Atheism and homosexuality

Atheism and homosexuality

There are 3861 comments on the Conservapedia story from Dec 5, 2011, titled Atheism and homosexuality. In it, Conservapedia reports that:

Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp [[Creation Ministries International]] states: "Homosexual acts go against [[God]]'s original [[Intelligent design ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Conservapedia.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#723 Jul 23, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
like I've told you before, I am a homosexual man and I have no brothers. My partner, obviously also a homosexual man, does not have older brothers. How do you explain our sexuality? There must be other causes for homosexuality which you choose to ignore.
Hey, I have a question. Please don't answer if you don't want to. I've done research in "gay communities" in both Tokyo and Vancouver - and one of the things I notice is that a lot of men who consider themselves gay actually have a fair amount of sex with women. They just don't fall in love with women. And a few lesbians have told me similar stories.

As an aside, a lot of the men I spent time with, and interviewed, in Tokyo said they were "gei" (the Japanese spelling of "gay") but not "homosexual." They enjoyed sex with men, but were actually opposed the adoption of the homosexual sexual identity in Japan. So many sexuality researchers adopt the phrase "men who have sex with men" (or MSM) to talk about these people. However, in the last 5-7 years there's been quite a change in Tokyo where more and more MSM are trying to "be more homosexual" in that they are valuing coming out and recognition of their sexual lives.

Japanese geis refer to heterosexuals as "nongei" - I kind of liked that definition, since it is centered on gei, and defines nongeis as the "other."

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#724 Jul 23, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I would have said you were on a roll. But thanks for all the great information and discussion. Very interesting. I will have to give your posts some serious consideration, but I do agree that many features of sexuality surround polygenic traits more frequently.
I am learning epigenetics somewhat piecemeal. My education so far has been based around what I can learn from plant tissue culture and field production of transgenic plants. Tissue culture appears to cause significant changes in DNA methylation while individual transgenes appear to have little or no impact on methylation. Tissue culture by itself can lead to markedly different phenotypes from plants with the same genotype and all apparently due to changes in the methylome between transformation events. This is all at the learning stage for me and I haven't the basis to equate this to impacts on humans if it even translates to us.
I must get that book back so I can finish it. Don't spoil it for me, I want to be surprised by the ending. LOL
Kind of you - loved your paragraph above, too. I take it you are botany? A great friend of mine is an ethnobotanist and introduced me to guerrilla gardening!

I don't work with genes directly; I'm more of an evolutionary theorist via biocultural anthropology. But I'd guess that you're seeing greater changes in tissue culture b/c the gene/epigenetic signals are given via chemical gradients. I'd also guess that the transgenes are sending out signals, but for receptor sites in its origin genome-morphology, so they're not being picked up, or they're being picked up weakly, in the host genome. Further, I imagine some genes don't transfer well, with part of the problem being incorrect epigenetic signals, either agonistic or antagonistic.

You'd expect epigenetic signals to be genome specific, for two reasons: First, each genome follows its own evolutionary path, so the evolution of epigenetic signaling would be relatively unique to each genome. Second, it would limit the possibility of parasites hijacking the signalling system.

In humans, the epigenetics takes its cues from the environment we're living in - so availability of nutrition, calories, stress, disease, etc. It's likely that social hierarchy plays a role, too, through stress hormones.

Perhaps the most striking example of epigenetics at work is the size and stature increases in well-fed, parasite free populations like the US over the course of 5 generations. Each gen gets larger than the one before it, up to the human maximum of over 6 feet - as other nations catch up to the food security and freedom from parasites, they will also experience these stature increases.

After 5 generations, any increases are due to natural selection.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#725 Jul 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There are no "anti-homosexual" laws, same sex cohabitation is legal in every state. My arguments have nothing to do with religion, I'm arguing based on the consequences of changing law and social welfare.
Same sex marriage means a new standard of gender segregation where before we've had perfect diversity and integration. It means higher taxes, wasteful government spending for entitlements to same sex dependent beneficiaries, court litigation and intrusive new regulations around marriage.
BS. There's no need for new regulations around marriage because the regulations for gay and straight couples should be exactly the same. Same "sex cohabitation" has to be the biggest cop-out weasel term I've ever heard - two straight guys sharing a flat would come under the same definition. As usual you're streaming BS because you know your voters don't like equal rights because that's how it is in the Bible.

