Is the bible a fairy tale?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2708 Jun 14, 2013
Learning wrote:
<And believe it or not, some of the thinking we do also saves lives. Lessons learned during Operation Overlord (D-Day) have been applied ever since in warfare with varying degrees of success.
My main position is that if we are going to understand what happened in history, and how it affects our future, we need to understand that our assumptions can get in the way, and we need to recognize or at least be ready to admit that they are.
But when we analyze Operation Overlord, we tend not to question whether WWII happened or not. Even when we re-analyze our assumptions, there are some cases where the data is so extensive that we don't even consider the possibility that they are wrong in broad overview. In the sciences, this is the case for evolution (we know species change over geological time), quantum mechanics (too many experiments have verified details here), and the basics of relativity (verified every day at particle accelerators). The details may change, but the overviews are not likely to.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2709 Jun 14, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>And alternatives are considered. For example, loop quantum gravity is another serious contender. Unfortunately, it also has not been able to make any good testable predictions. part of the problem is that the energies required to probe quantum gravity are well beyond our current capabilities, so we have to find lower level predictions that differ from those of the standard model. Since any theory has to reduce to the standard model for low enough energies, this is a tricky thing to do.

An interesting point: in areas like the event horizon of a black hole, string theory and loop quantum gravity seem to give the same predictions.
String theory has been tested and it failed. Best to move over to the loop theory for awhile.

So again I'll ask if Relativity has no issues why is there QM and String theory and now Loop?

The answer is Relativity does not work every where. Admit it I know you can if you try real hard.

“Jon Snow”

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#2710 Jun 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"It is called a scientific theory because it agrees with everything we have been able to measure and is flexible enough to deal with a wide variety of phenomena."
"everything" no, not everything and you know this. Why do you lie? can't stand that science is wrong here?
"That isn't one of the rules of science"
Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.
A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.
Point in fact, where GR breaks down isn't because it is false, it's because it's beyond what it can describe.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2711 Jun 14, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>The easy way to understand it is that 'nothing' is unstable. It naturally decays into something.
No you are totally wrong here.

You are assuming that there is decay and nature. There is neither in "Nothing"
You can't have decay without time. There was no time so no there was no decay.

There was no "naturally" there was nothing. Sense you or science has never seen nothing, anything stated by science or you on this is just a guess.
And to guess that nothing can create everything is way way out there.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2712 Jun 14, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Theoretically it breaks down at a single point in our reality.
Because it can't measure it accurately.
But we really haven't put it to the test, so this is not enough to scrap the theory.
Especially since it works extremely well in all other situations, and has been confirmed many times as ringing true.
You are saying since your speedometer can't measure the speed your car is going on mars it's no good. I bet you can't even describe what GR fail to do.
Why do you need QM or String theory?
GR not only fails on Black hole but fails in other areas or else we would not need QM.

Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.

BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"

These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.

Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.

As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.

__________

From Nova:

"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.
The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.

BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...
There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...
and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.

So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?

Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.

“Jon Snow”

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#2713 Jun 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
No you are totally wrong here.
You are assuming that there is decay and nature. There is neither in "Nothing"
You can't have decay without time. There was no time so no there was no decay.
There was no "naturally" there was nothing. Sense you or science has never seen nothing, anything stated by science or you on this is just a guess.
And to guess that nothing can create everything is way way out there.
The ground state is not nothing. In fact absence of everything there is still something. Nothing or complete absence of everything cannot exist, that is why there is something, instead of nothing.

“Jon Snow”

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#2714 Jun 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you need QM or String theory?
GR not only fails on Black hole but fails in other areas or else we would not need QM.
Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.
A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.
BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"
These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.
Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.
As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.
__________
<cut>
Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.
Ok for one Einstein formulated theory , not laws.
Laws are descriptions of simple observations.
GR is far to complex to be a law.
What it is..... is an incomplete theory, and it is missing something in trying to describe an event horizon.
It isn't that it breaks down, it works , but at the event horizon
it can't accurately describe mass and the curvature of space/time.
It's because there is something he missed , and no one else can figure out what that is yet. That's why to find out we need to physically probe it to figure it out.

ATM this is unobtainable as you said, but hopefully in the future we will learn a workaround to simulate the forces to explain what's happening.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2715 Jun 14, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>The ground state is not nothing. In fact absence of everything there is still something. Nothing or complete absence of everything cannot exist, that is why there is something, instead of nothing.
Wrong. When the BB was not around (no sign of it on any radar screen) there was NO Time and NO energy and NO space and NO matter. There was "NOTHING" a complete absents of anything, and that dear mythy is what created everything per science.

Also Poly agreed with this.

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying when there was no time there was nothing....Zipville.....elnodd o...goose Egg?

And time started "about" 13.7 billion years ago? Is that right?
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>That is *one* of the possibilities, yes.
^^^. YES

Zippo!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2716 Jun 14, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The easy way to understand it is that 'nothing' is unstable. It naturally decays into something.
And **that** is why we do not need a "prime mover"....

... <grin>

Nice!

“Jon Snow”

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#2717 Jun 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. When the BB was not around (no sign of it on any radar screen) there was NO Time and NO energy and NO space and NO matter. There was "NOTHING" a complete absents of anything, and that dear mythy is what created everything per science.
Also Poly agreed with this.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying when there was no time there was nothing....Zipville.....elnodd o...goose Egg?
And time started "about" 13.7 billion years ago? Is that right?
<quoted text>
^^^. YES
Zippo!
I understand that no one can really say, but classical BBT and GR
say the universe sprang from a singularity.
This singularity had to form from a ground state, while the ground state is basically nothing , it is also something. That something is a potential , the potential is what is theorized to have had
quantum fluctuations that created a difference, this difference is the flow of time and energy with the creation of dimensions.
This manifest itself into our universe with the arrow of time in a space/time continuum. I think you don't understand that even physicists don't think something comes from a complete nothing.
Because if only nothing can come from nothing, but for all intents the ground state seems to be nothing, but even nothing in physics has a potential.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#2718 Jun 14, 2013
My brain hurts

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#2719 Jun 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the distinction is not nearly so rigid as you seem to think. Historians are more generally limited by available data. They have to worry about the reliability of their sources, the biases and the motivations of the writers. But many areas of science are or have been similarly limited in data, especially early on in the studies.
<quoted text>
That again is not so clear. It is common in the sciences to have competing theories for a given phenomenon and not enough data to distinguish between them. In some cases, the possibility of getting the data is low, at least for many years. In that case, it is common to get speculative essays on how different variations could play out.
Historians have to run across Science while evaluating history. They have to address the impact of science in society. Science is very useful in evaluating subjects such as the effects of disease non an army and the science of warfare. There are many other ways science can contribute towards a better understanding of history.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2720 Jun 15, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. When the BB was not around (no sign of it on any radar screen) there was NO Time and NO energy and NO space and NO matter. There was "NOTHING" a complete absents of anything,
Including existence. In other words, it didn't happen.

and that dear mythy is what created everything per science.
Also Poly agreed with this.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying when there was no time there was nothing....Zipville.....elnodd o...goose Egg?
And time started "about" 13.7 billion years ago? Is that right?
<quoted text>
^^^. YES
Zippo!
And once again, there was no 'when' there was no time. Do you get that???? The word 'when' implies the existence of time.

In particular, there was no 'when there was not time'. It isn't just that there was nothing, it is that it simply doesn't exist.

When nothing existed, what was there? Nothing. So did nothing exist? No.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2721 Jun 15, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you need QM or String theory?
GR not only fails on Black hole but fails in other areas or else we would not need QM.
Yes, we know that GR is not a quantum theory and has to be modified. It also works whenever we have tested it. We need QM because it works when we investigate small things. We need GR when we investigate very massive things. It isn't very common that both come up in the same situation, so we have no way to test any of our proposed quantum theories of gravity.
Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.
And the changes can be as minor as adding additional assumptions. For example, a couple hundred years ago, Newton's laws were not working with the orbit of the planet Uranus. So they had to be 'modified or changed'. In that case, the change was to add an additional planet. In that way Neptune was discovered. Notice that the basic theory of gravity was itself not 'modified or changed', only the particular assumptions for that specific situation.

And that is how science works. When observations do not agree with theory, we first see if we have missed something in the environment and include it in the theory. This alone can be a very tricky thing. it is only after that when the basic theory is modified. Often this consists of minor changes. And after repeated attempts at minor changes have failed, it is only then that we change the overall theory.
A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.
Although often the conclusions are irrelevant. For example, the theory of tectonic plates in geology has no bearing on quantum mechanics. For that matter, general relativity has no bearing on quantum mechanics in any case where we have actually been able to measure. That is why both are still used.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2722 Jun 15, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"It is called a scientific theory because it agrees with everything we have been able to measure and is flexible enough to deal with a wide variety of phenomena."
"everything" no, not everything and you know this. Why do you lie? can't stand that science is wrong here?
"That isn't one of the rules of science"
Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.
A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.
Perhaps you should learn the 'rules of science' from scientists instead of from Wikipedia. What you quote is an incredibly naive description that only works in broad outline. In practice, we do not modify or change the basic theory before we first see if there are other things we haven't taken into account. So, for example, we fully understand that GR is not a quantum theory of gravity. It is a classical theory of gravity. We also know that the universe is quantum mechanical in essence. We know this from repeated experiments.

The problem is that we have only two quantum theories of gravity: string theory and loop quantum gravity. Neither has done well at making testable predictions because the energies involved are much larger than we can produce.

You like to claim that string theory has failed its tests. In actuality, the tests that it has 'failed' have all been based on assumptions that are not part of the core theory. They have been 'boundary' assumptions, often pertaining to possible geometries of collapsed dimensions. OK, so the dimensions don't collapse that way. There are many other ways they could collapse.

Or, for example, we have the non-observations of supersymmetry. This is a valid prediction of string theory. But string theory has a wide variety of possible energies when supersymmetry begins. All that our observations show is that supersymmetry does not happen at the very lower energies that are considered possible.

So the observations do not require either a modification or a abandonment of string theory. Far from it. At this point, the observations put a few constraints on the theory, but are very far from breaking it or, for that matter, even stressing it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2723 Jun 15, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Historians have to run across Science while evaluating history. They have to address the impact of science in society. Science is very useful in evaluating subjects such as the effects of disease non an army and the science of warfare. There are many other ways science can contribute towards a better understanding of history.
Indeed. Very often science can be used to determine what happened even when the people at the time did not understand. A good example is the Black Plague. People in the 14th century did not understand how this contagion spread and often did things that made it worse (killing cats that would kill the rats, for example).

The problem is that the decisions of history are based on the understandings of the time, not on the science of today. That means that modern historians have to be able to both analyze from the modern scientific perspective AND the older ideas. As we move back in time or to other cultures, it becomes harder and harder to put oneself in the mindset of the time.

For example, 2000 years ago the popular view of the universe had the earth at the center, everything below the moon (sublunar realm) was subject to change and decay, everything above the moon was a 'heaven' and eternal, and the 'prime mover' was in the realm above the sphere of the stars and made that sphere move. The belief was that when we died our souls would ascend through the different heavens. And that was the world when Christianity was formed.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2724 Jun 15, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
No you are totally wrong here.
You are assuming that there is decay and nature. There is neither in "Nothing"
You can't have decay without time. There was no time so no there was no decay.
There was no "naturally" there was nothing. Sense you or science has never seen nothing, anything stated by science or you on this is just a guess.
And to guess that nothing can create everything is way way out there.
From Krauss' new book:

A century ago, had one described "nothing" as referring to
purely empty space, possessing no real material entity, this might
have received little argument. But the results of the past century
have taught us that empty space is in fact far from the inviolate
nothingness that we presupposed before we learned more about
how nature works. Now, I am told by religious critics that I
cannot refer to empty space as "nothing, " but rather as a "quantum
vacuum, " to distinguish it from the philosopher's or theologian's
idealized "nothing. "

So be it. But what if we are then willing to describe "nothing"
as the absence of space and time itself? Is this sufficient? Again, I
suspect it would have been ... at one time. But, as I shall
describe, we have learned that space and time can themselves
spontaneously appear, so now we are told that even this "nothing"
is not really the nothing that matters. And we're told that the
escape from the "real " nothing requires divinity, with "nothing"
thus defined by fiat to be "that from which only God can create
something."

It has also been suggested by various individuals with whom I
have debated the issue that, if there is the "potential " to create
something, then that is not a state of true nothingness. And surely
having laws of nature that give such potential takes us away from
the true realm of nonbeing. But then, if I argue that perhaps the
laws themselves also arose spontaneously, as I shall describe
might be the case, then that too is not good enough, because
whatever system in which the laws may have arisen is not true
nothingness.

Turtles all the way down? I don't believe so. But the turtles are
appealing because science is changing the playing field in ways
that make people uncomfortable. Of course, that is one of the
purposes of science (one might have said "natural philosophy" in
Socratic times). Lack of comfort means we are on the threshold of
new insights. Surely, invoking "God" to avoid difficult questions
of "how" is merely intellectually lazy. After all, if there were no
potential for creation, then God couldn't have created anything. It
would be semantic hocus-pocus to assert that the potentially
infinite regression is avoided because God exists outside nature
and, therefore, the "potential" for existence itself is not a part of
the nothingness from which existence arose.

I think this points out the moving goalposts quite well.
Imhotep

Sanford, FL

#2725 Jun 15, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
And over 2000 years of zippo out of your ugly religion.
Hang in there-- maybe by random chance, something USEFUL will come from it....
... doubtful, though.
They do not think about things They don’t think about!

On a hot July day in 1925, Judge John Raulston handed down a guilty verdict in the case of Tennessee v. John Scopes, known at the time and ever since as the Monkey Trial.

The trouble began early in the spring of that year, when Tennessee’s progressive governor, Austin Peay, abandoned his better judgment in a fit of political expedience and signed a new anti-evolution law.

