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. Full Story

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172588 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
The Romans didn't recognize the word Chrestus as a title, which is exactly what the Hebrew translation is. In Hebrew, it's "Messiah."
The Roman historian Tacitus simply made a mistake in the word usage. I covered this in the last post. Tacitus didn't "gush" about him either. In fact, Tacitus is dismissive of the claims surrounding Jesus. He refers to the resurrection as "superstitious" just like you do. In fact, he can't even bring himself to say "resurrection." Tacitus doesn't claim that Jesus didn't exist. Tacitus clearly says that Jesus was crucified. Tacitus uses the words "extreme penalty." Crucifixion was the most extreme penalty in use by the Romans. It was so hideous that civilized Romans (like Tacitus) referred to it as the "extreme penalty."
Would Tacitus have investigated the Judean records to determine whether there was such a crucifixion, or would he have simply related the *beliefs* of the Christians? Given the difficulties of travel during the time, I find it much more likely that he would have related the beliefs of the Christians, just like he did for other cults he mentioned.
Next, I don't know where you get the idea that Romans would have executed Tacitus for writing about Jesus, but they wouldn't have. Tacitus was known for historical accuracy. Pliny the Younger was actually upset with Tacitus at one point for not adding political spin that would have been beneficial to Pliny. Tacitus was considered to be very thorough, and very honest. Tacitus reported historical facts accurately and honestly. Did you know that the majority of what we know about historical Imperial Rome comes from a single source? Do you know that source is Tacitus?
Seutonius is also a very good source. I assume you are limiting this claim to *early* imperial Rome, as Tacitus didn't get to write about the Antonines.
Josephus never did believe that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah, so you're correct about that. The original Josephus passage was tampered with, but not for purposes of deception. A scribe was correcting what he considered to be an incomplete historical account. That's what happens on Wikipedia, and is why Wikipedia isn't the best source for factual information. By modern academic standards that's a major error in historical integrity. Such a change wouldn't happen today without extensive consultation and peer review, but, back then, it was common practice. The Josephus passage, when stripped of the obvious interpolation, still indicates that a person named Jesus lived, that he was considered wise, that he was handed over to the Romans by Jewish authorities, and that he was crucified. The Romans would have never punished Josephus for saying this. The Romans allowed cultures in conquered territories to retain their histories and religious customs. It wasn't like the USSR of the 1950s where everything was censored.
You are correct that the ROman authorities would not have punished Tacitus or Josephus for saying these things. But you also have to admit that both Tacitus and Josephus were writing for a primarily Roman audience.

