That's even funnier. Your deity is a repulsive bully. I can't imagine why you worship such a a thing.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#175667 Aug 27, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>OK agreed, but could we stick to this message tread? "Atheism requires as much faith as religion?" The answer No question. You could type your great essay if it makes you feel better. It just can not be proven that there was NO CREATOR. I'll give you the opposite is true. Ask me to prove when I all ready admit I have faith in a belief. From a person that claims they believe in facts only. That could be as backwards as it gets, and yet I am sure there are people her that have done that for over 15 years.
I personally don't claim to have the answer for creation or life after death either one. I know that no one knows anything 100%. I just don't feel like I have faith in anything...by definition in order for me to have faith in something I would have to put my complete trust in science or religion and I can't trust either one because neither one of them can be proven to have the "correct" answer. I "believe" that science has the most probable answers by what they have been able to show me that they have found and done, but that is my personal opinion and choice. The other definition for faith is religious based only so I know that I do not hold that kind of faith. I just am not one of the atheists that you speak of that doesn't admit to the fact that neither side has the "correct" answer. So...although it cannot be proven that there was no creator it also cannot be proven that there was, and since I do not have a reason to have a complete trust in either choice then I can't say that my choice takes any faith at all...and I'm sure there are many that feel the same.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#175668 Aug 27, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>OK agreed, but could we stick to this message tread? "Atheism requires as much faith as religion?" The answer No question. You could type your great essay if it makes you feel better. It just can not be proven that there was NO CREATOR. I'll give you the opposite is true. Ask me to prove when I all ready admit I have faith in a belief. From a person that claims they believe in facts only. That could be as backwards as it gets, and yet I am sure there are people her that have done that for over 15 years.
Although it just occurred to me that I can completely trust that I have never seen god, I have never heard gods voice and i have never been given any evidence from any religion or religious leader that shows me that miracles happened or happen, that prayers are answered, that god gives an answer for everything in the bible so I guess I could say that I have "faith" that god most likely does not exist...I have been shown the results of research from scientists that have shown and debunked many so called miracles that could have been seen as a miracle back in the day, but are found to be phenomenons of nature, also many healers who have been proven to be hoaxes and fakes in it for the money, and so far I have never seen any real scientist claim to know for certain exactly how the universe began because all intelligent scientists know that there are always more answers to be found. However science has yet to fail in its ability to figure out how things work, and ways that they benefit us so I don't feel the need to doubt it's research on the creation of the universe and the evidence that they have found to back it up.
blacklagoon

Revere, MA

#175669 Aug 27, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Christianity can be abused because there is an objective basis to do a comparison. Under atheism or Darwinism there is no real objective basis. Slave trade was opposed by Christians based on the Bible. You are selective as usual.
1.Under what objective basis does an atheist oppose slavery? It appears non believers only speak out against slavery as depicted in their warped understanding of Scripture. They ignore the fact slavery depicted is the result of man abandoning God which is exactly what the non believer does! In Scripture context slavery is a result of unbelief!
2.Under atheism is it objectively wrong for one person to own another in all circumstances?
3. Are you saying mass killings is objectively wrong? Under what objective basis?
4. Would not the laws of nature render obsolete the arbitrary laws of man? Survival of the fittest?
"Slave trade was *opposed* by Christians based on the bible?" Are you KIDDING???......The bible is very clear about how to buy, mark and treat your slaves. Southern slave owners who were Christians believed they were morally right to keep slaves as it was condoned in the bible. It was "GODS WORD" and they felt they had a God given right to own slaves. There's no being selective here, God sanctions slavery, and Jesus NEVER spoke out about one person owning another.

1.) For one person to *own* another human being is immoral regardless of the circumstances. To be allowed to beat them to the point of death is not only immoral but inhuman. Your God gives very specific instructions as the how severely a slave may be beaten with a rod. Show us all the scripture that clearly states that one person owning another is acceptable because man abandoned God.

If slavery is in fact the result of man abandoning God, then why is it God who gives very specific instructions on slavery?

2.) Yes, under ANY circumstance it is wrong for one person to OWN another.

3.) Yes, mass killings are wrong under any circumstance. However, there are instances where killing may be the only solution when those instances are forced. The bombing of Hiroshima would be considered an instance where mass killings were not only forced but done so to save millions of lives and avoid untold misery.
blacklagoon

Revere, MA

#175670 Aug 27, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
He was a publicity whore, and I prefer not recall his name. I forgot to mention how pale he was. He was too ugly for American TV, for sure. Maybe one day I'll watch his silly, pretending t be a ugly pale assed genius that drank like Dean Martin pretended to drink. He was a waste and proud o be one, and obnoxious about it. I will recall him as he requested me to recall him, but I won't bother looking his name up.
You're just making yourself look exceedingly stupid here. Chiding someones physical appearance and criticizing his actions and not willing to make any kind of logical point, is in fact, stupid. You're not even smart enough to remember this persons name or exactly what they stood for, shockingly stupid.

