Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258484 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.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#217827 Mar 9, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Caught in The Pulpit: Leaving Belief Behind
by Daniel C. Dennett and Linda LaScola
A book of interviews with clergy that have lost their faith and become atheists.
Andy Thomson interviews LaScola
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =z7TCW_BGG1oXX&feature=pla yer_embedded
A lot of these clergy became atheists in seminary...because of what they were learning in seminary...yet continued on to become clergy anyway.(Personally, I don't understand this, but it does happen.) More just accepted what they learned in seminary by rote, but began to think for themselves later in their careers. Interesting listening.
I have said before

I was taught that the illiterate masses, the poor,(the lower classes) need something to believe (in) to give then confidence and hope, to ease the burden of their miserable life.

I was taught "Faith" in faith

I can give you excuses (I was accustomed to belief as comfort) but the bottom line is I carried on even though I was presented with clear evidence for the source of the dogma, clear evidence that there never was a god on the earth.
I took it : at this time, that there was no reason to think any god existed, but I continued to serve the needs of the unfortunate.

Hypocrisy is that which "turned the tide" for me

my hypocrisy
the hypocrisy of the church

and

the hypocrisy of the fold.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217828 Mar 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
This is also from the Discovery Institute:
THE WEDGE CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE
http://libcom.org/library/wedge-document-inte...
FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY - Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
GOALS - To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Which should we believe they meant, and which was disinformation?
The two do not contradict.

Particularly since the two statements refer to two different entities - Intelligent Design Theory is the former, The Center for Science and Culture is the other.

"defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text." is different from being "consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" about whether the world is strictly enslaved to materialist philosophy.

Again, my explaining the obvious is evidence you are not really interested in this.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#217829 Mar 9, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Sadly, there is not a single NT document in Hebrew or Aramaic. All we have are second and third century Koine translations/copies of them.
There is not a single NT document surviving from the time when a single living person could have actually known Jesus.
there were none written at that time

the idea had not yet coalesced

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#217830 Mar 9, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Who could better explain why young boys need to be taught by private tutelage in the ways of the church than a catholic priest?
do not blame god for the rape of the alter boys

blame the parents, who send them to be raped

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#217831 Mar 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Does infinity have a website?
I understand that it applied

but they could not find a site large enough

too bad no one suggested putting it in with bible truths, lots of room there

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217832 Mar 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm still searching for evidence that such a letter ever went out, or that it went out before Duss and Rhodes released the same information in February 1999. Have you ever seen this letter and the date on it? Can you link us to a copy of it?
None of this passes the sniff test, Buck. In the opening paragraph of an explanatory document called, "The “Wedge Document”: How Darwinist Paranoia Fueled an Urban Legend" < http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/files... >, we read the following:
"Among true-believers on the Darwinist fringe the document came to be viewed as evidence for a secret conspiracy to fuse religion with science and impose a theocracy. These claims were so outlandish that for a long time we simply ignored them."
Do you know why the Discovery Institute referred to those believing that a secret document was leaked to the Internet as paranoid conspiracists? Do you know why they referred to people that found this document meaningful and disconcerting as "true-believers on the Darwinist fringe" or said that their claims were to install a Christian theocracy?
Whatever your answers, these tactics are all too familiar, and are typical for propagandists. What legitimate scientific institution releases material like this? Does the NIH? How about the National Science Foundation or the American Association for the Advancement of Science? Do they call their critics religionists or conspiracists? Of course not.
Yes, they certainly do. Members and representative call ID theorists and the Discovery Institute far worse, and they lie repeatedly about them.

Barbara Forest is one example. She put out an article wherein she blatantly lied about the Kitzmiller trial. Specifically, she claimed Stephen Meyer and William Dembski refused to testify "for fear of cross-examination". Their true reason was they were refused the right of having their own counsel present for preliminary depositions.

Forest also said (here's you some agenda-free science) ID-proponents are "creationists," "legal mincemeat," "jaw-droppingly stupid," "evangelical scholars," "part of the Religious Right," "mean-spirited," having "contempt for the judicial system," promoting "warmed-over creationism," having "cocksure confidence," using "nastiness," "they make things up and/or slander their opposition," using "long-discredited pro-ID arguments," reduced to "peddling ID" and "riding the coattails of conservative pundit Ann Coulter," while arguing using "standard creationist canards," which "highlight the bankruptcy of ID and the blustering cowardice of its leaders, who must capture support with brazen deceit and sarcastic punditry."