And let's suppose that Jesus did exist and was crucified as a rabble rouser. Would that substantiate the other stories about him? How long does a legend take to go from 'wise man' to 'miracle worker' to 'deity'. About 300 years in a superstitious culture?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172589 Jul 20, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The nerve - using a guy's own words when quoting him.
Unlike you liberals (yes, shit-for-brains, you are a liberal) who lie about what people say.
The default position for dealing with liberals like you, especially devoted materialists, like you, is to assume you are lying until proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quote mining isn't the same as quoting. It is the same as quoting out of context and with no understanding.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172590 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
What the investigators want to see are the differences. They separate these differences until they are left with only the similarities. This can also be done with the canonical gospels.
Do you claim that the writers of the Gospels were separated enough that their stories are independent witnesses? And that they wrote soon enough for their memories not to be remolded through re-telling?
As for your charge that oral tradition can't work, I have to debunk that too. In ancient Judea,(as well as other cultures) there were people who had the job of memorizing and passing along oral traditions. They were known as "Tradents." These tradents used creeds and other mnemonic methods to aid in memorizing. Tradents would often perform their duties in a temple setting, or popular gathering place. Tradents could use different techniques to tell the story, but they weren't allowed to distort or embellish so that it changed the truth of the events they were talking or singing about.
If they did, other tradents and even community members would step in and correct the tradent. Tradents very seldom passed on oral tradition in one-on-one settings. There were two reasons for this:
1) Public Transparency- This was the primary reason. To prevent distortions by passing on oral histories in front of as many people as possible, many of whom were also witnesses to events.
2) To avoid fatigue from having to repeat the story too many times in smaller group settings.
Are you claiming that such professional memorizers would have spent time with the claimed miracles of a condemned criminal? Or are you claiming the Christians had their own Tradents? Given the conflict between Paul and the Jewish Christians (who would have had any oral tradition) and the fact that Paul ultimately won that fight, and given that most of the growth of Christianity was outside of Judea where the Tradents were working, why would you give any credence to the tradition *among the Roman believers*? Were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Tradents?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172591 Jul 20, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I notice no answer whatsoever as to why the gospels do not match up just an off topic rant.
The fact that they differ so wildly shatters your 10 so called 10 tests that you just made up. But for fun..
1: Certainly not and even Christian apologetics will admit this.
2: Even Christian apologetics admit the gospels are not meant to be like a history lesson. Wow you are really bad at this. Let's continue shall we? Lol!
3: Certainly not. The Greeks who penned the gospels came decades later and were not eye witnesses to the events.
4: The bias in the gospels are naturally very high and I am shocked even you would be so ignorant as to claim otherwise.
5: The writers were not eye witnesses so writing something that sounds like an eye witness is irrelevant and any historian would agree.
6: No we don't see any such humility in the gospels and you will need to show a source for this claim.
7: Lmfao absolutely not the gospels contradict themselves wildly and can't even quote the Torah correctly.
8: Subject completely to personal opinion, not a tool used by historians. You have been caught red handed lying and you know it.
9: We can see how the gospel stories are blatantly stolen from previous religions. At times damn near word for word.
10: Nope not in the slightest.
Then you claim that the gospels are able to answer properly for each of these 10? I will need to see sources and evidence for your claim. I doubt you will be able to as you just made it up but good luck.
And as I said before this merely is you saying.. Wow I believe the gospels! It I'm no way shape or form comes close to answering my question about why the gospels do not match up. I thought you were going to answer that question.... No surprise you avoided it and desperately tried to change the subject.
Here let me hold your hand half wit and try to guide you. Finish this statement. The reason the gospels don't match up is because.......
<quoted text>
Straw man fallacy. I was not attempting to answer your question as of yet. I'm laying the groundwork to answer it. There's a difference.
The historical reliability tests I listed aren't something I made up. I wish I could take credit for them, but I was shocked to learn they existed too. So, using these ten tests, I'll be glad to enter into civilized conversation with you as I do with Quantum Bob, Albtraum, and Polymath. Of course that means I'll expect civilized answers in return. Let me know when you're ready to:

1) Be civilized.
2) Enter into dialogue about the 10 tests of historical reliability and how they can be applied to the gospel accounts.

In the meantime, here's a few websites for your consideration. It would be beneficial if you were to read them BEFORE entering into dialogue with me. That way we can both approach the subject with a factual reference to consult as needed.

http://staff.kings.edu/bapavlac/evalsources.h...

https://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~palmquis/cour...

http://www.nps.gov/history/Nr/twhp/Prof_Dev_P...

Although you'll notice that these web sites don't use the same formatting as I did in my list, the concepts are basically the same.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172592 Jul 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
Do you claim that the writers of the Gospels were separated enough that their stories are independent witnesses? And that they wrote soon enough for their memories not to be remolded through re-telling?
Re-telling is the essence of oral tradition. Oral tradition was the standard method of communicating historical events in ancient cultures where literacy was the exception rather than the rule. And, oral tradition was strictly monitored so that embellishment was virtually eliminated. That's not to say that there was no embellishment at all, but if there was, it was used for performance value and not to deceive. The tradent's story had to keep the audience's attention without distorting the facts.

To answer your second question, yes. Let's refer to the Gospel According to Mark for an example of why my answer is yes. In the crucifixion narrative, Mark records one of the things that Jesus says:

"Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani" which means, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me." This is told in Mark 15:34

There are reasons why this is important Polymath. First of all, notice that Mark is actually translating from one language to another. If Mark is writing in Greek, then obviously he's translating a quote from another language. So what language is this?
In first century Palestine, Aramaic was the primary language spoken by devout Jews. These words of Jesus are in Aramaic. To me, an obvious question is why would Mark bother to write the phrase in Aramaic and then translate it? The most plausible reason is that Mark is quoting from someone's memory. But who's memory? And why is it a memory? Well we have supporting attestation that it's the account of Peter. And it's a memory for a very good reason.

