Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255535 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173639 Aug 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, to three significant figures: 13.798+-.037 billion years.
When is it standard to put the decimal at the billion mark?!? That makes me 0.000000000~odd years old!
Right. My impression was that the age of condensation is determined by other objects in the solar system, under the assumption the earth condensed at the same time. Directly dated crystals on earth go back to zircons of age 4.0 billion years.
Probably. Best estimates for the age of the Earth are around 4.6. I think just short of that.

Here's two interesting pieces I found on it:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/300/5625/15...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/19...

(the first is just a news piece, the second an actual paper)

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173640 Aug 6, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Well i think the experts would say Jesus existed and was crucified by Pilate. What you present is vague to say the least. If it was food it could be sipped through a straw. I'M not talking about a good part of the story but am addressing common groud all experts agree on. Namely Jesus existed and crucified by Pilate. You will not even go that far so in that respect you disagree with the experts with you obscure description. I may get to the rest later.
It's pretty hard for me to believe Jesus didn't exist. And I'd have to guess he was extremely charismatic.

I'm especially touched by one utterance: "You can't be a prophet in your own town." That sounds very honest to me - his brothers and parents would all know him, from birth. They'd treat him like a son and a brother, not like a prophet.

It's hard for me to imagine that someone inventing Jesus would come up with that. I suppose, if they're extremely clever, it's not beyond imaging, but that seems like a sentiment born of experience.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173641 Aug 6, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Sorry about the triple post. I don't know why it did that.
Because Jesus loves you and wants your voice heard.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173642 Aug 6, 2013
Olive oil and pottery sales are far more important than this son of god who walked on water right? Lol!
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>"experts"? Do you mean "people who believe exactly as you do"?

LOL!

If Pilate **had** executed this "jesus" character? Where are the Roman records? They kept records of **olive oil sales**...

... they **certainly** would have had records of such an important personage as a religious **leader**.

But there are ... none such.

Interesting omission...

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173643 Aug 6, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed-- for the science behind the current earth's date to be **wrong**?
One thing would **not** work: nuclear power plants.
And smoke detectors.
Both rely on a stable half-life of an unstable isotope-- in the case of power plants, that would be U238 or Uranium (typically-- a very few use other metals, but uranium is the most common).
And for your common smoke detector? It relies on the short half-life of a small chunk of californium metal to ionize the smoke-- setting off the siren. Without that bit of radioactive metal? You'd have to change the batteries every week or so.\
Another factor -- that would be **wrong** if the earth was merely millions of years young-- would be that the radiation of that californium would **escape** the confines of it's aluminum shell.
That does not happen-- so they are safe to use.
... meh.
Ignorance is bliss, they say-- but I find ignorance to be something best avoided-- easy to do, too, what with Google and all that.
Very good points, thanks Bob! I sometimes forget about how the physics models also demonstrate the engineering technology. I'll keep that in mind from now on :)

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173644 Aug 6, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Bob! How is business going for you? I hope your health is improving. Now, about this assumption of yours. You're making some errors in your assertions.
1)You're assuming that Imperial Rome kept a record of everyone they executed. That's nonsense. A wandering Rabbi who set himself up as a king? Rome wouldn't waste the papyrus writing about it. During the Jewish rebellion of 66-70AD, they crucified so many Jews that they ran out of wood. Did they write about them too? Can you provide evidence that they kept meticulous records of everything they did? And if so, where would these records be housed? Assuming of course that they survived 2,000 plus years.
2) The whole bias charge doesn't work. A person can be biased in favor of or in opposition to a proposition, and still be correct about it. As I've said, nobody comes to this subject without bias. The fact that you're arguing against shows your bias.
C'mon Bob; you and Poly and Albtraum are the smartest here that represent the atheist side. Surely you must know there's a large measure of truth to what I say.
Question: a huge part of Jesus' message was "go forth and be fishers of men." So, convert people.

And you're claiming above that he wasn't important enough for the Romans to bother with records. That sort of sounds like they thought he was insane.

Now, if he was a deity, who especially wanted people to follow his deity, don't you think he'd leave a mark on Roman society, especially at the time of his death?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173646 Aug 6, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
When is it standard to put the decimal at the billion mark?!? That makes me 0.000000000~odd years old!
The standard is the number of significant figures. In this case, the 1,3, and 7/8 are significant (within the error bars). The decimal is that the billion year level for convenience only. If I was measuring the decay time of a muon, it would be at the millisecond level (2.1969822+-.0000011 milliseconds, for 6 significant figures).
Probably. Best estimates for the age of the Earth are around 4.6. I think just short of that.
I found 4.54+-.05 billion years, for 2 significant figures.