Nothing like a secular humanist bitch on the rag, huh?

Further, DI is not strictly a scientific institution, as the "culture" in the title of the originator of the wedge statement illustrates. They support scientific research, as well as other endeavors. It's a free country, I have heard.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217833 Mar 9, 2014
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that it applied
but they could not find a site large enough
too bad no one suggested putting it in with bible truths, lots of room there
Why didn't they just create a donut-shaped site?

(This is a reference to the "Infinite Donut Theory")

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217834 Mar 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
The claim is that the Discovery Institute is a propaganda machine created to discredit the scientific method, and to generate and disseminate a religious agenda in its place. The evidence is the Wedge Document. What defense is there to that?
The claim was made that this document was a leaked to the Internet from an internal document. Your defense was that the information was released in a fund raising letter, not leaked. Wiki contradicts that:
"Drafted in 1998 by Discovery Institute staff, the Wedge Document first appeared publicly after it was posted to the World Wide Web on February 5, 1999 by Tim Rhodes, having been shared with him in late January 1999 by Matt Duss, a part-time employee of a Seattle-based international human-resources firm. There Duss had been given a document to copy titled The Wedge and marked "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution."
The Discovery Institute itself uses the phrase "fundraising proposal," not letter, suggesting that it never released the information:
"In 1999 someone posted on the internet an early fundraising proposal for Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. "
And even were any of that true, none of it is a defense against the claim that the Discovery Institute's mission includes the propaganda function mentioned.
We have seen enough examples of this kind of thing - misinformation and irrelevant deflection - to have a good idea of what values to expect from Christian apologists,andto have learned simply not to trust or believe them any more.
Nor would I trust the opinions of anybody who relies on them.
Your criticism would hold more water if it refrained from the fanatical.

The DI has not, nor has anyone affiliated with it, sought to discredit the scientific method.

ID scientists employ the method every day. The real complaint (I'm gifted for seeing through pretense) emanates from the fear that the scientific method could yield results not comfortable for the secular humanist/materialist/Darwinist orthodoxy.
OG Kush

Jacksonville, FL

#217835 Mar 9, 2014
We know of no critic of who is at once so eloquent and so ignorant as David Berlinski.

The man has spent years attacking evolutionary biology and defending intelligent design (ID), and is, the only living creationist who is not religious.

He’s also a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute, a position reserved for only the Highest Poo-Bahs of Ignorance.

Yes! We demand that Federal courts enforce the law, because we won’t have religious dogma insinuating itself into our children’s science classes.

Or would you prefer to have science determined by the majority whim of the electorate?

If so, then be prepared to have homeopathy and spiritual healing taught in medical schools, astrology in psychology classes, and alchemy in chemistry classes.

The reason why the “court of public opinion” doesn’t like evolution has nothing to do with its truth, and everything to do with its supposedly unsavory implications.

It tells us that we’re neither the products of a special design by God, nor imbued by a deity with some celestial purpose and meaning.

People don’t like these implications and so they reject the theory.

It has nothing to do with them having learned the evidence for evolution and found it insufficient.

Check out Berlinski’s own video highlighting how awesome he is on his website.

http://www.davidberlinski.org/

I can only assume that Berlinski had forgotten about the events of September 11, 2001.

This was an outrage carried out by people who were thinking only too much of what heaven would think of them.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#217836 Mar 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The claim is that the Discovery Institute is a propaganda machine created to discredit the scientific method,
Not a claim, its an accusation. Not a criminal accusation, more along the lines of thought crimes.
and to generate and disseminate a religious agenda in its place.
Yeah any mention of an Intelligent agent {Thought Crimes} is dismissed as religious propaganda or promoting a religious agenda. That's the usual tactics of secular sophists and attack dog tacticians like Barbara Forrest.
The evidence is the Wedge Document. What defense is there to that?
The claim was made that this document was a leaked to the Internet from an internal document. Your defense was that the information was released in a fund raising letter, not leaked. Wiki contradicts that:
You keep ignoring this mystery document was for the purpose of fund raising. These type things are public by nature. That caste doubts about this whole conspiracy to undermine science create theocracies etc. Its just looney tunes.
"Drafted in 1998 by Discovery Institute staff, the Wedge Document first appeared publicly after it was posted to the World Wide Web on February 5, 1999 by Tim Rhodes, having been shared with him in late January 1999 by Matt Duss, a part-time employee of a Seattle-based international human-resources firm. There Duss had been given a document to copy titled The Wedge and marked "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution."
Yeah here is the link and the quote with the matching citations. which is common courtesy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Drafted in 1998 by Discovery Institute staff, the Wedge Document first appeared publicly after it was posted to the World Wide Web on February 5, 1999 by Tim Rhodes,[22] having been shared with him in late January 1999 by Matt Duss, a part-time employee of a Seattle-based international human-resources firm. There Duss had been given a document to copy titled The Wedge and marked "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution."[23]
----------
When i checked the top secret and not for distribution #23 I got this.....
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0605/discov...
The Discovery Institute itself uses the phrase "fundraising proposal," not letter, suggesting that it never released the information:
Yeah accusations of thought crimes and the accusation is the equivalent of conviction with you guys. We get that. Running out of space and the rest of your post is more of same.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217837 Mar 9, 2014
It Ain't Necessarily So wrote:

"Authentic science has no agenda apart from discovering how our universe works,..."
__________

I like this tactic. I like it even better when the term "real science" is used. It lets me go sarcastic about the "R.S. degree".

Let's go hunting for the non-existent agenda of Real Science. See if you spot one.

"Venter Team Creates Artificial Life in Lab"

(No, they did not)

"Global Warming Scientists Caught Fudging Data"

Global Warming Bombshell
"A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics." - MIT Technology Review

Time Magazine Cover, 1977 "PREPARING FOR THE COMING ICE-AGE"

Science News, 1975 "Chilling Possibilities" (warning of a coming ice age)

NY Times, 1975 "The most drastic potential change considered in the new report (by the National Academy of Sciences) is an abrupt end to the present interglacial period of relative warmth that has governed the planet’s climate for the past 10,000 years."

Time, 1994 “The Ice Age Cometh?

The Register, 2013 "What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age."

Science and Eugenics

"The longterm support by leading research scientists, basing their claims and beliefs on scientific evidence, for the discredited Eugenics movement from the 19th well into the 20th century is a classic case of the interdependence of science and cultural beliefs. Fully established and accepted scientific views were used as the basis for legislation and court decisions, not that long ago, and here in the U.S. which sought to strengthen the superior "white race" and discourage intermarriage and reproduction of the other "inferior races"."

The Peppered Moth

H.B. Kettlewell: "If Darwin had seen this, he would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life’s work."

Bwahaha....sorry, excuse me.

Kettlewell faked the data and pictures, which persisted in biology textbooks for 30 years.

The pictures of moths on tree trunks are moths that were laboratory bred and raised, then glued to the trees. Some of the moths were so lifeless, Kettlewell's team had to warm them up on the hood of his car.

For those of you who divert to the lame appeal of science being self-correcting,....correcting errors says nothing about the agenda in place that caused them.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217838 Mar 9, 2014
OG Kush wrote:
We know of no critic of who is at once so eloquent and so ignorant as David Berlinski.
The man has spent years attacking evolutionary biology and defending intelligent design (ID), and is, the only living creationist who is not religious.
He’s also a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute, a position reserved for only the Highest Poo-Bahs of Ignorance.
Yes! We demand that Federal courts enforce the law, because we won’t have religious dogma insinuating itself into our children’s science classes.
Or would you prefer to have science determined by the majority whim of the electorate?
If so, then be prepared to have homeopathy and spiritual healing taught in medical schools, astrology in psychology classes, and alchemy in chemistry classes.
The reason why the “court of public opinion” doesn’t like evolution has nothing to do with its truth, and everything to do with its supposedly unsavory implications.
It tells us that we’re neither the products of a special design by God, nor imbued by a deity with some celestial purpose and meaning.
People don’t like these implications and so they reject the theory.
It has nothing to do with them having learned the evidence for evolution and found it insufficient.
Check out Berlinski’s own video highlighting how awesome he is on his website.
http://www.davidberlinski.org/
I can only assume that Berlinski had forgotten about the events of September 11, 2001.
This was an outrage carried out by people who were thinking only too much of what heaven would think of them.
It's comical to watch. Someone as dumb as you copying internet jabs at David Berlinski and passing them off as your own.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#217839 Mar 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they certainly do. Members and representative call ID theorists and the Discovery Institute far worse, and they lie repeatedly about them.
Barbara Forest is one example. She put out an article wherein she blatantly lied about the Kitzmiller trial. Specifically, she claimed Stephen Meyer and William Dembski refused to testify "for fear of cross-examination". Their true reason was they were refused the right of having their own counsel present for preliminary depositions.
Forest also said (here's you some agenda-free science) ID-proponents are "creationists," "legal mincemeat," "jaw-droppingly stupid," "evangelical scholars," "part of the Religious Right," "mean-spirited," having "contempt for the judicial system," promoting "warmed-over creationism," having "cocksure confidence," using "nastiness," "they make things up and/or slander their opposition," using "long-discredited pro-ID arguments," reduced to "peddling ID" and "riding the coattails of conservative pundit Ann Coulter," while arguing using "standard creationist canards," which "highlight the bankruptcy of ID and the blustering cowardice of its leaders, who must capture support with brazen deceit and sarcastic punditry."
Nothing like a secular humanist bitch on the rag, huh?
http://www.discovery.org/a/4207
OG Kush

Jacksonville, FL

#217840 Mar 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It's comical to watch. Someone as dumb as you copying internet jabs at David Berlinski and passing them off as your own.
It is you that assumes that I pass things off as 'my own'.

I'm too lazy to waste my time providing you and others with easily and readily available information.

I know the entire thread knows that every link you post is absolute unbiased truth as dutifully reported by that paragon of useless misinformation known as Fox news a.k.a. bullshit mountain.

I find even funnier to read the lunatic ravings of a complete and total buffoon like you. Have you considered a career on FOXNews?

I summarized Berlinski as simply as possible - pro bono! I even provided the lunatics website for you and you still whine.

If You think you have a plagiarism case I would welcome your topix lawsuit! Please contact my legal agency of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe.

The meantime keep your busy little fingers googling what I type... it amuses me and others!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217841 Mar 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
http://www.discovery.org/a/2735
The “Wedge Document”: How Darwinist Paranoia Fueled an Urban Legend.
Overview: In 1999 someone posted on the internet an early fundraising proposal for Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Dubbed the “Wedge Document,” this proposal soon took on a life of its own, popping up in all sorts of places and eventually spawning what can only be called a giant urban legend. Among true-believers on the Darwinist fringe the document came to be viewed as evidence for a secret conspiracy to fuse religion with science and impose a theocracy. These claims were so outlandish that for a long time we simply ignored them. But because some credulous Darwinists seem willing to believe almost anything, we decided we should set the record straight. For a more detailed response please read "The Wedge Document: So What?".
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/files ...

It Ain't Necessarily So wrote:
How is any of that a defense to the claims made about the Discovery Institute's agenda? Are they claiming that they lied in their fund raising effort?

Buck Crick wrote:
It's a straightforward defense of the charge that the document can "be viewed as evidence for a secret conspiracy to fuse religion with science and impose a theocracy"
Who made that charge? To my knowledge, nobody used the words "conspiracy" or "theocracy" in this matter until The Discovery Institute claimed that others had. And of course, no formal charges were brought against the DI in this matter, just claims and arguments supporting them.

The claim was that the Discovery Institute had generated a private document intended for internal use labeled "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution" describing a religious agenda "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" which was leaked to the Internet.