Psychologists have long understood that traumatic memories are much more likely to be remembered accurately. What could be more traumatic than seeing your best friend killed in such a gruesome manner as crucifixion? Of course, if you want to get into the Judaic context of why Jesus said what he did, which is theological in nature, I'll be glad to do so.
polymath257 wrote:
Are you claiming that such professional memorizers would have spent time with the claimed miracles of a condemned criminal? Or are you claiming the Christians had their own Tradents?
Yes, the Christians had their own tradents, but this was common practice for each community or sub-group to have their own tradents, and that these tradents would all basically follow the same protocol when repeating oral histories.
polymath257 wrote:
Given the conflict between Paul and the Jewish Christians (who would have had any oral tradition) and the fact that Paul ultimately won that fight,
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. If you could expand on it a little more, it would be helpful to our conversation.
polymath257 wrote:
and given that most of the growth of Christianity was outside of Judea where the Tradents were working, why would you give any credence to the tradition *among the Roman believers*? Were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Tradents?
The earliest growth of Christianity was within Judea, and specifically in Jerusalem. Evangelism was a style of oral tradition that actually has it's roots in Roman traditions. So it wasn't an unusual concept within Rome. And yes we could say that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all tradents. They used the evangelistic style that was so common within the Roman empire.

I'd like to take the time to thank you for your civility and scholarship. Although we have differing conclusions concerning reality, you're fun to dialogue with, as is Quantum Bob. Maybe you could help others learn the finer points of civil dialogue?:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172593 Jul 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lewontin was a top notch biologist. he worked with Stephen Gould on the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Unfortunately, he has been extensively quote-mined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin
Now why am I not at all surprised by your last point...

:)

Out-of-contextual snippets of what people say, is one if the hallmarks of "how to lie by telling the truth"....

... thank you, by the way.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172594 Jul 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lewontin was a top notch biologist. he worked with Stephen Gould on the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Unfortunately, he has been extensively quote-mined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin
A quick skimming of that did not reveal anything relating to a criticism of scientific methods vis a vis supernatural woo.

Hardly surprising...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172595 Jul 20, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Oh ya the bible for being lol divine is sure chock full of errors!
<quoted text>
Yes.

Apparently the standard of behavior for these True Believer™ is quite low, when it comes to their gods of choice.

I mean... really?

For me? I expect nothing less than **godly** behavior from ... a god.

They accept stuff that would not pass muster in a 6th grade English essay class....!!

Strictly amateur stuff, the bible-- if it was inspired?

Well... there is far more inspiration in one showing of American Idol, than you **ever** see contained within the bible.

Again?

Not godly at all. Much too... human.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172596 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll have to aggressively counter this one Bob. You're trying to mix two different concepts to come up with a conclusion that fits your personal beliefs. At an accident scene, there will be conflicting accounts. But what the investigators look for is the core. The incidental or peripheral details actually ADD credibility to the account. And to demonstrate that I know what I'm talking about, I've been a licensed private investigator. I've investigated everything from the usual extra-marital affairs, to insurance scams, to wrongful death claims. One thing I can tell you for sure is that eye-witness testimony is credible, and just because people give some conflicting accounts, doesn't mean there is no central truth to the event.
I never disputed that there wasn't an event in reality. What I pointed out? Is that human perception is **always** biased.

And that is for first-person experience-- 3rd or 4th person experiences are **always** distorted. Always.

No.

Matter.

What.

And that is **all** you have in your bible: 3rd ***generation** accounts (or more). Nothing that is **original**, first-person material.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172597 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
As for your charge that oral tradition can't work, I have to debunk that too.
You have no possible way to debunk my statement: oral tradition CAN NOT WORK, without each iteration editing and changing the "tradition" to suit it's agenda (whatever that may be).

Why?

Because if you had **written** material alongside the "oral" one?

Well... it's not **oral** any more is it? They would have had **written** material to keep them on track.

So no.

You can argue with technique all you like-- but it does NOT change basic human nature.

We humans are **biased** in what we do.

Always.

Which is why **oral** traditions DO NOT WORK to preserve accuracy.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172598 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
If they did, other tradents and even community members would step in and correct the tradent. Tradents very seldom passed on oral tradition in one-on-one settings. There were two reasons for this:
1) Public Transparency- This was the primary reason. To prevent distortions by passing on oral histories in front of as many people as possible, many of whom were also witnesses to events.
2) To avoid fatigue from having to repeat the story too many times in smaller group settings.
That's nice. Still does not work-- over each generation the "tradition" is EDITED to fit the biases of what is currently popular within the culture.

ALWAYS.