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#726 Jul 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There are no "anti-homosexual" laws, same sex cohabitation is legal in every state. My arguments have nothing to do with religion, I'm arguing based on the consequences of changing law and social welfare.
OK, lets see what you mean.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage means a new standard of gender segregation where before we've had perfect diversity and integration.
Perfect diversity and integration? The fact that homosexual individuals were forced to accept being excluded from marriage is quite obviously not perfect integration. So far we had a functional system at the cost of homosexual individuals being repressed by law. That is not "perfect diversity and integration. It is exactly the opposite.

[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]
It means higher taxes...
That is false. My country has same sex marriage and taxes did not come up. To my knowledge no country or state in the world had to raise taxes because of same sex marriage.
Brian_G wrote:
...wasteful government spending for entitlements to same sex dependent beneficiaries...
This statement is quite reveling of your personality. So, dependent beneficiaries of same sex marriage (i.e. children) are less deserving of protection than their counterparts. How sad you think that way. However, all countries with same sex marriage prove you wrong. Increased revenue from taxing same sex married couples compensates all added spendings.
Brian_G wrote:
...court litigation...
You mean court litigation from people like you trying to stop same sex marriage?
Brian_G wrote:
and intrusive new regulations around marriage.
What are you talking about? Allowing same sex marriage mean one less intrusive regulation. There are no other introduced regulations.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#727 Jul 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
I expect better from you than this Brian.
Seriously???

:-/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#729 Jul 23, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
Its not my fault that you never learned what the burden of proof means and why its such an important part of the atheist position.
A theism. A - negative. Theism - belief in a deity. Hence lack of belief in a deity.

However you made the POSITIVE claim. Ergo I learned the burden of proof just fine.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Don't blame atheists for being smarter than you dude.
I'm sure some are. Doesn't include you though, you're not even in the same league.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Instead of talking about the moon landings, why don't you try to prove some of the cr*p that sh*ts out of your keyboard for once in your life?
I do that all the time. For instance when fundies come along talking nonsense I debunk them. You on the other hand merely shower them with insults.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Nuggin's left testicle, ready as always to defend his sock puppet...
See what I mean? And you'd get the same stick whether Nuggin was here or not.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Tell us all again why we have to run around disproving the sh*t you guy go around lying about 24/7?
Of the two of us I have not lied. Remember you lied about me and another poster by claiming we had not debunked your arguments. Since NONE of your subsequent arguments have addressed ours even once (in near two years) we have not had to lie. Furthermore, you made two MAJOR gaffs when you denied the moon-landing and the existence of lizard creatures (still on record), and despite a number of us providing plenty of evidence since you've never been able to own up to even the slightest tiniest of mistakes.

You act like a fundie, you get treated like a fundie. Because you ARE a fundie. Just because you're an evolution-believing atheist doesn't automatically give you a get out of jail card.
-Skeptic- wrote:
You never understood the burden of proof, STILL don't understand it, and are trying in vain to argue back when its been PROVEN that you are a STUPID INDIVIDUAL with no proof whatsoever.
Projection. Still waiting for that apology Skippy.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#730 Jul 23, 2013
LCN Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
-skeptic- is most amusing when she posts under the other name :-)
Wasn't aware he had one. To be fair to him I didn't think that was his style.

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#731 Jul 23, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, I have a question. Please don't answer if you don't want to. I've done research in "gay communities" in both Tokyo and Vancouver - and one of the things I notice is that a lot of men who consider themselves gay actually have a fair amount of sex with women. They just don't fall in love with women. And a few lesbians have told me similar stories.
As an aside, a lot of the men I spent time with, and interviewed, in Tokyo said they were "gei" (the Japanese spelling of "gay") but not "homosexual." They enjoyed sex with men, but were actually opposed the adoption of the homosexual sexual identity in Japan. So many sexuality researchers adopt the phrase "men who have sex with men" (or MSM) to talk about these people. However, in the last 5-7 years there's been quite a change in Tokyo where more and more MSM are trying to "be more homosexual" in that they are valuing coming out and recognition of their sexual lives.
Japanese geis refer to heterosexuals as "nongei" - I kind of liked that definition, since it is centered on gei, and defines nongeis as the "other."
I'm not quite sure what your question is, so i'll extrapulate from the context. I hope I get it right.
I am not what a japonese would call a "gei". I've had sexual experiences with women in my early adolescence but since then, my sexuality has evolved and I am now fully homosexual. Currently I have a male partner for 7 years and before that I had a male partner for 8 years.
In a way, I understand the concept of "gei" and to some extent I can compare it to the reality of my country. This is based in my personal experience and not the result of any scientific study. Many homosexual men and women of my generation (I am 35) and older began by admiting they were bisexual. Every single bisexual individual that I know personaly have later come to admit they are realy homosexual. In their mind, it was just easier to come out first as bisexual because of psicologic and social pressures. I also notice that homosexual individuals of younger generations have a shorter period in their lives were they consider themselves bisexual or that does not happen at all and they come out as gay at a younger age. To me this means the changing culture in my country (we have same sex marriage) is the key in this change. I'm not saying that bisexual individuals do not exist, but a bisexual persona like a "gei" identity is in many cases just a stage in coming to terms with the true homosexual identity.