Judge Raulston put his thumb on the scales of justice, encouraging the members of the grand jury to indict Scopes. When they complied, Dayton had its controversy.

And then things got interesting. Clarence Darrow, was among the nation’s most famous lawyers and a passionate agnostic, volunteered instead.

William Jennings Bryan, three-time failed presidential candidate and a former secretary of state, faced off against Darrow.

People jammed into the Court House on July 10, downtown Dayton’s Main Street, festooned with banners celebrating the big event, hosted vendors hawking lemonade, fundamentalists passing out copies of T.T. Martin’s Hell and the High Schools, and chimpanzees performing carnival tricks.

Despite Darrow’s opposition, Judge Raulston began the trial with a prayer.

After jury selection, twelve men, eleven of whom regularly attended church , then adjourned for the weekend.

That Sunday, William Jennings Bryan delivered the sermon at Dayton’s Methodist Church. Judge Raulston listened from a front pew.

The following week, both the prosecution and defense cast the trial as a titanic struggle between the forces of light and darkness.

Bryan insisted,“if evolution wins, Christianity goes.”

Darrow countered,“Scopes isn’t on trial; civilization is on trial.”

The defense called Bryan to the stand to testify as an expert on the Bible. LMAO!

Darrow asked Bryan a series of pointed questions designed to test the limits of biblical literalism: on the whale consuming Jonah, on Noah and the flood, and, finally, on the creation story.
Bryan, who initially stated that “everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there,” later allowed that there might be a bit of wiggle-room in the revealed word of God.(Don't they all?) ;)

Darrow pounced, subjecting the witness to a withering interrogation.

A flustered Bryan admitted,“I do not think about things I don’t think about.”

Finally, after a particularly heated exchange in which Darrow dismissed Bryan’s “fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes”, Judge Raulston adjourned the court.

The next day, he struck Bryan’s testimony from the record.

The end of the trial came as unexpectedly as everything else in this trial, in which nothing has happened according to schedule except the opening of court each morning with prayer.

Darrow asked the jury to return a guilty verdict so the case might be appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court. In doing so, he denied Bryan a chance to offer his closing argument, stealing the great orator’s thunder again.

A week after the trial, William Jennings Bryan died. And a year after that, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the ruling in the Scopes case, though the reversal hinged on a technicality, not Constitutional grounds.

In its dismissal, the Court noted:“Nothing is to be gained by prolonging the life of this bizarre case.”

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2726 Jun 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>I understand that no one can really say, but classical BBT and GR
say the universe sprang from a singularity.
This singularity had to form from a ground state, while the ground state is basically nothing , it is also something. That something is a potential , the potential is what is theorized to have had
quantum fluctuations that created a difference, this difference is the flow of time and energy with the creation of dimensions.
This manifest itself into our universe with the arrow of time in a space/time continuum. I think you don't understand that even physicists don't think something comes from a complete nothing.
Because if only nothing can come from nothing, but for all intents the ground state seems to be nothing, but even nothing in physics has a potential.
Yes and where did the singularity come from? Was it always there? If it was always there then the whole 13.7 billion year old universe is wrong. as the singularity would have still been the whole universe just really really small.

Can you explain how the smallest most dense thing that ever existed over came the most powerful gravitational force ever known to expand to where it is now?

And if you're going to give the one trillionth of a second the laws of physics did not apply thing, don't bother. even if it was true in one trillionth of a second gravity would have smashed that singularly back together.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2727 Jun 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Including existence. In other words, it didn't happen.

[QUOTE]
and that dear mythy is what created everything per science.
Also Poly agreed with this.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying when there was no time there was nothing....Zipville.....elnodd o...goose Egg?
And time started "about" 13.7 billion years ago? Is that right?
<quoted text>
^^^. YES
Zippo!
"

And once again, there was no 'when' there was no time. Do you get that???? The word 'when' implies the existence of time.

In particular, there was no 'when there was not time'. It isn't just that there was nothing, it is that it simply doesn't exist.

When nothing existed, what was there? Nothing. So did nothing exist? No.
" In other words, it didn't happen."

My point exactly. Nothing is simply nothing incapable of anything.
The universe had to be created.

"when' there was no time. Do you get that???"

Ok word gamer: no when, no time, no matter, no energy, no space, no words.
Somehow changed into everything.

No matter how many word games you play that is still your obstacle to over come if there was no creator.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 34 min Chimney1 48,484
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 1 hr JustASkeptic 6
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Into The Night 23,491
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) Sat ChristineM 21,863
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sat Eagle 12 258,039
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Sat Eagle 12 4,907
Why you need to make sure you are saved before ... Fri Scaritual 14
More from around the web