My suggestion to you would be to stop contributing dribble to this post and try to organize your thoughts more clearly!!!

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#175671 Aug 27, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Genius! This guy I too much, he actually post details of what is an atheist movement. He did leave a lot out. But still, displays the movement. Ok part of it. In the same post he says "there is no Atheist movement. But you are a genius, you nail it right in the head how the movement should be treated. Excellent post.
thanks Robert! keep pounding the chumps/chimps/whatever

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#175673 Aug 28, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
You don't seem to understand my moral position if you interpret it that way.
I understand it just fine.
It's based on the fact that all humans have the same abilities to feel, think and love as I do - as any of us do. It's further based upon the social contract of populations formalizing legal rights. Since they are agreements between formalized government, they not only have legal standing, but the support of peoples within their population.
You do not seem to understand other groups can come to different conclusions if there is no God and no accountability and if atheistic Darwinism is true. There are people today who believe Blacks are inferior to whites in the United States. They are Darwinists. There is historical precedent for that position. It held credence in the United States even among intellectuals until the end of WW11. The point being different groups can come to different conclusions and if there is no God and no accountability then enslaving for profit is workable.
You can't make those claims for other kinds of moral systems.
Yes i can.
You also can't make the claim that morality isn't the product of evolution.
My appeal is to the laws of nature and the strong dominating the weak as perfectly natural which you continually ignore. If homosexuality in humans is somehow validated by looking to the animal kingdom then why not slavery? Why the double standard? Why the inconsistency
Never heard of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights?
Yes i have and i have responded with a rational response which you ignored.
I'm not going to argue from scripture -
You already did! You wrote the Bible supports slavery! I asked 2 valid questions which holds your position in dispute and you punked out. If you cannot back up your statements then don't make them!
I reject both your scripture, your deeply held beliefs, and know them to be the subjective experience of imagined beings, so I laugh at an argument that claims slavery is a result of disobedience of God.
Yeah i know all that but none of that should hinder your understanding of what the Bible teaches. It seems you do not want to understand what it teaches EVEN IN THEORY! You cannot get past your emotional responses. Your next statement demonstrates you willful ignorance of Scripture when you write,
You're claiming that God is the ultimate slaver.
No, that is not what i am claiming!

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#175674 Aug 28, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
You are just using distraction to get away from your claim that the Bible doesn't support slavery.
Slavery is regulated in the Bible for the benefit of the slave! Different types of slavery were a historical reality in the ancient world! Also corporal punishment. This was all normal.
It quite clearly does - and, throughout history, slave owners in Western nations have almost all been Christian.
Define Christian. When the South defended southern slavery it presupposed humane treatment where slaves were considered extended family according to your wiki source! They were cared for when old. They had places to live. They could marry and have children. They could be set free! The type of slavery the south defended is the type depicted in the Novel Gone With The Wind where slaves where simply family. The South did not defend abusive slavery. It demanded the humane treatment of slaves. If you had abuse on a large scale then you ran the risk of slave revolt! That happens in the Old Testament under Rehoboam, the son of Solomon! The seeds for revolt were planted under Solomon and his building projects in which he disciplined slaves with whips. The division of the kingdom was the result of slave revolt!

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#175675 Aug 28, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
I understand it just fine.
Nope.
You do not seem to understand other groups can come to different conclusions if there is no God and no accountability and if atheistic Darwinism is true.
How do you make a statement then add an if-statement to it?

You also infer that "atheistic Darwinism," whatever that is, produces no accountability for people's actions. If no deities exist, your statement is still false.

Evolution produces morality and people are accountable to other people.
There are people today who believe Blacks are inferior to whites in the United States. They are Darwinists. There is historical precedent for that position. It held credence in the United States even among intellectuals until the end of WW11. The point being different groups can come to different conclusions and if there is no God and no accountability then enslaving for profit is workable.
It has been conclusively demonstrated that this position is not supported by evolutionary theory. Those people are misrepresenting science if they make such claims.

All humans are equally evolved; skin color does not differentiate any other characteristic than skin color.
Yes i can.
Nope.
My appeal is to the laws of nature and the strong dominating the weak as perfectly natural which you continually ignore.
Then you don't understand evolution.
If homosexuality in humans is somehow validated by looking to the animal kingdom then why not slavery?
Where is slavery in social mammals?

Are you talking about ants?
Why the double standard? Why the inconsistency
You'll have to fill me in on which primate groups have "slavery" as a natural part of their societies.
Yes i have and i have responded with a rational response which you ignored.
It might be within-religious system rational to you, but it wasn't to me. Or if I didn't respond, I missed it. It's worth pointing out that you've not responded to any number of my posts.
You already did! You wrote the Bible supports slavery!
It does.
I asked 2 valid questions which holds your position in dispute and you punked out. If you cannot back up your statements then don't make them!
I "punked out"? Huh? What are your valid questions?