Without explicitly committing themselves to anything, they countered that what the world had was information that had something to do with fundraising. To my knowledge, they never denied that it was marked "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution," or that the rest of the world outside of the Discovery Institute weren't first apprised of all of this by an unauthorized leak to the Internet in February of 1999. I am unaware of any evidence to support their claims that that material was intended for public consumption, such as a fundraising letter containing it released before February 1999, or even minutes of a meeting where that was discussed.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#217842 Mar 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Reading on in the same defense, we see specific defenses against the secular humanist fanatic, Barbara Forest: "Our initial strategy for influencing science and culture has been repeatedly discussed at numerous conferences, in books and articles, on our website, and in our brochure. Indeed, much of the offending text from the document had already appeared on our website and in our center brochure.(So much for a secret conspiracy.)
Was any evidence offered in support of these claims?
Buck Crick wrote:
Further, Professor Phillip E. Johnson, of the University of California at Berkely published an entire book articulating his version of the wedge strategy in the year 2000.
The leak came in February, 1999
Buck Crick wrote:
Yet Barbara Forest and others have invented and then hyped a supposed secrecy surrounding the wedge strategy, characterizing the 'wedge of intelligent design' as a 'Trojan horse'. At one point, Forest claimed that 'Wedge Document's authenticity...has been neither affirmed nor denied by the Discovery Institute'. Yet if Professor Forest had wanted to know if the document was authentic, all she had to do was ask. But she didn't. These facts alone suggest that our critics have badly misrepresented us".
I still don't see a defense to the claim I articulated, which I believe was the main claim made by most concerned secularists, namely, that a secret, internal document (i.e., not intended for distribution or public consumption) outlined a religious agenda to "defeat scientific materialism" and replace it with religious ideas was leaked.

I would add to that that it has also been claimed that what is outlined is essentially the plan to generate and disseminate pseudoscientific propagana to further that religious agenda.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217843 Mar 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Who made that charge? To my knowledge, nobody used the words "conspiracy" or "theocracy" in this matter until The Discovery Institute claimed that others had. And of course, no formal charges were brought against the DI in this matter, just claims and arguments supporting them.
The claim was that the Discovery Institute had generated a private document intended for internal use labeled "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution" describing a religious agenda "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" which was leaked to the Internet.
Without explicitly committing themselves to anything, they countered that what the world had was information that had something to do with fundraising. To my knowledge, they never denied that it was marked "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution," or that the rest of the world outside of the Discovery Institute weren't first apprised of all of this by an unauthorized leak to the Internet in February of 1999. I am unaware of any evidence to support their claims that that material was intended for public consumption, such as a fundraising letter containing it released before February 1999, or even minutes of a meeting where that was discussed.
Do you think Phillip Johnson's book was intended for public consumption?

"Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds" -Phillip Johnson; published July 7, 1997

http://www.amazon.com/Easy-Understand-Defeati...

"If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this... We call our strategy the "wedge". pp. 91-92

According to Phillip Johnson, the wedge strategy began in March, 1992, at a conference of scientists and philosophers held at Southern Methodist University.

The evidence bears this out.

Unless you are ready to argue that 1999 came before 1997, this argument is over.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217844 Mar 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>

The leak came in February, 1999
<quoted text>
No, that was the third "leak"

The second "leak" was Phillip Johnson's book in 1997. That was a bad leak, as it was named "Book of the Year" by Christianity Today.

The first "leak" was way back in 1992, at a conference at SMU.



"Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds" -Phillip E. Johnson

http://www.amazon.com/Easy-Understand-Defeati...

Paperback: 131 pages
Publisher: InterVarsity Press (July 7, 1997)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0830813608
ISBN-13: 978-0830813605
Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.5 x 0.4 inches
Shipping Weight: 4.8 ounces

"If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this... We call our strategy the "wedge".

—pg. 91-92,

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217845 Mar 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>

I would add to that that it has also been claimed that what is outlined is essentially the plan to generate and disseminate pseudoscientific propagana to further that religious agenda.
I would like to add that it has been claimed I am the Greek god Adonis.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#217846 Mar 9, 2014
http://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2014/03/09...

This is helpful too....
http://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2014/02/22...

Religion = superstition
Theology = mythology

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 13 min Joe Fortuna 101,064
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 30 min WildWeirdWillie 184,302
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 34 min onemale 286,461
Fraud DoctoRx 52 min HiddnNumbrz 1
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Jehova Witness 670,481
_____Antichrist MARCH 2017_____ 2 hr Sobering2017News 1
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 3 hr Jehova Witness 445,664
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 hr Jehova Witness 980,298
More from around the web