You are being naive here, if you think that doesn't happen.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172599 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks Bob. And don't sell yourself short. You write some pretty good stuff too. We can disagree passionately but respectfully. Polymath is incredibly talented in the technicalities of science. I'm really not anti-science. I just think that the secular world gives it more weight than it merits. You probably think I give theology more weight than it merits, and that's fine by me. It forces each of us to think about why we believe what we do. I don't think you're delusional. I just don't think you've discovered the truth yet. I have a feeling that's a mutual sentiment.:)
What is "truth"?

:D

A classic philosophical question that has buggered people for thousands of years and counting.

Descartes thought that only by inner reflection, could real "truth" be had. As it turns out, he was wrong about that one.

The fact is,**all** people bring to the table their personal biases. It's the nature of the how the human brain processes information.

But it wasn't until people figured **that** out, that they begin to experiment with methods that deliberately tried to **eliminate** the human factor, in discovery of The Truth.

From those centuries-long experimental methods, we humans finally discovered methods that, as much as is possible, do eliminate the human-bias factor: we came to call that The Scientific Method.

And it Just Works. Not perfectly. Not all-encompassing either.

But, just going by the results? It Just Works.

This very computer exists,**only** because of The Scientific Method.

Once humans figured out this method of looking for The Truth? Progress in Understanding of the Universe began to grow by exponential rates.

Prior to The Scientific Method? Progress was pretty much stagnant.

Don't take **my** word for it-- look to history, you'll see my points are valid.

..........

Bottom line: results.

The Scientific Method gets **results**.

Nothing else--**especially** theology-- has come even close to that record.

Nothing.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172600 Jul 20, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm too rich to be poor and too poor to be rich. C'est la vie.
I do live in a University Town down in the bootheel and close to the Big Muddy, so the atmosphere is actually a little better than other locales I could easily think of. The younger people here bring in some new ideas and a spark of hope to offset the redneck woes;0)
:)

That close to the ocean--even if it's "only" the Gulf? I do envy you a bit. I always enjoyed the times I spent on the coast.

But, having never lived there, I never experienced the worst that a coastal home can offer-- never been in a hurricane (for example).

That I do **not** envy you in the least-- I've been in tornadoes, which are sort of like tiny, baby-brother ant-versions of hurricanes.

You can actually avoid being in a tornado, if you keep your wits about you.

A hurricane hits...**everything** and **everyone** in it's path...!!

:D

Even still, I'd so enjoy spending time on the beach-- I always loved those times as a child.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172602 Jul 20, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
I saw a video clip about a pipe loaded with marijuana that was left in a happy meal at a McDonald's somewhere. I can't remember where they were located....3 employees were apparently goofing off at work and put there pipe into a happy meal....These are the people that "AIE" is using to help support his rantings lol... Don't get me wrong...smoke all you want, but do it at home...not at work. Of course the employees at the McDonald's that "AIE" has stationed himself to borrow the wi-fi for a crusade against atheism, obviously don't pay too much attention to their jobs either.
Keep in mind, that A.I.E is a notorious liar.

As such,**nothing** he writes can be taken as factual-- at all.

The **real** story is that he likely had begged/borrowed/or stole some pocket-change from somewhere. Maybe begging at a traffic corner.

And he took his change to McDees' for a cuppa their horrid, burnt "coffee". So he could freeload on their WiFi on his stolen laptop.

Likely the only interaction he had with the store's employees, was when (after 3 hours of coffee refills) he was asked to leave...

... no doubt there was much shouting involved, him claiming to be "their best customer" and "I'm on a mission from god" and other nonsense.

As he was being escorted out the door by two burly cops? He likely shouted something about "see? you atheists are oppressing me!"

And he took the smirks on the faces of the McDee's employees as "agreement"....

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172603 Jul 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Whenever you think you have it all figured out, it is a good time to stop and think things over again.
Always good advice.

Always.

:D

We humans are apt to get too comfortable in our personal biases after all...

... must be that "inner truth" that Descartes wrote of.

<laughing>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172604 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
You're correct that early Christians didn't refer to themselves as Christians. They referred to themselves as "The Way." But that's off the subject. Paul did write before the gospels. We know Corinthians and Romans were very early.
<quoted text>
In 1 Timothy, Paul clearly wrote that Jesus was a flesh and blood human being.
“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.”- 1 Timothy 2:5
In Philippians:
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross -Philippians 2:5
In Romans:
“Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh" -Romans 1:3
I have to ask, is your source for your claims the 2004 book, "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur?
Those are not written by Paul, but by someone writing AS Paul.

