Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256538 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186371 Nov 21, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Would you speculate that a man had distinguished himself a bit if he had the following published and marketed about him:
Albright, William F. Yahweh and ...
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Yes, I would, although I'm being charitable here. Strictly speaking, it was others that distinguished Jesus, beginning with Paul and the Gospel writers, and continuing through Constantine to the many authors you cited. Jesus the legend is well known today, but I can't say that Jesus himself had much to do with it. I think he was a fairly undistinguished person made into an icon after his death. My position has never been that the man's life didn't become distinguished by others. It was and is that he was not as wise as you imply, and that his life's words and deeds including those you cited were unimpressive.
Buck Crick wrote:
I see your sticking with your story, evidence be damned.
What story am I telling, and what evidence have you offered against it?

I say that Jesus was not particularly wise, does not impress me as somebody that was likely better than tens of thousands of other people in his time or before, and is notable (distinguished from others) not because of what he said and did, but because of what others that came later said and did. Is that a story?

What evidence have you offered apart from examples of Jesus' words and deeds that you but not I found wise and/or impressive, and a long list of people that helped distinguish the Jesus icon with their books?

[@ Riverside Redneck - note the framing. My position is a "story" that requires that "evidence be damned" to tell. Now that you are alerted to its existence, you'll be prepared to see just how much of this charged language Buck uses, albeit not always as subtly as with framing. He'll often do your thinking for you overtly, such as when he announces that he is the victor and his disputant is an idiot. Even when you can't identify it explicitly and overtly, you can feel it. You can sense the difference between an argument delivered relatively dispassionately and comprising principally statements of fact - one intended to persuade with evidence and reason - and one intended to persuade with charged language.]

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186372 Nov 21, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Much of the body of published tomes about Jesus' life is not derived from Paul, Constantine, or the Gospels.
I know. Those are also some of tomes that helped promote (distinguish) Jesus along with the words and deeds of Paul, the Gospel writers, and Constantine, who also marketed the Jesus brand.
Buck Crick wrote:
Having admitted your knowledge basis is the King James, you are admitting an errant knowledge basis,(as you often highlight yourself), and giving verification to my low assessment of your acumen on the subject.
Look at how much you packed into just this one sentence. You make a false claim that I admitted something about a bible translation that I have not mentioned in this thread in 2013 if ever, then you admit errors for me and tell your audience that I have a low acumen and have verified it myself. You tell your audience what they should think without bothering to give them the argument and its supporting evidence that justifies those conclusions.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186373 Nov 21, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Lastly, to credit people coming after Jesus for how his own life is distinguished by history and literature is, well,...abzurd. I would have used the word "stupid", but refrained out of respect.'Cause that's the kind of guy I am.
Thanks. Respect is the word that comes to mind when I think about how you write. And thanks for telling us what kind of a guy you are.

But back to the discussion, how distinguished do you suppose the life of Jesus would be today without the people who wrote about him?
Buck Crick wrote:
As an afterthought, I don't believe you. Religion aside, any man who can attract a following for a life-approach that gives upheaval to the powers of religion and government, knowing he will likely die for it, which is an irrefutable fact, is objectively impressive.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.

The reader should note how Buck defines his his own judgments not as opinions, but as objective truth, an implying that those who disagree are wrong. Impressive does not refer to a psychological state caused by an experience, but an objective truth floating in space.

Note also that he doesn't merely disagree with me. He disbelieves me, implying that I am lying.