You mean...where in the Bible is slavery upheld? Throughout the OT. Here's one reference in the NT: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.(Ephesians 6:5 NLT)"
Yeah i know all that but none of that should hinder your understanding of what the Bible teaches. It seems you do not want to understand what it teaches EVEN IN THEORY!
It's a mythology book that you imagine is divine. How do you know it is divine? Oh, right, b/c it tells you it is.

Yes, how logical of you.
You cannot get past your emotional responses. Your next statement demonstrates you willful ignorance of Scripture when you write,
What emotional responses? You're projecting.

You're upset that I reject your religious beliefs as fictional. Tough, I do. The Bible is not useful in science. It's an ancient mythology book that has no bearing on reality.

It gets reinterpreted throughout history to suit the whims of its readers. Slavers used it to justify slavery. Now you're changing tunes and saying it doesn't. That's because it's not a definitive moral book - you can read it any way you like, interpret it any way you like, changes words to mean totally different things.

It's all quite silly to try to explain morality and reality with an ancient mythology book.
No, that is not what i am claiming!
You just said that if people disobey your deity, they become slaves. Your deity promises eternal punishment to those who don't love him, etc. If that's not slavery...I don't know what is.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#175676 Aug 28, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
How do you make a statement then add an if-statement to it?
You also infer that "atheistic Darwinism," whatever that is, produces no accountability for people's actions. If no deities exist, your statement is still false.
If man escapes human justice then there is no accountability to God. Nature assumes no accountability and accepts by the consent of silence the right of the strong to dominate the weak. To rule over them, to enslave them for their own good as an act of mercy. Children in the USA are taught Darwinism in an atheistic environment.
Evolution produces morality and people are accountable to other people.
In nature the strong holds no accountability to the weak.
It has been conclusively demonstrated that this position is not supported by evolutionary theory. Those people are misrepresenting science if they make such claims.
Then take it up with them. It has historical precedent and is not popular now but that can change. The laws of Nature are consistent unlike the laws of man.
All humans are equally evolved; skin color does not differentiate any other characteristic than skin color.
Bell curve says Blacks are inferior intellectually. That is the science you do not want to discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelli...
Claims of races having different intelligence were used to justify colonialism, slavery, social Darwinism, and racial eugenics. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, group differences in intelligence were assumed to be due to race and, apart from intelligence tests, research relied on measurements such as brain size or reaction times to demonstrate such differences.
You'll have to fill me in on which primate groups have "slavery" as a natural part of their societies.
You have alpha males in primate groups. The strong dominate the weak. Alpha males mate with all females and leave other males out in some groups. It other groups inferior males perform sexual favors to superior males as a sign of submission.
It might be within-religious system rational to you, but it wasn't to me. Or if I didn't respond, I missed it. It's worth pointing out that you've not responded to any number of my posts.
You and by extension others said the Bible supports slavery and i asked two questions based on your premise. If the Bible supports slavery then why are the Israelites liberated from Egyptian slavery and why did Elisha help the widow liberate her children from debt slavery? I could ask more.
You mean...where in the Bible is slavery upheld? Throughout the OT. Here's one reference in the NT: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.(Ephesians 6:5 NLT)"
That is select quoting Eph 6:5 is to be compared with 6:9 and taken within context along with historical setting.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#175677 Aug 28, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> If man escapes human justice then there is no accountability to God. Nature assumes no accountability and accepts by the consent of silence the right of the strong to dominate the weak. To rule over them, to enslave them for their own good as an act of mercy. Children in the USA are taught Darwinism in an atheistic environment.
<quoted text> In nature the strong holds no accountability to the weak.
<quoted text> Then take it up with them. It has historical precedent and is not popular now but that can change. The laws of Nature are consistent unlike the laws of man.
<quoted text> Bell curve says Blacks are inferior intellectually. That is the science you do not want to discuss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelli...
<quoted text>
<quoted text> You have alpha males in primate groups. The strong dominate the weak. Alpha males mate with all females and leave other males out in some groups. It other groups inferior males perform sexual favors to superior males as a sign of submission.
<quoted text> You and by extension others said the Bible supports slavery and i asked two questions based on your premise. If the Bible supports slavery then why are the Israelites liberated from Egyptian slavery and why did Elisha help the widow liberate her children from debt slavery? I could ask more.
<quoted text> That is select quoting Eph 6:5 is to be compared with 6:9 and taken within context along with historical setting.
You have no proof of god, why you are wasting your lives and others with your persistent nonsense?

Your creationist mental illness only applies to yourselves and not the rest of the planet.

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Yeah 1,124,809
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 10 min cpeter1313 306,214
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 25 min Bruin For Life 27,906
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 1 hr PittsfieldObserver 439
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 1 hr black man1 1,486
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 8 hr RisaRainbow 201,189
Get your Gator Jamberry Nail Wraps Oct 16 jambycatherine 1

NCAA Basketball People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE