20+ Questions for Theists
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#85 Apr 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
How is it an "emotional response" when all we ask for, is certifiable proof of this myth, this.. "god" thing.
The emotions you witness, are due to god-robots committing atrocity and worse, in the names of their fantasy-delusions.
That cannot stand.
But I see you have failed to post even one argument in support of your fantasy-delusion (god).
Why is that?
Hi Bob. I have never claimed that there is indisputable objective proof for the existence of God. The question is "Is it reasonable" to believe that the God as revealed in the Bible exists? I believe it is reasonable and we can possibly debate this.
Let me name one or two aspects that would support the acceptance of the Bible as truth and thus at least reasonable.
1) It was at some stage "theorized" that the universe have existed for ever - contrary to the creation model of the Bible. That this is no longer believed - enter the "Big bang". Thus, the creation model in line with modern "theory" (not that this will never change, but based on present observation and deduction.)
2) It is still suggested that non-living matter gave rise to living matter. This has never been observed. So the Bible is again in line with what we know at present.
3) Prophecies in the Bible. Israel will be a nation until the end of time (end of the world as we know it). Despite being hated and surrounded by a large number of hostile nations that would like to "remove Israel from the face of the earth", they still exist. Hitler and others also did their bit to destroy Israel/the Jews.

Let us then ask the question - does any indisputable evidence exists thatsomething which is stated as fact in the Bible ever been proven wrong. I would argue "No". If you do however have such indisputable evidence, I would appreciate it.

Now assuming for the moment that you do not have such evidence, then it would at least suggest that the Bible is true and the God of the Bible exists?

Andre

Durban, South Africa

#86 Apr 20, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You're lying about god and have no proof of it whatsoever. Amen to that.
Please provide proof that I am lying. If you cannot, it lends support to my claim.
KJV

United States

#87 Apr 20, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>Hi Bob. I have never claimed that there is indisputable objective proof for the existence of God. The question is "Is it reasonable" to believe that the God as revealed in the Bible exists? I believe it is reasonable and we can possibly debate this.
Let me name one or two aspects that would support the acceptance of the Bible as truth and thus at least reasonable.
1) It was at some stage "theorized" that the universe have existed for ever - contrary to the creation model of the Bible. That this is no longer believed - enter the "Big bang". Thus, the creation model in line with modern "theory" (not that this will never change, but based on present observation and deduction.)
2) It is still suggested that non-living matter gave rise to living matter. This has never been observed. So the Bible is again in line with what we know at present.
3) Prophecies in the Bible. Israel will be a nation until the end of time (end of the world as we know it). Despite being hated and surrounded by a large number of hostile nations that would like to "remove Israel from the face of the earth", they still exist. Hitler and others also did their bit to destroy Israel/the Jews.

Let us then ask the question - does any indisputable evidence exists thatsomething which is stated as fact in the Bible ever been proven wrong. I would argue "No". If you do however have such indisputable evidence, I would appreciate it.

Now assuming for the moment that you do not have such evidence, then it would at least suggest that the Bible is true and the God of the Bible exists?
Much too long of a post, it will take bobby weeks to read all of that.
And most of it is beyond his capability to understand.
Imhotep

United States

#88 Apr 20, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>Hi Bob. I have never claimed that there is indisputable objective proof for the existence of God. The question is "Is it reasonable" to believe that the God as revealed in the Bible exists? I believe it is reasonable and we can possibly debate this.
Let me name one or two aspects that would support the acceptance of the Bible as truth and thus at least reasonable.

Now assuming for the moment that you do not have such evidence, then it would at least suggest that the Bible is true and the God of the Bible exists?
Assuming sufficient education and intelligence are present to accept the fact that… Neither Egyptian nor Roman history records any persons known as Moses or Jesus. These individuals exist only in holy books, which themselves are copied from previous legends and myths.

Why do I say this? Consider...

Today’s scholars can only use the known, that is historical reigning Roman Emperors as a reference in determining dates.

So, since the Bible clearly and unambiguously claims that Jesus was born duringg the reign of Herod the King, then he, Jesus, had to have been born no later than 4 B.C.

What a delicious irony! Jesus could only have been born a minimum of four years before the birth of Jesus.

After you stop laughing though, consider the import of this paradox.

I should mention this also

Meeting for the first time in March 1985, the Jesus Seminar has periodically brought together dozens of university scholars and gospel specialists representing every shade of Christian thought, plus a few Jews and atheists.

In their initial study, the scholars collected more than 1500 versions of approximately 500 Jesus parables, aphorisms, dialogues, and stories written during the first 300 years of Christianity.
After 6 years of debate and reflection the consensus was that 82% of the words attributed to Jesus were fake.