So no...

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172605 Jul 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
That's nice. Still does not work-- over each generation the "tradition" is EDITED to fit the biases of what is currently popular within the culture.
ALWAYS.
You are being naive here, if you think that doesn't happen.
In ancient high context cultures, it just didn't happen Bob. I'm sorry, but it just didn't. The traditions were not edited so far that the facts became tainted or of dubious quality. The very nature of oral tradition is that it's entirely self-correcting. I realize it's a very difficult concept to wrap our modern minds around. We don't have to do that. We're a modern, literate, technologically advanced culture. In some ways, that is actually a detriment to our understanding of ancient cultures. We look at them through the lenses of our own modern culture.

I respectfully say here, that you're making an assertion that is based more likely upon your doubts as to how an ancient culture could be so accurate with oral tradition than on facts.

For your consideration along with a link to the page it came from:

"Oral tradition is important in all societies, despite the reliance of some cultures on written records and accounts. These traditions account for the ways things are and often the way they should be, and assist people in educating the young and teaching important lessons about the past and about life. Because many oral traditions are highly structured and are told faithfully without alteration, they can be as reliable as other non-oral ways of recording and passing on experiences. While oral traditions can vary from teller to teller, variations are also open to contradiction in the same ways that written accounts are. In this way, the force of oral tradition can continue through generations although small details in the telling may change. Because of this, oral traditions which relate past events and have been passed down through time cannot be dismissed simply as “myth” in the sense that Western society polarizes the differences between “myth” and “science” or “fact.” Ideas about truth, rationality, logic, causality, and ways of knowing the world are contextualized within all societies: they are entirely valid within their cultural contexts and should be respected as such."

http://www.mpm.edu/wirp/icw-14.html

And this excellent article on oral tradition:

http://www.ku.edu.np/bodhi/vol3_no1/07.%20Dee...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172606 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
How am I supposed to answer them when they're mostly condescending remarks and taunts? I'll go with your statement of why the gospels don't match up. I doubt you'll agree, but then my goal really isn't to get you to agree with me. So it won't be a disappointment at all when you don't. My victory will be complete when I answer you to the best of my ability according to my own understanding. It's the best I can do.
I treat the gospels as primitive historical documents. I apply the ten tests of historicity that virtually all historical scholars use when analyzing historical documents.
1) Do we possess copies of the original ancient document(s) that are REASONABLY close to the original?(They don't need to be verbatim copies)
No. Impossible to say, really. If we had the original?**THAT** would be the oldest we have.

What we have, in fact, are copies of copies many generations too late to be original.

And back in the day? Spelling was a fine art--**not** based on rules we enjoy today.

So with each copy? The author likely used his **own** spelling rules-- why not? And modified the document he was "copying".

As language evolved, these changes became even more removed from the original.

So what we **do** have likely bears little resemblance to what was originally written.

Which is why I fault Jesus-- if he was, IN FACT, a god?

He **so** should have written his words onto Unobtainum, Invulnerable Plates of Enormous Size, so as to prevent them from being hidden or destroyed by history.

That is the very **least** I expect from a Godly Standard.

At a bare minimum of behavior.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172607 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
2) Did the document intend to communicate history or is it intended to be fictitious?
That depends: was the author delusional? Did the author suffer from egomania, in that he wanted to prop himself up in some way?

Perhaps the author had been seriously indoctrinated by someone else, and was not his own person.

Each of those examples, the author would have been intending to communicated "history", but all the while, he was writing fiction.

Human biases again...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172608 Jul 20, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
3) Was the author of the document in a position to witness the history he or she is reporting?
In the case of the bible?

No.

A resounding ... no.

Especially the New Testament books-- none of it's authors were direct witnesses of any of the events they describe.

This is pretty much well established by modern biblical scholarship.

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
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 10 min Oxbow 548,695
i am waiting for u 24 min Aakash Ahmedabad 1
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 36 min Al Capone 4,779
Word association game (Aug '08) 44 min andet1987 53,432
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 44 min mike 602,180
African-Americans Are Figuring Obama Out! 46 min andet1987 2
Do you know the best black and white dating sit... (Dec '12) 57 min katy 14
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr RADEKT 261,678
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr BobbyB1990 750,700
Have any girls on here had sex with a dog??? (Feb '12) 5 hr chevyguy 127

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE