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. Read more

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172614 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
10) is there any archeological evidence to support the literary evidence?
Sadly, in the case of the bible?

Extremely little-- and in the case of the NT? None at all...

Hmmmm...
Imhotep

Orlando, FL

#172615 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, you're making an assumption without any proof that the Tacitus or Josephus accounts of Jesus are forgeries. This just isn't true. If you have conclusive proof (not opinion) I'll need to see it for myself.
Tacitus mentions the report of the fire that burned much of Rome. This is a historical fact. He mentions that Nero wanted to shift the So here just in the Tacitus passage, we have facts:
1) There was a major fire in Rome during the reign of Nero.
2) Christians were in Rome during the reign of Nero.
3) The origins of Christianity are traced back to Judea.
4) Pontius Pilate was the Roman installed governor of Judea, confirmed by archeological discovery of the Pilate Stone.
5) Tacitus is obviously dubious of Christian claims because he calls them "superstitions".
To be continued in next post
Once again... ;)

Tacitus?

Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character.

Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)
Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian,(c. 56-120 CE)
Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)

When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE.

In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"):

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

The are: No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity."

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed.

All of these historians were born well after the alleged events.

'Hearsay' is not 'evidence' for a reason!

Caesar by comparison is easily verified as is Nero.

BTW - The same problem exists with Moses!
Egyptian history does not mention Moses.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172616 Jul 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
By the very nature of 'supernatural' it is impossible to test. And yes, any hypothesis that is untestable, even in theory, is excluded. THAT is what Lewontin was attempting to say in your quote.

it is not intellectual dishonesty to require testable hypotheses while doing science. Lewontin's point is that the supernatural is, by definition, untestable.
I disagree. Look at the passage again.

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science IN SPITE OF [emphases are in the original article] the patent absurdity of some of its constructs... IN SPITE OF the tolerance the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our A PRIORI adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." -Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 4, 1997.

Notice how he writes "IN SPITE OF?" This shows that secularist science is willing to dismiss supernatural phenomena IN SPITE OF evidence or logical conclusions to the contrary.

Next, look at his own emphasis on the words A PRIORI and the fact he is ADMITTING that secular science does this for the most damaging of all agendas by his words at the very end:

Keeping the Divine Foot out! That's not science Polymath. That's a cultural agenda wrapped up in a lab coat to resemble science.

You've done an admirable job at damage control, but when a respected member of the scientific community admits to intellectual dishonesty through the medium of cultural agenda, then I have a real problem trusting the institutions and methodologies. In an earlier post on this topic you commented about how it isn't possible to test or conduct research on the supernatural. I don't think that's an accurate statement. There are paranormal societies and clubs all over the world. Now with the popular theme of reality based tv shows, I understand how a skeptic might claim that such shows are just for ratings, and to an extent, I would agree. But, my point here is this:

As an academic scientist, if you were called upon to investigate a haunting at some location, how would you proceed in a manner that does NOT involve presupposition? In other words, taking the statement of alleged witnesses without bias or assumptions that they're lying; how would you investigate their claims, and what measures would you use to keep your research honest with regard to your own biases and their claims?

Please don't tell me you would give them brain scans and all kinds of blood work, and polygraph tests. If I told you my house was haunted, how would you test that claim without offending me?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172617 Jul 20, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
All of these historians were born well after the alleged events.
'Hearsay' is not 'evidence' for a reason!
"Hearsay" is not allowed in court cases but is EVIDENCE in historical research. Thus with regard to this discussion, your use of the word hearsay is a fallacy.

I can write an accurate history of a specific revolutionary war battle. It happened in 1777, but through careful research, it's doable. Would you like to know how?
Imhotep

Orlando, FL

#172618 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
"Hearsay" is not allowed in court cases but is EVIDENCE in historical research. Thus with regard to this discussion, your use of the word hearsay is a fallacy.
I can write an accurate history of a specific revolutionary war battle. It happened in 1777, but through careful research, it's doable. Would you like to know how?
There is hearsay in repeating things that acrually happened in history, However there's the actual history of things - like things of Caesar wrote, things the pharaohs wrote, During their lifetime you don't have any history for your savior Outside of your holy guidebook. He didn't manage to write a single word down. For a God gift to mankind don't you find that rather odd?

Why would your creator deliberately obfuscate his message?

Try not to fall back on the mysterious ways excuse!

And in future responses to me I think you start off with this...

"Once upon a time in a land far far away"

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172619 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
As an academic scientist, if you were called upon to investigate a haunting at some location, how would you proceed in a manner that does NOT involve presupposition? In other words, taking the statement of alleged witnesses without bias or assumptions that they're lying; how would you investigate their claims, and what measures would you use to keep your research honest with regard to your own biases and their claims?
Please don't tell me you would give them brain scans and all kinds of blood work, and polygraph tests. If I told you my house was haunted, how would you test that claim without offending me?
I would first listen to the effects that you claim happened. Then I would set up, for example, microphones to detect and localize sound, video cameras to pick up visual effects, thermometers to pick up changes in temperature, etc. Then I would look first for all the *natural* effects that could produce what you claim to have experienced. I would look at the structural properties of the house, the types of sounds produced by the wind moving through it, the water in the pipes, etc. I would ask about the conditions under which the effects were experienced: we you going to sleep or fully awake? Can I do so without 'offending you'? I don't know. It depends on whether I conclude you're insane or lying or not. I would also ask for the help of trained magicians (who are very adept at fooling people) to see if I had missed anything.

If you have proof of the supernatural, there is a $1 million prize offered by James Randi. He requires a controlled environment and makes sure no 'foolery' is done. And he is a professional magician, so is a bit harder to fool than most scientists, who are accustomed to people being honest, even if mistaken.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172620 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
In an earlier post on this topic you commented about how it isn't possible to test or conduct research on the supernatural. I don't think that's an accurate statement. There are paranormal societies and clubs all over the world. Now with the popular theme of reality based tv shows, I understand how a skeptic might claim that such shows are just for ratings, and to an extent, I would agree.
More to the point, even if they were to come up with an unexplained phenomenon, would it show the existence of a supernatural? No. At best it would show the existence of a *natural* effect we didn't know before. For example, strange sounds show an ability to create pressure waves in air. Enough microphones along with video cameras can localize the source of the sound. Now, that doesn't happen with the equipment you find in 'reality' shows, but it is possible. Also, even if the effect was not known before, we would *still* judge it as a material effect because it interacts with matter.

And that is part of the point: if something interacts with matter, it is,*by definition* a material effect. This has happened over and over in science. Neutrinos we initially posited to preserve conservation of energy. They don't interact strongly with matter, so they are incredibly hard to detect, but *because* they interact with matter, they *can* be detected and are material. Going back further, electronic and magnetic forces were considered to be 'spiritual' at one time, but by repeated testing and investigation, they are part of the most precise *physical* theory we have.

And this is part of what Lewontin was talking about. If something interacts with matter, it *is* material by definition. That includes light, neutrinos, dark matter, electrons, etc. To invoke the supernatural is 'giving up' precisely because it cannot lead to precise, testable predictions.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172621 Jul 20, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I think your hero died, Mac.
The wise man paves the road to ruin.
Appia teritur regina longarum viarum
The Long Walk:
http://readanybooks.net/horror/The_Long_Walk/...
Well, if I wanted to go between Rome and Capua...

Seems the Jesuits didn't waste all their time after all.

Hehehe.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172622 Jul 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
He was also horribly wronged.
Yes.

Although his Vedic quote at the Trinity Test Site ("I am become Death, destroyer of worlds.") may actually have been added later.

Good grief, to have been in such company!

Oppie, Einstein, Fermi, Teller, Bohr...

Pardon the frisson.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172623 Jul 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are not written by Paul, but by someone writing AS Paul.
So no...
Oh come on Bob! LOL. 1 Corinthians and Romans are almost universally agreed by NT scholars on as being written by Paul. You and I are mere laymen in comparison!

You'll have to show me some evidence from a bona fide New Testament scholar who says Paul didn't write Romans.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172624 Jul 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
No. Impossible to say, really. If we had the original?**THAT** would be the oldest we have.
We have over 5,700 copies of the New Testament or portions of the New Testament dating back to the early 2nd century. Experts have already counted the quotations of the early church fathers and have found that there are close to one million quotations from the New Testament from the first 3 centuries of Christianity. This means that even if we didn't have a written New Testament, we could virtually reconstruct it from the quotations of the early church fathers. Last year, a fragment of Mark was found that quite possibly dates to the late first century. All of these copies can be checked against other copies for accuracy. In addition, we have 60 copies of the entire Bible written in Greek or Latin dating back to the 2nd century. The next book with anywhere near that many copies is Homer's Iliad and Odyssey with 2,400 copies that all date more than 600 years after Homer lived. That's a huge difference in both number of manuscripts and chronological proximity. That's how we can use test #1 to verify the reliability.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
And back in the day? Spelling was a fine art--**not** based on rules we enjoy today.
Again, not so. Scribes were tightly supervised. If there were any error, the error was noted and corrected, and then double checked and verified by another. Polymath would be proud of the control measures that were so painstakingly thorough that mistakes were the exception rather than the rule. Also, we're talking about another language, with different rules for writing and speaking it. Greek is an inflected language which is totally different from modern language. Comparing these two languages is useless for purposes of discussing this topic.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
So what we **do** have likely bears little resemblance to what was originally written.
That's why having so many copies is so important. It allows us to make side-by-side comparisons. There are very very few differences. Not enough to change the meaning or central orthodox beliefs at all.

And just a FYI item of interest:

The OT is even more reliable, because it was mathematically confirmed. Rabbis in charge of copying actually counted the number of letters, words, passages, and books of the Hebrew bible to maintain quality and reliability in the copying process. The Torah contains 5,485 verses, 97,856 words, and 400,945 letters. The exact center of the Hebrew Bible (our OT) is at Leviticus 8:8, and in the margin of every Hebrew Bible, at Leviticus 8:8, there's a notation by the scribe. This is another quality control measure to ensure that it hasn't been changed. How's that for reliability?:)

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172625 Jul 20, 2013
2) Did the document intend to communicate history or is it intended to be fictitious?
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
That depends: was the author delusional? Did the author suffer from egomania, in that he wanted to prop himself up in some way?
Self-promotion was not a motive in light of the fact that the Pharisees were persecuting the new movement. Peter was humbled. Both Acts and Mark demonstrate this in the accounts. Peter was preaching that Jesus was the son of God and had been resurrected from the dead. That's not a very good way to prop oneself up in the face of fierce, dogmatic Judaic opposition, especially when Rome was holding the puppet strings of the High Priest.

Picture yourself in Peter's sandals.

"Yes you killed our leader for treason but guess what? He's still alive! Epic failure Pharisees! Neener neener!"

By preaching that message, Peter and the apostles were setting themselves up for intense opposition.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Each of those examples, the author would have been intending to communicated "history", but all the while, he was writing fiction.
Human biases again...
Well that's true of modern writing, but that style of detail wasn't used in ancient fictitious writing. So that argument really doesn't go far.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172626 Jul 20, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
There is hearsay in repeating things that acrually happened in history, However there's the actual history of things - like things of Caesar wrote, things the pharaohs wrote, During their lifetime you don't have any history for your savior Outside of your holy guidebook. He didn't manage to write a single word down. For a God gift to mankind don't you find that rather odd?
Why would your creator deliberately obfuscate his message?
Try not to fall back on the mysterious ways excuse!
And in future responses to me I think you start off with this...
"Once upon a time in a land far far away"
I hear ya. The "mysterious ways" argument is nothing but a canned "run-to-the-hills-from-th e-godless-heathens!" reply to get you off their backs. I always hated that.

So I'll go into why I believe Jesus never wrote anything down.

1) He was a Jewish rabbi in a predominantly oral culture.
2) He taught by oral tradition common for that time and place on Earth.
3) If Matthew was a tax collector, then in all likelihood he knew how to write and was taking notes. Now I admit that this is speculation. But, the whole point is, if Jesus really is the Son of God, then who are we (any human) to assert that He should have written anything? His influence as a teacher and as the Son of God would be enough of an unforgettable influence that people would be talking and writing about Him for a very, very ,very long time, which brings us to the present conversation. We are talking about Him right?:)
Imhotep

Inverness, FL

#172627 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I hear ya. The "mysterious ways" argument is nothing but a canned "run-to-the-hills-from-th e-godless-heathens!" reply to get you off their backs. I always hated that.
So I'll go into why I believe Jesus never wrote anything down.
1) He was a Jewish rabbi in a predominantly oral culture.
2) He taught by oral tradition common for that time and place on Earth.
3) If Matthew was a tax collector, then in all likelihood he knew how to write and was taking notes. Now I admit that this is speculation. But, the whole point is, if Jesus really is the Son of God, then who are we (any human) to assert that He should have written anything? His influence as a teacher and as the Son of God would be enough of an unforgettable influence that people would be talking and writing about Him for a very, very ,very long time, which brings us to the present conversation. We are talking about Him right?:)
Right!

I contend "he" is myth, as are all gods.

Think about it.. in order to buy into this... you have to abandon reality. Search the library's, query any historical documents you can find.
What you won't find - is what's disturbing.
Outside of the Bible you won't be able to find Jesus. Nor you be able to find Moses.

If anything, the lack of belief in a supernatural overlord leaves one to respect the importance of all of mankind peacefully coexisting, because unlike in religious doctrine, the penalties one may face for immoral acts are often levied in the material world, during the life of the perpetrator.

Richard Dawkins
"Out of all of the sects in the world, we notice an uncanny coincidence: the overwhelming majority just happen to choose the one that their parents belong to. Not the sect that has the best evidence in its favour, the best miracles, the best moral code, the best cathedral, the best stained glass, the best music: when it comes to choosing from the smorgasbord of available religions, their potential virtues seem to count for nothing, compared to the matter of heredity. This is an unmistakable fact; nobody could seriously deny it. Yet people with full knowledge of the arbitrary nature of this heredity, somehow manage to go on believing in their religion, often with such fanaticism that they are prepared to murder people who follow a different one."

Consider the much used Ad Infinitum Atheist Quote

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Anon

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#172628 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I hear ya. The "mysterious ways" argument is nothing but a canned "run-to-the-hills-from-th e-godless-heathens!" reply to get you off their backs. I always hated that.
So I'll go into why I believe Jesus never wrote anything down.
1) He was a Jewish rabbi in a predominantly oral culture.
2) He taught by oral tradition common for that time and place on Earth.
3) If Matthew was a tax collector, then in all likelihood he knew how to write and was taking notes. Now I admit that this is speculation. But, the whole point is, if Jesus really is the Son of God, then who are we (any human) to assert that He should have written anything? His influence as a teacher and as the Son of God would be enough of an unforgettable influence that people would be talking and writing about Him for a very, very ,very long time, which brings us to the present conversation. We are talking about Him right?:)
For all your words on oral tradition and eye witnesses, you should be able to answer one simple question:-