This is Buck demeaning his disputant, reifying his opinions, and telling his audience how to think with verbal sleight of hand.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#186374 Nov 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy shit. An 1-1/2" thick concrete slab roof?! That's a first.
Since concrete is porous, that's not a very good idea.
Also the sheer weight of it would require a substantial structure to hold it.
I did an apartment once that had 1-1/2" of concrete on the second floor. The first floor structure was massive. In the end, it paid off because the footfalls from upstairs were virtually nonexistent because of the slab.
Oh, the roof is pitched. Don't know the proper description, but the peak is about a 45 degree angle, maybe less. There was a lot of cross bracing in the attic to handle the load.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186375 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're used to the language that the sources you trust choose to use.
The use of words like "baby" and "murder" in the context of abortion is not an accident. They are the result of a persuasive technique called framing, which concerns itself with the unstated assumptions, implications and value judgements that a phrase carries - what you might call "baggage."
Those words were chosen by others - the assorted think tanks and policy centers where such strategies are conceived and delivered to the echo chamber of assorted media outlets - in this case to gain sympathy for the fetus by calling it a baby, since the more clinical and less sympathetic word fetus connotes a shrimp-like thing, and the latter something cute, cuddly and irresistible, and also to vilify abortion by calling it murder, a charged term, rather than the more clinical and accurate feticide.
Framing is something we should all be aware of. It occurs commonly. For example, suppose I favor giving the mother the choice to continue or terminate her pregnancy, and you don't. I might say that I am pro-choice regarding abortion, and that you by virtue of being the opposite are anti-choice.
Anti-choice is not a very sympathetic word in a culture that values freedom, and the movement recognized that. So,it called itself pro-life instead - a happier sounding term. Who could oppose people that support life?
Joseph Goebbels is considered the father of using this and similar subtle persuasive techniques, and George Lakoff has written the most about it in the context of American political and religious culture wars:
"George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff. The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive."
"The background for Rockridge is that conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing."
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/...
Other famous examples of this technique include "death tax" for inheritance tax and "family values" for Christian priorities, How could you possibly be a death tax or against families, which of course is the point?
Also, "taxpayers money" for public funds. If I'm against taxes, I want to emphasize that the money is the taxpayer's, not the government's. Buck can tell you how well that has worked.
If you're against them, you call them "entitlements" to bring out negative feelings that people that think they're entitled to something evoke, rather than phrases like "Social security," "veterans benefits," or "aid to dependent children." What kind of monster would object to security for society, benefits for our veterans, or aid to dependent children?
This is news to me - I thought the term "baby" had been around a long time.

I also thought the term "murder" for intentionally causing the death of another human being had been around a long time.

Then now I learn they started with something called "anti-choice".

If everybody reading you were pig-shit stupid, they might believe some small portion of this screed you just concocted.

"Pro-choice" is a term invented by a Madison Avenue PR firm to be substituted for the term "pro-abortion".

It sounded more innocuous than the actual act of killing a live human being in the womb.

"Anti-choice" is a term invented by pro-abortion folks as a slur to those who oppose unfettered abortion.

Abortion enthusiasts rely on lies. They cannot speak the truth about what they prefer.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186376 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You should know better than this by now. I don't accept your unsupported claims. The little bit I found on this subject doesn't support your claim that what he did was science.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Well, shit. Buck's first guess was the right one. Buck wrote: "1. Say he was not a real scientist?"
LMMFAO
Would you care to show us how my comment justifies ridicule? Did you find anything anywhere to support the claim that the idea of spontaneous generation was generated by the scientific method? I didn't.

For example, did you find a report of a controlled study having been performed that demonstrated spontaneous generation, and which was disseminated to and accepted by the scientific?

Or, like the faith based thinker whose standards for truth are whatever he prefers to believe that I think you are, did you just accept Bucks unsupported claim, and take a cheap shot because he preemptively identified the potential rebuttals to it including my legitimate one?
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#186377 Nov 21, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
We know that all of the gods of past civilizations were creations of their imagination, and have discarded those gods, Buck. All the evidence we have about the belief in the Abrahamic God suggests it was 100% created by man's imagination also. There is nothing in the stories that suggest anything but myth and legend.
Your perception, and opinion. Life on earth is no accident. Look at Mars for example. Our scientist have not found not even one beach volley ball. Not even evidence of a freaking cockroach, nothing, nada.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186378 Nov 21, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct.
Putting on shingles is both the hottest and the coldest job there is.
I have had my ass melted stuck to shingles.
I mean the shingles melting, not my ass. I don't think,...
Haha

I've personally never done it, but I've seen a guy cook an egg on a hot metal roof.

I knew a guy that did roofing out in Phoenix. He said they'd work about 5-9, take a long ass beer filled lunch, then work about 4-8. It just gets to damn hot there to be roofing midday.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#186379 Nov 21, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>It's isn't necessary to disprove that which has never been proven.
It would require proof that that there is a god, in order to provide proof there is no god.
So far that hasn't been done.
Here's the deal, if you had proof there was no God, would you bring it forward? Right? But your lunch bag is empty, not even a crumb to show us.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186380 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
What story am I telling, and what evidence have you offered against it?
I say that Jesus was not particularly wise, does not impress me as somebody that was likely better than tens of thousands of other people in his time or before, and is notable (distinguished from others) not because of what he said and did, but because of what others that came later said and did. Is that a story?
What evidence have you offered apart from examples of Jesus' words and deeds that you but not I found wise and/or impressive, and a long list of people that helped distinguish the Jesus icon with their books?
And they wrote all those books about him, even the non-christian authors, not because Jesus distinguished himself - but because they wanted to distinguish him.

Sorry, Iman, you are not believable on this.

You are refuted in fact and conclusion, both in detail and in general, it is a knockdown argument you are up against.

Will you relent? No. Because you hate the idea of Jesus because of what is associated with him.

Your argument is simply an attempt at controlled rage.

It is pathetic.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#186381 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Sorry, I guess I missed it. What you wrote was "To answer this question the thought comes to mind. Can men be unrighteous? The answer is yes and if that’s the case then men can also be righteous."
I saw that you had answered a question I hadn't asked and didn't read the last few words. I consider your answer incorrect because it is incomplete. Do you agree, or do you consider that a complete answer. You answered "Yes," but the bible says it's both yes and no as I indicated above.
Also, do you agree that the bible contradicts itself in several places, including the seven I featured in this quiz? People with no stake in making the bible seem perfect think that it does, and that contradictions such as these constitute errors, as do the failed prophecies, the unkept promises, and the errors of scientific and historical fact.
And we find that these errors undermine any claim to biblical authenticity, that is, divine in its provenance. It seems like exactly what the leadership of a scientifically unsophisticated, paternalistic, ethnocentric culture of antiquity might concoct without outside help.
I think it proves that not only did the described god in it not write it, but that it can't exist. If it did, being a loving god that wants us to know him and love him in return, it would never allow this book to exist. Nor would it allow men to claim it wrote the book. From http://beforeitsnews.com/religion/2013/02/did...
"Here we have five different writers that all say the same thing. It was not man, but God that decided what to write in the Bible. Man just did the writing according to what God told him."
Exodus 34:27 - "Then the Lord said to Moses “Write down these words….”
Jesus said in John 12:50 “So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”
The Apostle Paul said in Galatians 1:11 “I want you to know brothers that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”
The Apostle Timothy said in 2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
The Apostle Peter said in 2 Peter 1:21 “For prophesy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit”
Doctor do you practice any medicine in Mexico?
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#186382 Nov 21, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Here let me help in proving there is no God. Every Child that dies from cancer is proof that your God is non-existent. It's also evidence that prayers are NEVER answered. Next!!
Hold on there Vegas Cowboy. Now you're ditching evolution?

If you believe in evolution then give evolution it's credit.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#186383 Nov 21, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you choose to lie about god, it is you who must proof your rubbish lies.
How do you know that I'm lying? Try me my good friend with your evidence.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#186384 Nov 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You & I speak slightly different languages.
I am not anti-choice, IANS. I've stated plenty of times that I am pro-choice for abortion. I don't agree with it, but it isn't my call to make , it's the parent's call.
You didn't even ask me what my position on it was, why did you just assume?
I'm pro-prevention.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186385 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Would you care to show us how my comment justifies ridicule? Did you find anything anywhere to support the claim that the idea of spontaneous generation was generated by the scientific method? I didn't.
For example, did you find a report of a controlled study having been performed that demonstrated spontaneous generation, and which was disseminated to and accepted by the scientific?
Or, like the faith based thinker whose standards for truth are whatever he prefers to believe that I think you are, did you just accept Bucks unsupported claim, and take a cheap shot because he preemptively identified the potential rebuttals to it including my legitimate one?
You claimed that Buck's claim was unsupported. That is false.

Spontaneous generation was a scientific "fact" for nearly 2,000 years and was taught as such.

I can't supply a link right now, but this is from Wiki, "Spontaneous generation", under the "scientific method" section:

It goes back to the 3rd century BC, but Aristotle coined it and made it "fact"...

Now there is one property that animals are found to have in common with plants. For some plants are generated from the seed of plants, whilst other plants are self-generated through the formation of some elemental principle similar to a seed; and of these latter plants some derive their nutriment from the ground, whilst others grow inside other plants, as is mentioned, by the way, in my treatise on Botany. So with animals, some spring from parent animals according to their kind, whilst others grow spontaneously and not from kindred stock; and of these instances of spontaneous generation some come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter, as is the case with a number of insects, while others are spontaneously generated in the inside of animals out of the secretions of their several organs.

-Aristotle, History of Animals, Book V, Part 1

--

Jan Baptist van Helmont (1580–1644) used experimental techniques, such as growing a willow for five years and showing it increased mass while the soil showed a trivial decrease in comparison. As the process of photosynthesis was not understood, he attributed the increase of mass to the absorption of water. His notes also describe a recipe for mice (a piece of soiled cloth plus wheat for 21 days) and scorpions (basil, placed between two bricks and left in sunlight). His notes suggest he may even have done these things.

--

In 1745, John Needham performed a series of experiments on boiled broths. Believing that boiling would kill all living things, he showed that when sealed right after boiling, the broths would cloud, allowing the belief in spontaneous generation to persist. His studies were rigorously scrutinized by his peers and many of them agreed.

--

Joseph Priestley said: "There is nothing in modern philosophy that appears to me so extraordinary, as the revival of what has long been considered as the exploded doctrine of equivocal...by which is meant the production of organized bodies from substances that have no organization, as plants and animals from no pre-existing germs of the same kinds, plants without seeds, and animals without sexual intercourse."

--

It wasn't until the 1850s when Louis Pasteur discovered that spontaneous generation was in fact a false science.

So from some time in the 300s BC, to the 1850s AD, spontaneous generation was a fact.

Even though it never was.

The only reason I bring it up is because of all the Topix atheists that absolutely swear their existence to the belief of science and to point out that even scientific fact is not always a fact.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186386 Nov 21, 2013
By the way, I hope you theists don't mind me repeatedly analyzing your methods and judging the quality of the thought they produce. It's something I enjoy doing and think I benefit from from doing. And I'm happy to do my thinking out loud in case it benefits anybody else.

This is analysis, or the "detailed examination of the elements or structure of something." What we do is to consider an object or abstraction in terms of it's components and its context - the part that comprise it and ther functions and relationship to the whole, as well as the things with which it compares, contrasts, and interacts - its context.

If we were talking about a particular car, we would look at its parts, what they do, how they interact, and how they combine to do what a car does. Then we would look at context - other cars of the same class, and previous models of the same car.

If we wanted to consider an even broader context, we might discuss all cars by this manufacturer, compare cars to trucks, buses, and other car-like objects, compare all of these to alternate forms of transportation such as boats, airplanes, and trains - nesting levels of categories from points and plugs to the world of motorized transportation.

In this case, we are deconstructing posts, examining their elements (claims, facts, opinions, words without referents, etc.) and methods (logical arguments, fallacies, framing, ridicule, self-congratualtions, etc.), and looking at the larger context of which kinds of thinkers use each, and what the product of that kind of posting is.

That's analysis.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186387 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Would you care to show us how my comment justifies ridicule? Did you find anything anywhere to support the claim that the idea of spontaneous generation was generated by the scientific method? I didn't.
Your dance is enjoyable.

You are not being ridiculed for your comment, per se.

You are being ridiculed because your previous statement was clearly wrong, and now you are fabricating excuses, and in a way Redneck and I predicted to a tee.

You said, "No scientific experiment concluded that. That was what was commonly believed on faith until science debunked it with experiment."

Baptiste's scientific experiments concluded exactly that.

It wasn't faith, it was science, in his case.

Now you are trying to move the goalposts so that your kick can fit through the uprights.

This is why you are ridiculed. I hope it is helpful.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186388 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Bring reason. And bring bail money if you plan to have more than a few. Oh, wait - it's Singapore. You'll probably just be caned and deported, meaning a one-way ticket may be enough.
Buck Crick wrote:
Sounds like a blast. I could end up in a Singapore sling. I appreciate the nice way of telling me I'm not invited.
I didn't tell you that at all. I did imply, however, that it might not be a good idea for you to come.

You really don't understand me at all, Buck. And you're not a stupid man. I think you have a lot of bad ideas and bad habits of thought, but you can manipulate symbols with some expertise, and have some degree fo familiarity to a host of topics.

Yet you seldom represent my stated thoughts properly. I tend to assume that that is deliberate, but maybe not.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186389 Nov 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're used to the language that the sources you trust choose to use.
The use of words like "baby" and "murder" in the context of abortion is not an accident. They are the result of a persuasive technique called framing, which concerns itself with the unstated assumptions, implications and value judgements that a phrase carries - what you might call "baggage."
Those words were chosen by others - the assorted think tanks and policy centers where such strategies are conceived and delivered to the echo chamber of assorted media outlets - in this case to gain sympathy for the fetus by calling it a baby, since the more clinical and less sympathetic word fetus connotes a shrimp-like thing, and the latter something cute, cuddly and irresistible, and also to vilify abortion by calling it murder, a charged term, rather than the more clinical and accurate feticide.
Framing is something we should all be aware of. It occurs commonly. For example, suppose I favor giving the mother the choice to continue or terminate her pregnancy, and you don't. I might say that I am pro-choice regarding abortion, and that you by virtue of being the opposite are anti-choice.
Anti-choice is not a very sympathetic word in a culture that values freedom, and the movement recognized that. So,it called itself pro-life instead - a happier sounding term. Who could oppose people that support life?
Joseph Goebbels is considered the father of using this and similar subtle persuasive techniques, and George Lakoff has written the most about it in the context of American political and religious culture wars:
"George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff. The work has paid off: by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive."
"The background for Rockridge is that conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing."
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/...
Other famous examples of this technique include "death tax" for inheritance tax and "family values" for Christian priorities, How could you possibly be a death tax or against families, which of course is the point?
Also, "taxpayers money" for public funds. If I'm against taxes, I want to emphasize that the money is the taxpayer's, not the government's. Buck can tell you how well that has worked.
If you're against them, you call them "entitlements" to bring out negative feelings that people that think they're entitled to something evoke, rather than phrases like "Social security," "veterans benefits," or "aid to dependent children." What kind of monster would object to security for society, benefits for our veterans, or aid to dependent children?
It should be noted that the latter phrases are also examples of framing and propaganda. Neutral terms would be things like retiree income or veterans' payments.
If you weren't already aware of this, now you are. Forewarned is forearmed.
It is hysterical to watch someone refer to the clever practice of "framing" a debate by choosing words for their "sympathetic" effect,....

Then refer to an unborn child as "a pregnancy".

That's priceless.

Who could shed a tear over a "pregnancy" stopping.

Right?

Some people are pregnant; some people are not.

So it's a simple matter. Totally innocuous.

Hysterical, if not for the evil dishonesty, egotism, and propaganda involved.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#186391 Nov 21, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It took some getting used to sleeping under. But it was about 20 years old. Porous is the issue, and minute cracks, though it didn't leak. Every time the wind blew the old sealant flapped and flew. But I was not about to go up there and reseal it again. Got a USDA grant to replace it. Still have the garage, spa, and a big shed covered like that.
The guys that built those were very good. Standard lumber and sheathing and they are solid as rocks. We get 70 mph winds and nothing shakes. I have some steel siding soffit that flaps a bit in one spot, and that is really the only indication of a strong wind blowing. One day I may crawl up there and fix it.
You should have seen that crew groan when they arrived. They were subcontractors who made the deal with the contractor without knowing it was a concrete roof. They drove a hundred miles out here.
Six guys up there chiseling concrete and putting new roof on and not a shake. Didn't even bother my skittish kitty.
Oh those poor guys. That roof had to be loaded with rebar. That must've been the hardest tear off of their lives.

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) 1 min Dr Banonator 63,061
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min New Age Spiritual... 973,482
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 min Steve III 618,720
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 13 min Michael 653,490
'Good Morning America' anchor uses slur 36 min every troll here ... 4
Queen Cleopatra was clearly Black. White people... (Aug '10) 1 hr gundee123 787
Why do girls wear thongs? (May '13) 1 hr Katie_Anderson14 40
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 3 hr RiccardoFire 106,459
More from around the web