Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop All Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now DIYED Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Oasis Listen with Prime Learn more Shop Men's Shop Women's
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

God Does Not Exist Because... (4)


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on 12 Jan 2013 09:36:54 GMT
Drew Jones says:

John writting under his settled pseudonym 'Paul Davidson' says:
"In other words, how can you be a materialist (believing that everything consists of matter alone) and at the same time believe you have free will?"
Easy, this picture has no almighty god with a plan in it therefore the possibilities are open ended. It just leaves the mechanics of how those chemicals operate that is left to answer but and in that respect it's even with any answer that mistakes magic spirits to be an informative reply to the question.

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 09:42:42 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jan 2013 09:43:18 GMT
Bellatori says:
What a sad kind of life it is where ones achievement is to cut and paste other peoples comments from one thread to another, particularly when ones only other activity is rehashing ones old comments and assuming repetition represents a significant contribution to thought.

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 09:44:56 GMT
Hi Drew

To my:
In other words, how can you be a materialist (believing that everything consists of matter alone) and at the same time believe you have free will?"

You replied:

>>> Easy...

Then perhaps you would care to answer:

"FREE WILL, THE ONLY SAFE FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY"!

Q 1. Do you not get it?

You replied:
>>> A 1. Yes

By "Yes," I hope you mean that you understand the point that free will is "the only safe foundation of democracy!" If not, why not?

Q 2. Honestly ?
>>> A 2. Honestly but not the way you insist upon.

Sounds a bit of a fudgy answer to me, Drew. Do you, or do you not believe that free will is "the only safe foundation of democracy!"?

Q 3. Do you not see that in order to have Democracy we need to have a free vote?
>>> A 3. Yes but not freewill.

More fudge, Drew. Do you, or do you not need free will, in order to have a free vote, in order for democracy (whether or not the actual system, in whatever country, is good, bad or mediocre)? If not, why not?

Q 4. Do you not see that this requires us to have free will?
>>> A 4. No.

How on earth can you have democracy without free will?

Q 5. Do you not see that this is not only common sense, it is also rational and true?
>>> A 5. No, you, Tom or the Church just repeating the words rational and true is the lamest of arguments.

More fudge, Drew. It is YOUR arguments we want to read in answer to these questions. So far we seem to be getting fudge and confusion.

(Neither Tom, nor I, nor the One and Only Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself, use the words `rational' and `true' lightly. We are all defenders of reason and truth, on the question of human freedom or free will in this particular instance, and everywhere else, for that matter.)

Q 6. If you cannot agree with the vast majority of mankind on this subject, can you not agree with fellow atheist on this forum, G. Proctor?
>>> A 6. I don't think you are up to speed on the argument to know what people accept when they accept freewill.

"Up to speed!" Get real Drew! You can't even get started on this subject! I give you the opportunity to express your own views clearly concerning free will and democracy... and all you do is fudge.

Q 7. ... Or fellow atheist on this forum, Anti Yaleey?
>>> A 7. No.

Just why are you unable to agree with fellow atheist on this forum, Anti Yaleey, that democracy requires free will? Come on Drew. Let's have a clear answer with no more fudge.

Q 8. ... Or fellow atheist on this forum, Karen?
>>> A 8. An argument rests on its merits not the supernatural leanings of the people advancing it.

So what are the merits of your argument on this subject? Can you please first of all provide your argument, and then point out its merits. Let's read YOUR arguments, ON THEIR OWN MERITS.

Q 9. Why do you believe that you are right and all these people wrong?
>>> A 9. I don't, I'm saying your version of freewill is logically incoherent (in the proper sense of the word) others are acceptable but still speculation.

Let's have your own coherent (in the proper sense of the word) version of free will. Then we can look at its merits. Then we can judge if it is required for democracy or not.

Q 10. Do you really believe that Democracy is only maintained by robots?
>>> A 10. No.

If man has no free will, how do you explain that his actions are not robotic? Come on Drew. Forget the fudge. Let's have your own reasoning and arguments on this most important subject for us all.

Best wishes

Paul

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 09:46:52 GMT
Hi again Ryan

When you have solved your problem with your own free will, perhaps you will take the time to reply to a previous post of mine to you:

Hi Ryan

You ask:

>>> Why?

Why indeed! You seem to have a knack for asking good questions, but seem unable to come up with any good answers yourself.

I guess your question was addressed to sav08. But it is a good question for you too:

Why energy? Why matter? Why atoms? Why ants? Why atheists? Why Christians?... Why an intelligible universe with intelligible laws and intelligible evolution... without God?

And just to remind you of a few you more that you have yet to answer:

.1. GOD EXISTS BECAUSE...
... any conditioned reality (any reality that is dependent on another reality for its existence or occurrence), be it an atom, an ant, an atheist... or an intelligible universe... requires, ultimately, for its existence, an Intelligent and Almighty Unconditioned Reality. The Divine Jesus Christ and the One Divine Church that He founded for all mankind confirm reality to us coherently and rationally. In contrast, atheism is an incoherent and irrational sham. It dogmatically rejects Almighty God while being unable to offer any rational alternative for the existence of anything at all.

.2. A COHERENT VIEW OF REALITY - TRUTH
Truth is simply that which is. There is only one reality, and that one reality includes all truth. When something is true, anything to the contrary is false. Positions close to the true and coherent view will be mostly true; while positions far from it will be mostly false. True science is, at the very least, neutral on the subject of God or atheism. In fact scientific truth, being true, supports the coherent view, that is the view which includes God, as all truth, religious and scientific, is one.

.3. Because God exists, the sane attitude for rational and intelligent man is one of gratitude:
THANK YOU LORD
... We thank You for goodness, beauty and truth;
For science, art, philosophy, theology;
So we can know You World and, through Your Church,
Can know and understand Reality.

What is your coherent and rational understanding of Reality, Ryan?

.4. You created Your World out of nothing,
With Matter, Energy and Laws sublime,
So it evolved according to Your Will
Which holds all things in Being all the time. ...

What is your coherent and rational understanding of origins, Ryan?

.5. But Your Plan did not just climax in us;
It led further - to the Birth of Your Son -
Both Man and God - through the Virgin Mary,
When she spoke her `Fiat;' "Thy Will be done."...

.6. "In the beginning was the Word... with God;
The Word was God from all Eternity...
The Word became True Man, and dwelt with us...
The Light shines in the dark..." so man can see.

.7. Thank You for coming to the World You made,
For bringing Light to all the Mystery;
Thank You for Your wondrous Incarnation -
The wondrous Peak of human history.

.8. Most faiths, religions and philosophies
Come from man's search for Truth, Meaning and God;
But You, Jesus, bring all of these to us;
So, like Thomas, we say: "My Lord and God!"

What is your coherent and rational understanding of Jesus Christ, Ryan?

.9. For You alone unite Heaven and Earth;
Religion and Science are One in You;
You are the `Master Key to the Meaning of
The Universe' - where Truth is simply True.

What is your coherent and rational understanding of the meaning of the universe, Ryan?

.10. For without You our being makes no sense;
In You Alone we find our True Purpose;
And You, the Gospel Word, Christmas, Easter...
Bring everlasting Peace and Joy to us. ...

What is your coherent and rational understanding of our purpose, Ryan?

.11. Your Life and Death and Resurrection are
The Centre of Salvation History;
You conquer the darkness of sin and death.
In Truth, in Life, in Love Your Victory. ...

.12. You are the Good Shepherd Who loves His sheep;
You give Your life, and all our lives renew;
You are the Way, the Truth, the Life, the Light;
Our hearts won't rest until they rest in You. ...

Have you any other suggestion, apart from Jesus Christ, for obtaining the lasting love and peace and joy for which the human heart yearns, Ryan?

Best wishes

Paul

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 09:48:18 GMT
A COHERENT VIEW OF REALITY (98)
The Only True Philosophy
ATHEIST CONFUSION

.94. FREE WILL (Stanley L. Jaki)
(... continued)

Free will remains therefore a mysterious factor for positivist, pragmatist and empiricist thinking. As was shown, neither pragmatism, nor other fashionable forms of modern philosophy give any meaningful support for thinking that man can truly act freely.

(to be continued...

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 09:50:13 GMT
Bellatori says:

Andrew says: "equally absurd 'prove god doesn't exist"
Proving a God doesn't exist is a non-argument. From a non-theistic point of view how can one argue that something that does not exist, does not exist? There is nothing tangible to argue against. What has been discussed at some length in the previous thread is whether a God is necessary for us to exist here and now. As soon as 'God' does something other than merely exist in some other dimension (heaven?) then there is something to argue about. The discussion has covered creation of the universe, power of prayer briefly et al and because 'God' is interacting (allegedly) with the real world it is subject to examination, argument and acceptance/rejection based on critical evaluation.

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 09:51:16 GMT
Drew Jones says:

"the New Testament says "god is love", love doesn't exist?"
Not a great example of smarter religion is it? What would it mean for a god to be love. And what sort of logic is it to say love exists therefore the premise I loaded is validated?

"if you want want to simplify it to the absurd, I could use the standard, equally absurd 'prove god doesn't exist'."
That's not equally absurd as the first request. This is the only absurd approach to the situation unless you can think of evidence or fistingishing feature non-existent would leave behind.

"I'm not doing that, I'm referring to grown up discussions such as love, brahma, Buddhism. etc. prove those arguments wrong if you know all there is to know, and answer my previous post while you're at it."
How is saying 'God is love' in anyway grown up, sophisticated or an argument. Neither do I see any merit in going East to find your woo. Yes I'd more exotic and novel to us but no more credible for it.

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 09:55:00 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jan 2013 09:55:49 GMT
A COHERENT VIEW OF REALITY (98)
The Only True Philosophy
ATHEIST CONFUSION

.95. FREE WILL (Stanley L. Jaki)
(... continued)

One can but speculate about primitive man's reflections about having free will. But it is not a matter of speculation to find the very first and robust appearance of the conviction that man is indeed free. The first unequivocal and sustained assertion of free will has little to do with Greek philosophers, but enormously much with the perspective registered in the Bible, which here is taken for just another cultural document. There the idea of an eternal moral responsibility gave rise to the assertion that man is freely the maker of a fortune which moth and rust do not devour.

(to be continued...

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 10:14:58 GMT
K. Hoyles says:
Prove a point to support your beliefs with a quote by all means, but I find this lengthy repetitive, cut and paste style from Paul, and light (Damnaboring path of Truth), rather obsessive.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 10:21:15 GMT
Bellatori says:
Just for fun and because I find myself with a few moments spare this morning I am going to reply to your message, hopefully with Ryan's blessing.

Mr Paul Davidson says: ...

"But it is a good question for you too: Why energy? Why matter? Why atoms? Why ants? Why atheists? Why Christians?... Why an intelligible universe with intelligible laws and intelligible evolution... without God?" Answered in 3 words which you have already had indetail but which you chose to ignore. WEAK ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE (WAP)

"1. GOD EXISTS BECAUSE... ... any conditioned reality (any reality that is dependent on another reality for its existence or occurrence), be it an atom, an ant, an atheist... or an intelligible universe... requires, ultimately, for its existence, an Intelligent and Almighty Unconditioned Reality." I have already debunked this one a couple of times in previous threads where you have cut and pasted this from. Do you remember?
FIELDS->HEISENBERG->BIG BANG->WAP. No God necessary. Oh and...
a. GOD->Universe
b. Universe->Universe
<b> is a simpler hypothesis so by Occam's razor is the most probable.

"3. Because God exists.." Unwarranted assumption backed up by no proof or evidence and covered by an earlier post which I repeat.
'Andrew says: "equally absurd 'prove god doesn't exist"
Proving a God doesn't exist is a non-argument. From a non-theistic point of view how can one argue that something that does not exist, does not exist? There is nothing tangible to argue against. What has been discussed at some length in the previous thread is whether a God is necessary for us to exist here and now. As soon as 'God' does something other than merely exist in some other dimension (heaven?) then there is something to argue about. The discussion has covered creation of the universe, power of prayer briefly et al and because 'God' is interacting (allegedly) with the real world it is subject to examination, argument and acceptance/rejection based on critical evaluation.'

"What is your coherent and rational understanding of Reality?"

"What is your coherent and rational understanding of origins, Ryan?" See the notes above plus a whole list of posts by a large number of people in the previous threads. This one has been dealt with so many times, like the origin of the Universe it seems lost in the dark ages!

"What is your coherent and rational understanding of Jesus Christ...?" A mystic that crops up very briefly in contemporary records and about whom a whole industry has been built.

"What is your coherent and rational understanding of the meaning of the universe?" Weak Anthropic Principle applies here also.
"What is your coherent and rational understanding of our purpose" Weak Anthropic Principle applies here also.
"Have you any other suggestion, apart from Jesus Christ, for obtaining the lasting love and peace and joy for which the human heart yearns" More than you can imagine and certainly more than I have time to write BUT rather than have you whinge yet again that your questions were not answered I will give you one. All I have to do is pick up my one year old grandson and look into his face and see him smile. I cannot wait to have more as I keep hinting to my two girls.

OK so that has nailed all these questions. Any chance that you could stop the cutting and pasting now and we can all move on?