Who shot JFK?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#172629 Jul 20, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Right!
I contend "he" is myth, as are all gods.
Think about it.. in order to buy into this... you have to abandon reality. Search the library's, query any historical documents you can find.
What you won't find - is what's disturbing.
Outside of the Bible you won't be able to find Jesus. Nor you be able to find Moses.
If anything, the lack of belief in a supernatural overlord leaves one to respect the importance of all of mankind peacefully coexisting, because unlike in religious doctrine, the penalties one may face for immoral acts are often levied in the material world, during the life of the perpetrator.
Richard Dawkins
"Out of all of the sects in the world, we notice an uncanny coincidence: the overwhelming majority just happen to choose the one that their parents belong to. Not the sect that has the best evidence in its favour, the best miracles, the best moral code, the best cathedral, the best stained glass, the best music: when it comes to choosing from the smorgasbord of available religions, their potential virtues seem to count for nothing, compared to the matter of heredity. This is an unmistakable fact; nobody could seriously deny it. Yet people with full knowledge of the arbitrary nature of this heredity, somehow manage to go on believing in their religion, often with such fanaticism that they are prepared to murder people who follow a different one."
Consider the much used Ad Infinitum Atheist Quote
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Anon
Yep.

Why is there a need for a god.

If at this moment in time no one on Earth believed in 'god' would religion of any form start, if so why and where would start?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172630 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
I disagree. Look at the passage again.
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science IN SPITE OF [emphases are in the original article] the patent absurdity of some of its constructs... IN SPITE OF the tolerance the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our A PRIORI adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." -Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 4, 1997.
Notice how he writes "IN SPITE OF?" This shows that secularist science is willing to dismiss supernatural phenomena IN SPITE OF evidence or logical conclusions to the contrary.
No, that is NOT how he used the phrase. He said we accept the conclusions of science *in spite of* their apparent absurdity. The *reason* we do so is because the claims of science are testable and we have people actively trying to show any particular theory wrong. Those theories that survive are accepted even if they appear absurd on their face.

For example, special relativity has some very counter-intuitive conclusions. Any common person would probably reject them at first sight simply because they are so counter to our day-to-day lives. Quantum mechanics is even more so. But, in spite of this absurdity, they have passed every test, even those designed by people who disbelieved and were attempting to show them wrong.

Science has an absolute commitment to only allowing ideas that are testable, at least in theory and accepting them only when tested in situations where a competing theory predicts something else. This commitment to testability is, to Lewontin, a commitment to materialism. For him, the 'Divine Foot' is the allowance for faith to determine scientific truth. And no, that is not allowed.

“Move into the light.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#172631 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I hear ya. The "mysterious ways" argument is nothing but a canned "run-to-the-hills-from-th e-godless-heathens!" reply to get you off their backs. I always hated that.
So I'll go into why I believe Jesus never wrote anything down.
1) He was a Jewish rabbi in a predominantly oral culture.
2) He taught by oral tradition common for that time and place on Earth.
3) If Matthew was a tax collector, then in all likelihood he knew how to write and was taking notes. Now I admit that this is speculation. But, the whole point is, if Jesus really is the Son of God, then who are we (any human) to assert that He should have written anything? His influence as a teacher and as the Son of God would be enough of an unforgettable influence that people would be talking and writing about Him for a very, very ,very long time, which brings us to the present conversation. We are talking about Him right?:)
There is no him , only a myth and legend of a conglomeration of myths and legends.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172632 Jul 20, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
For all your words on oral tradition and eye witnesses, you should be able to answer one simple question:-
Who shot JFK?
What does oral tradition have to do with the assassination of JFK?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172633 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh come on Bob! LOL. 1 Corinthians and Romans are almost universally agreed by NT scholars on as being written by Paul. You and I are mere laymen in comparison!
You'll have to show me some evidence from a bona fide New Testament scholar who says Paul didn't write Romans.
I'm only going by the latest and most modern scholarship-- experts in the subject at hand.

They all agree that anything written by Paul never spoke of a physical jesus.

And those passages who do-- dismissed as fraud. Apparently the language is wrong or something-- I do not remember, it's been quite a bit since I looked into the matter.

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) 47 min One way or another 17,989
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 54 min Freebird USA 9,256
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 2 hr Mr_SKY 6,426
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 3 hr Patrick n Angela 14,507
News The Consequences of Atheism 4 hr Thinking 1,124
News Confessions of a black atheist 6 hr Cordwainer Trout 20
News In the Search for an Alternative to God, One Ra... (Mar '11) Sun Patrick n Angela 692
More from around the web