That age seems to be the age of meteorites that formed when the solar system did with the assumption that the earth formed at about the same time. This, together with the age of the sun found by modeling the fusion reactions and rate of production of helium, put an upper bound on the age of the earth. Zircons, in turn, put a lower bound, but were only formed after the earth cooled enough to have crystals.

In nay case, the earth is more than 4 billion years and less than 5 billion. The universe is around 13.8 billion, so it about three times as old as the earth. This makes sense because most of the atoms on the earth (all except hydrogen) were formed in stars of the previous generation.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173647 Aug 6, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Question: a huge part of Jesus' message was "go forth and be fishers of men." So, convert people.
And you're claiming above that he wasn't important enough for the Romans to bother with records. That sort of sounds like they thought he was insane.
Now, if he was a deity, who especially wanted people to follow his deity, don't you think he'd leave a mark on Roman society, especially at the time of his death?
Hello Hiding. That's a very good point. You've actually hit the nail right on the head. The Romans were polytheistic. The idea that a prophetic messiah would show up and rescue a monotheistic culture against the most powerful and ruthless empire was insane to the Romans. But here's the answer to your question. There was a subtlety to Jesus. In an ancient culture with so many beliefs, a deity would have to pull off an incredible feat to convince anybody. And even then, not everyone would be convinced. Ancient magicians were always trying to appeal to gods with recipes and incantations. Jesus didn't want to reach people with some circus atmosphere spectacle of sky writing or levitating the temple or draining the Dead Sea. That wasn't his style.

Sensationalism will wear off after a while. So what better miracle is there than die, rise from the dead, and only appear to those who truly understand what he was about and how it related to their culture? What could it mean to rise from death? Were they skeptical? You bet they were! Nobody comes back from death by their own will; unless they have the power, and the motive. So what could the motive possibly be?

I'm aware these are theological answers, but I can only answer according to the way in which I understand them. If you want me to expand on it I will. But it won't be tonight. It's 9pm here and I have some reading to do.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173648 Aug 6, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
They did. The Romans were compulsive record-keepers. And keeping records of officially executed criminals would have been high on their list--
-- since they bothered to keep records of olive oil sales, keeping records of officially sanctioned deaths would have been routine.
Your argument is without merit.
No it wouldn't have. I think I see the flaw in your thinking and I hope you don't mind me pointing it out in good faith. You're not pompous and unwilling to discuss a particular point. So here's my hypothesis:

Here in modern Western culture, we document everything we do. It sometimes seems like you can't sneeze without writing an insurance claim for it. Because of the modern mentality, we might be intellectually superimposing that same high standard back onto a primitive culture. So let's take your assertion that the Roman armies kept detailed records of every execution and apply this argument to it:

In the Jewish revolt that led to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD at the hands of the Romans, Josephus (whom we accept on this account) said that the Roman soldiers crucified THOUSANDS of Jews. So many Jews were crucified that the Romans ran out of wood. Can you imagine such a ghastly sight? If your assertion is true, then we should expect to see at least a few individual execution details from a Roman Tribune or Prefect or something along those lines. But we don't. Where are the individual records for each one of those thousands of crucified Jews? Where are they being kept? Why haven't we seen them? If there were thousands of Jews crucified, then according to your assertion, we should have what- a hundred detailed documents or fragments of documents? Fifty? Twenty-five? See the problem with your assertion? Can you show me a link to every document of every single Jew crucified during that time?

No. Why? Because crucifixion was reserved for slaves. Non-Romans. Criminals. Traitors. Their names were insignificant to the Romans. If somebody was beheaded by sword then their name might be recorded. That's because they were a Roman citizen. Look it up. Google is our friend. LOL :)

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173649 Aug 6, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello Hiding. That's a very good point. You've actually hit the nail right on the head. The Romans were polytheistic. The idea that a prophetic messiah would show up and rescue a monotheistic culture against the most powerful and ruthless empire was insane to the Romans. But here's the answer to your question. There was a subtlety to Jesus. In an ancient culture with so many beliefs, a deity would have to pull off an incredible feat to convince anybody. And even then, not everyone would be convinced. Ancient magicians were always trying to appeal to gods with recipes and incantations. Jesus didn't want to reach people with some circus atmosphere spectacle of sky writing or levitating the temple or draining the Dead Sea. That wasn't his style.
Sensationalism will wear off after a while. So what better miracle is there than die, rise from the dead, and only appear to those who truly understand what he was about and how it related to their culture? What could it mean to rise from death? Were they skeptical? You bet they were! Nobody comes back from death by their own will; unless they have the power, and the motive. So what could the motive possibly be?
I'm aware these are theological answers, but I can only answer according to the way in which I understand them. If you want me to expand on it I will. But it won't be tonight. It's 9pm here and I have some reading to do.
So your claims are that an almighty deity who wants everyone to love him, or he will send them to a hell he himself created, pays particular attention to "style" in spreading his message and that, because he's all powerful, style is the most important deciding factor here?

That's quite a claim. Thanks.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173650 Aug 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
You *can* expect those in power to 'adjust' history to suit their ends. You *can* expect those in power to select writings that support their power. And that is as true of the ancient Egyptians as the ancient Israelites as it is for many governments today.
Ancient Israel history is not like that since they record their failures down to the details. The Egyptians however would probably fit your scenario and that means they were not all that big on recording jot and tittle the account of the slave class Israelites kicking their behinds and looting them. If they recorded anything they might want to be a little vague about that.
Garbage. You are committed to saying the Bible is correct and stretching anything to match your beliefs.
I have more faith in the ancients then the moderns who are hyper critical and have been proven wrong. They don't have a lot of credibility with me. Especially the anti supernaturalists since i assume God exists and is the source of all life.
Instead of looking for a commonplace explanation, you immediately jump to a supernatural one.
I don't rule it out.
As with any writing from any time period, the writers had an agenda. They had a bias.
So? I think you must assume they had some sort of sinister intent.
Their writings did not come to us without copyists and interpreters.
It was a profession and they took their work seriously.
Like I said, I do not find it unbelievable that a preacher generally of the type described in the synoptic gospels existed at that time and place. In fact, we know of many. Furthermore, Jesus was a common enough name. I don't give it a 100% probability because there is no supporting archeology. But I would give it over a 50% chance. But so what? That in no way supports the resurrection story. It in no way supports the claim that he was god incarnate. And it in no way supports any of the rest of your mythology.
It does not even support Jesus existed and crucified via Pilate.
Sorry, I expect a bit higher quality evidence than mere history can give when the issue is one of supernatural effects. We *know* people are easily fooled and are superstitious. So any purported supernatural effects should be viewed with skepticism in any historical record.
Here's some things on Moses and the Exodus.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-isaacs/pa...
Also
The earliest non-Biblical account of the Exodus is in the writings of the Greek author Hecataeus of Abdera: the Egyptians blame a plague on foreigners and expel them from the country, whereupon Moses, their leader, takes them to Canaan, where he founds the city of Jerusalem.[43] Hecataeus wrote in the late 4th century BCE, but the passage is quite possibly an insertion made in the mid-1st century BCE.[44] The most famous is by the Egyptian historian Manetho (3rd century BCE), known from two quotations by the 1st century CE Jewish historian Josephus. In the first, Manetho describes the Hyksos, their lowly origins in Asia, their dominion over and expulsion from Egypt, and their subsequent foundation of the city of Jerusalem and its temple. Josephus (not Manetho) identifies the Hyksos with the Jews.[45] In the second story Manetho tells how 80,000 lepers and other "impure people," led by a priest named Osarseph, join forces with the former Hyksos, now living in Jerusalem, to take over Egypt. They wreak havoc until eventually the pharaoh and his son chase them out to the borders of Syria, where Osarseph gives the lepers a law-code and changes his name to Moses.[46] Manetho differs from the other writers in describing his renegades as Egyptians rather than Jews, and in using a name other than Moses for their leader,[43] although the identification of Osarseph with Moses may be a later addition.[46][47]
Had to shorten

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173651 Aug 6, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Sensationalism will wear off after a while. So what better miracle is there than die, rise from the dead, and only appear to those who truly understand what he was about and how it related to their culture? What could it mean to rise from death? Were they skeptical? You bet they were! Nobody comes back from death by their own will; unless they have the power, and the motive. So what could the motive possibly be?
Throughout history, most people reject the claim, or never heard of it, that Jesus rose from the dead. So I have to disagree with you here.
I'm aware these are theological answers, but I can only answer according to the way in which I understand them. If you want me to expand on it I will. But it won't be tonight. It's 9pm here and I have some reading to do.
No worries, thanks for answering.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#173652 Aug 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The standard is the number of significant figures. In this case, the 1,3, and 7/8 are significant (within the error bars). The decimal is that the billion year level for convenience only. If I was measuring the decay time of a muon, it would be at the millisecond level (2.1969822+-.0000011 milliseconds, for 6 significant figures).
<quoted text> I found 4.54+-.05 billion years, for 2 significant figures.
That age seems to be the age of meteorites that formed when the solar system did with the assumption that the earth formed at about the same time. This, together with the age of the sun found by modeling the fusion reactions and rate of production of helium, put an upper bound on the age of the earth. Zircons, in turn, put a lower bound, but were only formed after the earth cooled enough to have crystals.
In nay case, the earth is more than 4 billion years and less than 5 billion. The universe is around 13.8 billion, so it about three times as old as the earth. This makes sense because most of the atoms on the earth (all except hydrogen) were formed in stars of the previous generation.
That's pretty cool. I wonder how much time is passing for the experimenters outside the universe, and how they're analyzing all this data.
Imhotep

Deltona, FL

#173653 Aug 6, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
No it wouldn't have. I think I see the flaw in your thinking and I hope you don't mind me pointing it out in good faith. You're not pompous and unwilling to discuss a particular point. So here's my hypothesis *edit*. Look it up. Google is our friend. LOL :)
What if there is a deity and you're worshipping the wrong one?

Two simple questions, have you an answer?

Can you provide evidence that your God is the only true God in a way that religions other than yours cannot do?

Can you provide evidence that your holy book is true in a way that religions other than yours cannot do with theirs?

On your mark - Get set - Go! ;)

Your competition in order of popularity:

Christianity: 2.1 billion (RCC claims 1.2 mil)
Islam: 1.5 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/ Atheist: 1.1 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adheren...
Imhotep

Deltona, FL

#173654 Aug 6, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
False again.
I am **skeptical** not biased.
There **is** a difference.
I would very much **love** for there to be a generous, caring deity watching over humans' ultimate fate.
The **facts** say otherwise: preventable evil is too abundant. But not so abundant that an **evil** god is at-hand.
The bottom line? Even if a historical jew named "jesus" existed?
That in **no** way proves he was ...
... even a tiny bit...
... a god.
The most **damning** omission from the world, if your Jesus **was** a god?
Is this: where is **his** testimony,**his** writings for future generations?
God, remember? He would **know** and **understand** the severely critical **importance** of his legacy to future generations.
More, he would have foreseen all the **evil** done by a **false** testimony-- or even a partially corrupted one!
WHERE IS THE WRITINGS FROM JESUS HIMSELF?
No-- if he lived at all? He was most **certainly** just a human.
Say it ain't so!
I can't believe you're skeptical < Rolls eyes>

You better be good OR I'll spread a vicious rumor in the forum That I saw you in a Tulsa Catholic church last Sunday attempting to distribute watchtowers whilst wearing a yarmulke.

How do I know this... I had just finished cleaning my sunglasses in the holy water!

;)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173655 Aug 6, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Olive oil and pottery sales are far more important than this son of god who walked on water right? Lol!
<quoted text>
LOL!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173656 Aug 6, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good points, thanks Bob! I sometimes forget about how the physics models also demonstrate the engineering technology. I'll keep that in mind from now on :)
I was wrong about the smoke detectors, which Polymath politely corrected me on-- it was Americium, not Californium.

Both are artificially created by engineers. I think they use linear accelerators and bombard other metals with high energy particles to get them to transform to Americium, but I'm far from certain about that.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173657 Aug 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The standard is the number of significant figures. In this case, the 1,3, and 7/8 are significant (within the error bars). The decimal is that the billion year level for convenience only. If I was measuring the decay time of a muon, it would be at the millisecond level (2.1969822+-.0000011 milliseconds, for 6 significant figures).
<quoted text> I found 4.54+-.05 billion years, for 2 significant figures.
That age seems to be the age of meteorites that formed when the solar system did with the assumption that the earth formed at about the same time. This, together with the age of the sun found by modeling the fusion reactions and rate of production of helium, put an upper bound on the age of the earth. Zircons, in turn, put a lower bound, but were only formed after the earth cooled enough to have crystals.
In nay case, the earth is more than 4 billion years and less than 5 billion. The universe is around 13.8 billion, so it about three times as old as the earth. This makes sense because most of the atoms on the earth (all except hydrogen) were formed in stars of the previous generation.
As I understand it, the Sun's age is calculated by the current Helium content of the sun, He being a byproduct of Hydrogen fusion (naturally). And the assumption that the sun would have formed with the same ration of hydrogen/helium as is found in our local area via spectrograph analysis.

In short? Our sun has "too much" helium, as compared to other nearby non-star accumulations of matter. And measuring the rate of accumulation, with the current quantity, gives us it's age.

It's really not all that complicated a concept, once you understand some basics.

Of course, the **maths** involved would be calculus, right?:D

That would put it well beyond the abilities of your average god-believer...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173658 Aug 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The standard is the number of significant figures. In this case, the 1,3, and 7/8 are significant (within the error bars). The decimal is that the billion year level for convenience only. If I was measuring the decay time of a muon, it would be at the millisecond level (2.1969822+-.0000011 milliseconds, for 6 significant figures).
<quoted text> I found 4.54+-.05 billion years, for 2 significant figures.
That age seems to be the age of meteorites that formed when the solar system did with the assumption that the earth formed at about the same time. This, together with the age of the sun found by modeling the fusion reactions and rate of production of helium, put an upper bound on the age of the earth. Zircons, in turn, put a lower bound, but were only formed after the earth cooled enough to have crystals.
In nay case, the earth is more than 4 billion years and less than 5 billion. The universe is around 13.8 billion, so it about three times as old as the earth. This makes sense because most of the atoms on the earth (all except hydrogen) were formed in stars of the previous generation.
... And the assumption that the sun would have formed with the same ** ratio **...

... darn autocorrect.

:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173660 Aug 6, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
No it wouldn't have. I think I see the flaw in your thinking and I hope you don't mind me pointing it out in good faith. You're not pompous and unwilling to discuss a particular point. So here's my hypothesis:
Here in modern Western culture, we document everything we do. It sometimes seems like you can't sneeze without writing an insurance claim for it. Because of the modern mentality, we might be intellectually superimposing that same high standard back onto a primitive culture. So let's take your assertion that the Roman armies kept detailed records of every execution and apply this argument to it:
In the Jewish revolt that led to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD at the hands of the Romans, Josephus (whom we accept on this account) said that the Roman soldiers crucified THOUSANDS of Jews. So many Jews were crucified that the Romans ran out of wood. Can you imagine such a ghastly sight? If your assertion is true, then we should expect to see at least a few individual execution details from a Roman Tribune or Prefect or something along those lines. But we don't. Where are the individual records for each one of those thousands of crucified Jews? Where are they being kept? Why haven't we seen them? If there were thousands of Jews crucified, then according to your assertion, we should have what- a hundred detailed documents or fragments of documents? Fifty? Twenty-five? See the problem with your assertion? Can you show me a link to every document of every single Jew crucified during that time?
No. Why? Because crucifixion was reserved for slaves. Non-Romans. Criminals. Traitors. Their names were insignificant to the Romans. If somebody was beheaded by sword then their name might be recorded. That's because they were a Roman citizen. Look it up. Google is our friend. LOL :)
You're comparing apples to horseshoes, here.

On one hand, you write about a **war**-- for that is what a revolt is-- a war, if limited and unsuccessful.

Whereas the execution of criminals was a **civic** matter-- not one of wartime.

I would expect to see records of all (or nearly all)**criminal** executions-- and indeed, we do.

But none with your Jesus' name on it.

A serious omission.

Especially if he had created sufficient fuss among the local Jewish leadership, so that they used the Roman system to get rid of the troublemaker.

That right there, would have been noteworthy all by itself.

Again?

Nothing.

And a very **telling** nothing it is, too.

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 min ChristineM 20,178
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 min Uncle Sam 14,969
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 22 min renee 35,437
News Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 44 min ChristineM 23,874
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 1 hr NightSerf 4,491
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 4 hr thetruth 42
News a€‹GORMAN: Science is a religion 8 hr thetruth 3
More from around the web