Since: Jul 13

Lisbon, Portugal

#732 Jul 23, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
B/c genes are pleiotropic, you can't isolate and remove them. So you wouldn't be able to produce a "cure" for a behavior caused by pleiotropic genes.
<quoted text>
Given cultural conditions, genes that seem unrelated to sexual preference, can affect sexuality. Studying genes within only one culture, using only one cultural construction of sexuality, is going to present all kinds of false leads.
For example, genes for smell could affect sexuality. Or genes for imprinting via smell. Or, if part of homosexuality is being fashionable (and I'm just making up bs for an example), or feminine in a particular culture, then genes for those would increase the likeliness of a person developing that sexual identity. So, if you're testing your population, you might find those genes to be consistent, but they wouldn't be indicative of sexual preference in all human contexts.
<quoted text>
Genes are expressed under environmental conditions; they are not determinants of behavior, but facilitators. Enculturation literally develops biology, such that enculturation is indistinguishable from biology if your study population all shares the same enculturation. Hence, you cannot make evolutionary arguments based only on one culture, but have to take a cross cultural, historical position.
<quoted text>
It's backed up by the entirety of anthropology. The most popular book on it would be by Foucault "The History of Sexuality." But perhaps the most relevant would be Greenberg's "The Construction of Sexuality."
<quoted text>
The above contains two problems:
1. a definitional issue. Homosexuality is a sexual identity, a product of the last 140 years or so in Western culture. People in other cultures and throughout history never experienced "homosexuality" as it is expressed here. Yes, they practiced same sex sexual behavior, but the meanings attached to the behaviors were very different. For example, the Ancient Greeks did not have the notion of "coming out" as do Western homosexuals.
2. Wikipedia isn't science.
<quoted text>
I'm an anthropologist. My definitions come out of my work on sexuality and readings in the field. I'm working on a paper, actually, to clarify definitions in evolutionary psych and anth, to try to move away from analyzing the biology of culturally specific sexual behavior so that we can move toward a deeper understanding of the evolutionary basis of same sex sexual behavior.
<quoted text>
If that's all you're claiming, you're not mistaken. But we can make that claim for any behavior. To make it a useful statement, it has to be a lot more specific - at this general level, this claim cannot hold any meaning.
Like, if you could say "Gene X produces Y behavior when expressed under P environment" you'd have something very powerful. Or, if you could say "Gene complex X, which is made up of genes Y, P, and Q, when expressed under environmental conditions U, produce this behavior" then you'd have Nobel winning genius.
It will take me a while to process this information. I'll get back to this soon.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#733 Jul 23, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly you do not know what Jesus commands of his followers or you would have sold your computer and given the money to the poor.
First, a true follower of Jesus would have to be extremely poor--as poor as the proverbial churchmouse. The Bible makes this quite clear:
•(a) "...none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up everything he has" (Luke 14:33);
•(b) "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" (Matt. 19:21);
•(c) "Sell your possessions and give alms" (Luke 12:33);
•(d) "But give what is in your cups and plates to the poor, and everything will be clean for you" (Luke 11:41);
•(e) "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,.... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matt. 6:19-21);
•(f) "How hardly shall they that have riches enter to the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:23);
•(g) "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matt. 19:23-24);
•(h) A certain ruler told Jesus that he had obeyed all the commandments from his youth up. But, Jesus said, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" (Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21),
John 14:15 KJV, "If ye love me, keep my commandments."
Clearly you do not keep Jesus' commandments therefore you hate him.
What a jerk you are to come here and tell other people to accept the Bible when you clearly refuse to do so.
I have been trying to reply to your post.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#734 Jul 23, 2013
When Jesus was on earth he called his disciples from among men. The fishermen made their living from selling fish and they were ask to give that up to become fishers of men and to walk with the master. Jesus had close desciples and this is who he was talking to when he ask them to give up everything to come with him. Everywhere they went to preach, good honest working people would give them money to help them along their way and Judas kept the money bag for them. Jesus came from a family which made their living in capentry work and Jesus must have done some of that.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#735 Jul 23, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I am pretty sure he mans any couple other than man or woman, no matter how horrible either of them may be as people. They can be baby juggling, knife wielding, child killing, narcisistic, sociopathic, foul smelling and ultrarightwing conservative, illiterate, litterers as long as they are man and woman as ordained by God. Only then is it a true marriage made in heaven. Even though, marriage is really a cultural thing and even in the Bible it didn't always mean one man and one woman.
I assume he also means no tractors, refrigerators, pencils, bananas, or vending machines and such like. Fundamentalists are still divided over the odd scantily clad, rather alluring looking Electrolux. No nonhumans, at least not the ugly ones.
I am not talking about politics, I am telling what I know and Jesus himself said marriage was between a man and a woman. You are free to believe anything, as for me and my house, we will serve the lord.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#736 Jul 23, 2013
So why are we having this discussion?
Because you are trying to argue with me.

My position hasn't changed for many posts now.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#737 Jul 23, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>I am not talking about politics, I am telling what I know and Jesus himself said marriage was between a man and a woman. You are free to believe anything, as for me and my house, we will serve the lord.
No one is trying to make you get gay married.

However, while you are free to live your life as you choose, your religious opinion on marriage should have no bearing on the lives of other people -- EVEN your children.

You have the right to express your disgust, your objection, your opinion. You just don't have the right to dictate how other people live their lives.

That's called freedom.

Gay people are here to stay, gay people have the right to be treated like citizens. Gay marriage is here to stay.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#738 Jul 23, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, I have a question. Please don't answer if you don't want to. I've done research in "gay communities" in both Tokyo and Vancouver - and one of the things I notice is that a lot of men who consider themselves gay actually have a fair amount of sex with women. They just don't fall in love with women. And a few lesbians have told me similar stories.
As an aside, a lot of the men I spent time with, and interviewed, in Tokyo said they were "gei" (the Japanese spelling of "gay") but not "homosexual." They enjoyed sex with men, but were actually opposed the adoption of the homosexual sexual identity in Japan. So many sexuality researchers adopt the phrase "men who have sex with men" (or MSM) to talk about these people. However, in the last 5-7 years there's been quite a change in Tokyo where more and more MSM are trying to "be more homosexual" in that they are valuing coming out and recognition of their sexual lives.
Japanese geis refer to heterosexuals as "nongei" - I kind of liked that definition, since it is centered on gei, and defines nongeis as the "other."
Looking to Japan for data on normal sex relations is like looking to the Inuit for data on bikinis.

This is a culture where men marry pillows. Where pedophilia supplies are sold in vending machines. Where porn frequently includes demons and rape machines.

It's not impossible for a homosexual to have sex with a woman. The parts still work and I'm sure it feels just as good for them.

It's not impossible for a heterosexual to have sex with a man. Prison is full of straight men who have sex with other straight men because they have no access to women.

Homosexuality is not defined strictly by what goes where, but rather by who the individual is attracted to on a conscious and subconscious level.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#739 Jul 23, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
I'm not quite sure what your question is, so i'll extrapulate from the context.
That's b/c I got lost in the writing and forgot to ask it! I'm kind of dumb that way.
I hope I get it right.
I am not what a japonese would call a "gei". I've had sexual experiences with women in my early adolescence but since then, my sexuality has evolved and I am now fully homosexual. Currently I have a male partner for 7 years and before that I had a male partner for 8 years.
In a way, I understand the concept of "gei" and to some extent I can compare it to the reality of my country. This is based in my personal experience and not the result of any scientific study. Many homosexual men and women of my generation (I am 35) and older began by admiting they were bisexual. Every single bisexual individual that I know personaly have later come to admit they are realy homosexual. In their mind, it was just easier to come out first as bisexual because of psicologic and social pressures. I also notice that homosexual individuals of younger generations have a shorter period in their lives were they consider themselves bisexual or that does not happen at all and they come out as gay at a younger age. To me this means the changing culture in my country (we have same sex marriage) is the key in this change. I'm not saying that bisexual individuals do not exist, but a bisexual persona like a "gei" identity is in many cases just a stage in coming to terms with the true homosexual identity.
Wow. Totally. Thank you.

I don't think I got across what "gei" means to those who are gei. They don't have sex with women, aren't interested in spending time with women.