In phase two, between 1991 and 1996, the Jesus Seminar considered 387 versions of 176 'Jesus events'. Their conclusion: 84% of the activities attributed to Jesus were bogus.

In contrast, Caesar's words and deeds are fully documented by multiple witnesses.

Caesar was an eyewitness to many of the events he describes in his commentaries. He wrote not for posterity but to have an immediate impact on the power players in Rome as he schemed to advance his own career.

The elapsed time between the wars and Caesar's own writing was a matter of months or at most a few years.

In contrast, the elapsed time between the gospel reports and the supposed events that they describe is at least 40 years for 'Mark' and 60-70 years for the other three Gospels.

And just who was witness to that fabulous nativity,
30-odd years before the grande finale?

At the most generous understanding,'Luke' and 'Matthew' were recording hearsay testimony a century after angels, shepherds and wise men went calling.

The unembellished truth is that the gospel accounts were written by eyewitnesses to nothing but their own skills of fabrication.

For good reason, based on spatial and temporal proximity alone, historians give more credence to Caesar's commentaries than to the gospels, no matter how prolifically they were copied.
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#89 Apr 20, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Your conclusion is flawed
I will now provide proof that your argument is flawed. To quote a person (Mr Russel) expressing a point of view does not make it true.
"Religion prevents our children from having a rational education; religion prevents us from removing the fundamental causes of war; religion prevents us from teaching the ethic of scientific cooperation in place of the old fierce doctrines of sin and punishment. It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion.
~Bertrand Russell
You would evidently subscribe to this view. Then maybe you would answer just a few questions:
1. How come there is strong argument that science as a self sustaining discipline originated in the Christian West?
2. How come a large number of scientists (also modern scientists) accept Christianity?
3. Man is supposed to be “on the threshold of a golden age”. Would you argue that an increase in wars, chaos in government and schools, increase in crime is an indication of such a golden age?

If you cannot bring solid argument in favour of Mr Russel’s “claim” then I would think that your comments provide further proof that my conclusion is correct. As you will notice, the quotation does not provide proof, just an allegation. You are now called upon to substantiate the claim
Topix theists posting in atheist forums have a mental disorder which manifests itself with an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration.
I would like you to substantiate this, supported by verifiable fact. Failing this will provide further support for my conclusion.
Behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.
I would like you to substantiate this, supported by verifiable fact. Failing this will provide further support for my conclusion.
Narcissistic people like Topix theists have traits that cause them to feel and behave in socially distressing ways, limiting their ability to function in relationships and in other areas of their life, such as work or school.
I would like you to substantiate this, supported by verifiable fact. Failing this will provide further support for my conclusion.
And how does this anti-atheist bile affect our elected leaders?
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
~ George Herbert Walker Bush
I noticed that you did not take that out of the Bible – the only true standard for Christian living. Christians (or those that call themselves Christians) often make comments that are contrary to the principles contained in the Bible – where love and respect towards others should be shown.
Exo 23:4 When you happen on the ox of your enemy, or his wandering ass, returning you shall return it to him.
Mat 5:44 but I say to you, Love your enemies; bless those cursing you, do well to those hating you; and pray for those abusing and persecuting you,
So unless you provide reasoned argument, your comments thus far have only added further weight to my conclusions.
Finally, I want to say that I have no problem with you or any atheist as a person. My arguments are basically just to provide you with a perspective that you might not have had. May I suggest that you consider the nature of your response? I have come to a conclusion (which still has to be refuted) and have not offended you personally yet you make all kind of nasty remarks. This provides yet further support for Jesus’ words and the truthfulness of the Bible:
Mat 10:22 And you will be hated by all on account of My name...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#90 Apr 20, 2013
Andre wrote:
Now assuming for the moment that you do not have such evidence, then it would at least suggest that the Bible is true and the God of the Bible exists?
You fail the first and most basic test: the proof is not up to ME, the proof is up to YOU.

All I have to do, to prove your premise false, is to ask for proof.

Which you have not even tried to give.

Your 3 "points" are fatally flawed in various ways, and have already been addressed elsewhere, so I won't bother unless you get picky.

I will point out this: 100% of the bible "prophecies" are not real prophecies.

The all fail in one or more ways:

1) they were written after the fact
2) they were written using such indistinct language and descriptions, that you can twist them into >>anything<< you like
3) they were self-fulfilling: that is, later legends and stories were modified such that they "fulfilled" the earlier legends.
4) they were written so broadly, and used classic observation of typical human activity, to "predict" what humans might do in the future. This is exactly like saying, "That baseball team that is on a winning streak, will eventually lose a game."

Another example: "in the future, nations will go to war with each other".

Another example: "in the future, other nations will be 'jealous' of a successful nation, and try to conquer them"

Another example: "in the future, there will be [dramatic pause] war"

None of these are valid prophesies-- anyone can make them, without any god-magic needed.

A REAL prediction in your bible would have been something like this: "In the year 2000, a country will choose a man to lead them, and he will lead them into major economic depression. Later, in 2004 a country will, for the first time, choose a person of color to lead them. This is interesting, as in that nation's near past, people of color were universally treated as slave-labor, not citizens."

Now THAT would have had me sitting up an noticing!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#91 Apr 20, 2013
Dammit-- I got that wrong, didn't I?

It should have been 2008.... my bad.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#92 Apr 20, 2013
Andre wrote:
1) It was at some stage "theorized" that the universe have existed for ever - contrary to the creation model of the Bible. That this is no longer believed - enter the "Big bang". Thus, the creation model in line with modern "theory" (not that this will never change, but based on present observation and deduction.)
Your bible is hardly unique in proposing a creation myth.

In fact? Pretty much >>all<< religions, ever, have some sort of creation myth.

The fact that scientific observations showed that the universe was expanding, and logically, if you reverse the process, had a point where it was a single-thing (unexpanded), caused scientists to change their ideas?

That fact says >>nothing<< about any of the creation myths.

The reason is this: scientists >>must<< follow where the facts point--- to do otherwise would be to deny those facts.

Thus, a scientist cannot have pre-concieved "conclusions" before he begins gathering facts. Sure, he might have a working hypothesis, but he MUST ignore that, if the facts point in a different direction.

Let's contrast this with your basic bible:

Your bible claims to have >>all<< the facts, >>already<<.

A foregone conclusion.

Then, misguided people desperately seeking to justify this "conclusion", cast about for any little thing that might--if taken out of context-- seem to support that.

All the while ignoring or even flatly >>denying<< all the rest of the facts proving it is a false idea.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#93 Apr 20, 2013
Andre wrote:
Now assuming for the moment that you do not have such evidence, then it would at least suggest that the Bible is true and the God of the Bible exists?
The most damning argument that the bible is >>not<< from any god?

Is the very existence of the bible itself!

Here is how it works:

Let's say that there >>is<< a god who cares about the fate of humans.

Let's also assume that there are dire consequences to those self-same humans, if they fail to live in exactly the right way.

Finally, let's assume that the god in question is not only willing to interfere with humans' fates, but is able to as well.

Now.

Let's examine reality itself, and see if we can support the above assumptions-- let's start with the bible itself.

Firstly, is the bible a divine book in any way? Nope! Clearly not, as it has far too many errors, contradictions, outright lies and is just plain ugly-- the tales it tells of it's god are abominations-- the bible's god frequently murders children on a whim. The bible's god punishes innocent follow-on generations for the actions of the ancestors-- all the while, letting the ancestor in question live a long life. The bible's god kills on a whim, for the most trivial of reasons, and encourages killing for the most mundane of activities.

That's bad enough.

But the bible's god is such an egocentric maniac, that it cannot seem to muster up sufficient sympathy to forgive people ... for being >>people<<, without something getting killed.

That's just messed up, that's what that is: I, a mere mortal, can forgive my enemy for wrong-doing, without me requiring my enemy to DIE? That makes me SUPERIOR to the bible's god!

Okay. The bible is a seriously flawed book.

Here's the proof of no-god:

What sort of god, who >>cared<< would suffer such as the bible to even exist? It sullies the god's good name! It teaches people to hate anyone who's not a member of the exclusive club!(yes-- this is New Testament stuff: remember the commandment to dust off your shoes, if a city rejects your special-chosen representatives? And how god will send destruction on that city--even if one or two might have been interested? That's some serious hate right there!)

In short, the very fact that the bible even exists, and makes a mockery of what it means to be a god?

That proves that there are NO gods out there who give a crap!

Or?

It proves that it doesn't matter at ALL in the end.(same result as no god, really)

Or?

It proves that if gods exist, they either refuse or cannot interfere-- why bother with >>those<< do-nothings? They are not worthy of the title anyway.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#94 Apr 20, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Much too long of a post, it will take bobby weeks to read all of that.
And most of it is beyond his capability to understand.
You are just jealous, because he was nice, and he wrote a pretty thoughtful post-- himself.

Two things you are incapable of: being nice, and writing long, well thought posts >>yourself<<.

You are the Cut-And-Paste King, after all....

... LOL!
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#95 Apr 22, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You fail the first and most basic test: the proof is not up to ME, the proof is up to YOU.
All I have to do, to prove your premise false, is to ask for proof.
Which you have not even tried to give.
The point you responded to was that I do not know of any false information provided in the Bible.
There have been allegations, such as Moses could not have written Genesis, as it was stated that writing did not exist at the time as writing only existed from David’s time (1000BC). This claim was later convincingly defeated as archaeological evidence proves that writing existed as early as 2500 BC, even 3000 BC.
It was also for instance claimed that the Hittites were a legend, but their capital and records were discovered.
There are a great number of external evidences supporting the Bible stories,
Now if you can provide me with proven false information contained in the Bible, I will be happy to receive it.
Your 3 "points" are fatally flawed in various ways, and have already been addressed elsewhere, so I won't bother unless you get picky.
I will point out this: 100% of the bible "prophecies" are not real prophecies.
The all fail in one or more ways:
1) they were written after the fact
2) they were written using such indistinct language .. that you can twist them into >>anything<< you like
3) they were self-fulfilling:..
4) they were written so broadly,....
To which of the 4 points would you appeal in the case of Israel/the Jews that I mentioned? Israel only became a nation again with its own territory in 1948.
A REAL prediction in your bible
Now THAT would have had me sitting up an noticing!
You are welcome to study the prophecies regarding Jesus’ crucifixion. How He will die, when He will be crucified, that He will be betrayed by a friend (for 30 pieces of silver), that this money will be used to buy the potters land, that his bones will not be broken, that a lot will be cast over his clothes , that He will die with transgressors, that He will be buried with the rich, that He will rise on the third day, that He will be raised from the dead.
Let me just make a point here. The purpose of prophecy is not to be better able to foretell the future. It should be treated as an encouragement for Jesus’ disciples of all ages to know that God is in control. When something happens that is in fulfilment of prophecy, this is recognised. It is also used to identify false prophets.
As an example of future prophecy, the following:
It is prophesied that nations will rise against the nation of Israel at the end. Specific nations are mentioned (although I must confess that there are different interpretations at present). According to one analyst (which seems open and honest in his approach to Bible prophecy) the following may be quite close as it agrees to a large extent with for instance van Kampen
Nations eventually at peace with Israel: Egypt (after a period of conflict), Northern Iraq, Lebanon
Have war with Israel and then face destruction: Parts of Jordan, Turkey, Iran, Ethiopia, Libya, Ukraine/Germany, Turkestan, Armenia.
Nations that God will destroy.: Syria (Damascus), Babylon/Chaldeans (?), and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, some of Iraq and Jordan (Arabia)
It will be interesting to note developments.
According to the vision from Nebuchadnezzar, and analysis of the 70 weeks of Daniel, 69 weeks have passed and the 70th week has not yet arrived (generally weeks are years in prophecy). It makes for very interesting reading.

However the idea is not to predict the future, but rather to confirm God’s total control- and you can count on that, also that no one, not even the worst criminal, is excluded from Jesus' promise "Joh_6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#96 Apr 22, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>The point you responded to was that I do not know of any false information provided in the Bible.
There have been allegations,..
There is false information in the Bible from beginning to end. From the 6 day creation, which didnt happen, through to prophecies of imminent end of days, which also didnt happen. Have a look at Jesus prophecies and Paul's comments regarding the end times. They thought the end of the world was within their own lifetimes. 2000 years later it still hasnt happened.
Thinking

Exmouth, UK

#97 Apr 22, 2013
KJV? K Ctrl V more like...
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You are just jealous, because he was nice, and he wrote a pretty thoughtful post-- himself.
Two things you are incapable of: being nice, and writing long, well thought posts >>yourself<<.
You are the Cut-And-Paste King, after all....
... LOL!
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#98 Apr 22, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
There is false information in the Bible from beginning to end. From the 6 day creation, which didnt happen, through to prophecies of imminent end of days, which also didnt happen. Have a look at Jesus prophecies and Paul's comments regarding the end times. They thought the end of the world was within their own lifetimes. 2000 years later it still hasnt happened.
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
There is false information in the Bible from beginning to end. From the 6 day creation, which didnt happen, through to prophecies of imminent end of days, which also didnt happen. Have a look at Jesus prophecies and Paul's comments regarding the end times. They thought the end of the world was within their own lifetimes. 2000 years later it still hasnt happened.
Spudgun, you make some basic errors.
1) Archeological information confirms the truthfulness of what can be verified - as even a cursory investigation will reveal.Thus your claim that the Bible is false information from beginning to end is very easily refuted. It however shows a tendency on your part to be somewhat irrational in your response- supporting the very argument I made - your responses are not based on fact but primarily emotion.
2) There is some fairly thought provoking ideas available on the 6 day creation. There are differences of opinion even amongst Christians (such as Hugh Ross) that believe in "millions of years" creation. Linguists of the original language have concluded that the text is clear - it was meant as 6 x 24 hour days in the text. The guys arguing otherwise depend on alternative interpretations of the word "day" in Genesis.
The millions of years have to make certain assumptions which cannot be proven (Uniformatism etc)and is contradicted by similarly proper analysis of info.

The argument that Jesus considered that the end will be within their lifetime (at least those living then) is a very good argument and one that cannot be glibly answered or rationalized.

It is however also evident that Jesus said that not even He knows when the end will occur, which indicates to me that the reference to "this generation" need some scrutiny. If it means what seems obvious, Jesus will thus be contradicting himself within a few sentences. The answer should thus be found elsewhere.

There are a number of views on this. At present, I will not venture any specific opinion other than to say that it remains a mystery to me, yet trust that what was originally meant, is true. Much the same way that I assume you trust that everything came from nothing.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the purpose behind prophecy is as encouragement for Jesus' disciples, knowing that God is in complete control- not as "guess what is going to happen".

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#99 Apr 22, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>The point you responded to was that I do not know of any false information provided in the Bible.
Actually? The bible is chock-full of errors, mistakes, outright lies, more errors, fabrications, myths, more myths and just plain old fairy tales of little merit.

Don't believe me?

Too bad: it was studying the WHOLE bible that made me into the atheist I am today.

Once I realized how ugly and error-filled it really is?

I also realized that I could not trust >>ANYTHING<< it said.

Not a single sentence.

Once that happened? All my faith went out the window-- I realized that I had put all my faith in the bible having >>some<< semblance of worth.

It does not.

It just doesn't.

Here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_me...

And: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald...

And the best resource of all: http://www.evilbible.com/

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#100 Apr 22, 2013
Andre wrote:
There have been allegations, such as Moses could not have written Genesis, as it was stated that writing did not exist at the time as writing only existed from David’s time (1000BC).
Silly! Moses is 100% myth! Never existed-- there are NO records--NONE of Moses in Egypt. And those Egyptians kept records of .... >>everything<<

More: there is NO archeological records of ANYONE wandering the desert outside of Egypt-- let alone for 40+ years.

And deserts preserve >>everything<<... so THAT story is 100% false.

Finally?

The bible is no older than 500BCE. It was deliberately written to appear older, but it's not--

-- the Hebrews did not exist prior to 500BCE.

They just didn't.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#101 Apr 22, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text><quoted text>Spudgun, you make some basic errors.
1) Archeological information confirms the truthfulness of what can be verified -
Lie.

Since you start out with such a bald-faced lie?

I cannot accept a single additional word you write-- for it will likely be lies too.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#102 Apr 22, 2013
Andre wrote:
Have war with Israel and then face destruction: Parts of Jordan, Turkey, Iran, Ethiopia, Libya, Ukraine/Germany, Turkestan, Armenia.
Nations that God will destroy.: Syria (Damascus), Babylon/Chaldeans (?), and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, some of Iraq and Jordan (Arabia)
It is interesting. I had me a search of your basic on-line bible.

Guess what? I couldn't find most of the names you list above-- ANYWHERE in there!

So are you just lying? Or are you making stuff up?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#103 Apr 22, 2013
Andre wrote:
There are a great number of external evidences supporting the Bible stories,
Care to name... ONE?

No?

We thought as much...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#104 Apr 22, 2013
Andre wrote:
Let me just make a point here. The purpose of prophecy is not to be better able to foretell the future. It should be treated as an encouragement for Jesus’ disciples of all ages to know that God is in control.
I got some baaaaaad news for you, then.

If claim above is TRUE?

Even a LITTLE true?

Then you just blew out all possibility of free will!

Seriously!

If your god is "in control"? Then people, by definition, are not.

And if people are NOT?

Then they have no free will.

That's it, then... may as well go home.

LMAO!

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
Atheism is not a belief 18 min NightSerf 184
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 19 min Brian_G 11,195
News Here are 10 myths and truths about atheism 48 min NightSerf 42
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 2 hr hpcaban 331
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Brian_G 29,396
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 6 hr Knowledge- 9,557
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 11 hr spider1954 254,882
More from around the web