But a lot of the Canadian men I interviewed were gay, but also had sex with women.

My question, that I never asked, was "do homosexuals have sex with the opposite sex" and your answer seemed to be "before we find out exactly who we are and what we like." That's totally valid, and thank you. If it means anything, I don't think you are Japanese gei either - I don't think that's possible. You are who you are; we are all products of our cultures.

Last, personal experience is more important than scientific study. Experience, conception, feelings, these are reality. My goal in thinking about sexuality is to gain a cross cultural, evolutionary understanding of sexuality. However well I do, however close I get, it can never be an experiential understanding of sexuality - only lives can do that. And only lived experience is meaningful. The rest is pure cognition.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#740 Jul 23, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Looking to Japan for data on normal sex relations is like looking to the Inuit for data on bikinis.
This is a culture where men marry pillows. Where pedophilia supplies are sold in vending machines. Where porn frequently includes demons and rape machines.
What a ridiculous, ignorant point of view. Sorry, but clearly you have no connection to Japan and built your understanding of its culture on media misrepresentations. What you are commenting on is nowhere near normal experience in Japan.

To compare, it would be like claiming that all Americans are not only Creationists, but snake handlers. That all Americans have guns and have shot people, mugging is normal, etc.

Not a single person I know knows where to buy pedophilia supplies - your accusation is silly in the extreme. Porn is present in Japan, everywhere, but it's illegal to show genitalia - it's all blurred or blacked out. The rape machines and devils, I've never heard of, and can only imagine that was some bizarre media expose hoping to improve sales.

For me, it's like you're claiming every American is a Wako religious nut, that sex between Christians is always fully clothed, etc.

Last, it's amazingly arrogant of you to claim that another culture cannot have normal sexual relations as if your way of understanding sex is the only way that's possible. Out of all the human cultures and all of human history, why should your personal, encultured way of experiencing sex be considered normal for all of humanity? It's like you're trying to tell us what flavors we find appealing, what foods to eat, what gods to worship. It's arrogant and it's ignorant in the extreme.
It's not impossible for a homosexual to have sex with a woman. The parts still work and I'm sure it feels just as good for them.
Exactly.
It's not impossible for a heterosexual to have sex with a man. Prison is full of straight men who have sex with other straight men because they have no access to women.
Absolutely. So far, you're getting my line of reasoning quite well.
Homosexuality is not defined strictly by what goes where, but rather by who the individual is attracted to on a conscious and subconscious level.
You have to build on this and add cultural constructions of sex, gender, sexual behavior and sexual identity.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#741 Jul 23, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
I don't think I got across what "gei" means to those who are gei. They don't have sex with women, aren't interested in spending time with women.
I think this is just "Japanese".

These are a profoundly perverse people. Trying to gauge their sexual behaviors and desires requires a completely different set of criteria.

On a scale of 1 to 10, the Japanese are a 72.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#743 Jul 23, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I think this is just "Japanese".
These are a profoundly perverse people. Trying to gauge their sexual behaviors and desires requires a completely different set of criteria.
On a scale of 1 to 10, the Japanese are a 72.
Nope, I'm right, you're an idiot.

Baby, you don't know the first thing about Japan. Every piece of trash you've written describes that - you're just a small minded racist who pretends that normal is based entirely upon your own life and expects everyone in the world to be like you.

Well, sorry. The world is a much, much larger place than you can imagine.

Oh, and by the way, you Americans have waaaaaaaaaaaay more pedophilia than Japan has. You have an entire organization devoted to it - NAMBLA. Well done, America.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#744 Jul 23, 2013
How can you write this:
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is trying to make you get gay married.
However, while you are free to live your life as you choose, your religious opinion on marriage should have no bearing on the lives of other people -- EVEN your children.
You have the right to express your disgust, your objection, your opinion. You just don't have the right to dictate how other people live their lives.
That's called freedom.
Gay people are here to stay, gay people have the right to be treated like citizens. Gay marriage is here to stay.
and then this racist bullshit?
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I think this is just "Japanese".
These are a profoundly perverse people. Trying to gauge their sexual behaviors and desires requires a completely different set of criteria.
On a scale of 1 to 10, the Japanese are a 72.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 11 min Joe Fortuna 254,915
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 21 min macumazahn 11,181
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 2 hr Uncle Sam 360
News Speaking for God 2 hr Jaimie 551
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 3 hr Patrick 9,565
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 4 hr Patrick 4,259
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Chimney1 29,450
More from around the web