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 10:55:23 GMT
Drew Jones says:

For John,

Democracy requires freewill.

Freewill requires open ended future possibilities.

Open ended future possibilities are negated by the existence of an entity that knows the future because they planned it out.

You can logically consent to the ideal of freewill and therefore allow for democracy or you can consent to the idea of an entity with a plan. The law of non-contradiction doesn't allow for both without a whole lot of dull, repeatative, impotent wishful rhetoric.

I go with the former.

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 10:59:09 GMT
A COHERENT VIEW OF REALITY (98)
The Only True Philosophy
ATHEIST CONFUSION

.96. FREE WILL (Stanley L. Jaki)
(... continued)

There it was realised that Commandments, be they Ten or Two in number, make sense only if man is free to comply with them or disregard them. The conviction that man is free was born out of the perspective that man was given freedom not in order to do anything he wants to but that he should be able to do what he is supposed to do. The Western World lost its hold on the reality of free will in the measure in which it let some biblically inspired convictions fall into disrepute.

(to be continued...

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 11:14:22 GMT
Blessing bestowed, B.

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 11:19:55 GMT
A COHERENT VIEW OF REALITY (98)
The Only True Philosophy
ATHEIST CONFUSION

.97. FREE WILL (Stanley L. Jaki)
(... continued)

Not that those convictions had not at times issued in sheer mockery of free will. Suffice to think of Luther's and Calvin's diatribes against free will in the name of Revelation which they wanted to reconstruct with rank disregard of fifteen hundred years of profound reflections on what Revelation teaches about free will.

(to be continued...

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2013 11:23:44 GMT
Bellatori says:
Mr Paul Davidson says: "A COHERENT VIEW OF REALITY (98) The Only True Philosophy ATHEIST CONFUSION"
Nul semantic gobledegook.

"man was given freedom" undermines your whole argument. Who was it given by? .... and if you are about to say 'god' then please don't bother because you sink into the fallacy that Drew pointed out where you conflict between predestination form an all knowing deity and free will.

Of course you can say 'god' never interferes but again that has the draw back of envisaging a 'god' in his heaven who does nothing. Clearly cannot answer prayers because that would interfere with free will. Considering a difference that makes no difference is no difference would suggest that this version of 'god' is pointless.

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 11:23:46 GMT
A COHERENT VIEW OF REALITY (98)
The Only True Philosophy
ATHEIST CONFUSION

.98. FREE WILL (Stanley L. Jaki)
(... continued)

Those diatribes, in particular those of Luther, convinced an Erasmus at long last that instead of a reformation he was in the presence of a deformation which he refused to join, regardless of his profound dissatisfaction with the Church to be reformed. He, however, failed to probe into the fact that he was free to undertake a thorough (and much needed) self-reform. Much less was he ready to come to grips with that all-important task. His defense of free will anticipated much of that insipid diction about free will that comes from the pen of humanists. True to form they care to protect the flower and the fruit without caring for the soil and the roots.

(to be continued...

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 11:38:37 GMT
Bellatori says:
Paul (aka John) likes to posit questions that all start with
"What is your coherent and rational ... "

Suppose we turn the questions he asks around and say to him

'"What is your coherent and rational reasoning for belief in God" (please don't answer Paul, the world really isn't ready for another diatribe)

Actually it is a question that he cannot properly address. His answer may be coherent (there's a first) but it cannot be rational. By definition, belief in God is an act of faith. Were it to be rational, as has been stated many times before, it would not require faith and therefore would not be a Religion, at best a philosophy for life.

So whilst it is reasonable for him to ask atheist for coherence and rationality it is unfair of us to expect the same from him. We should expect coherently irrational argument.... which basically is what we get!!

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 11:39:47 GMT
C.A. Small says:

Hi Karen, relatively soon, there is a chance that anti-biotics will cease to be effective. That might give the myth followers the opportunity to prove prayer works as well as anti-biotics did. Personally I scares the hell out of me. Science has given us control over ourselves and death that previous generations could only dream of.

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 11:41:56 GMT
A COHERENT VIEW OF REALITY (98)
The Only True Philosophy
ATHEIST CONFUSION

.99. FREE WILL (Stanley L. Jaki)
(... continued)

This is not to suggest that all was fortunate in the quasi-official Catholic elaborations on free will, although they were far more credible than Erasmus' discourse on it. In all of them, riveted on the relation of free will and grace, it was overlooked that the mystery of free will does not begin with its relation to God's always gratuitous supernatural grace. Free will is a mystery already on the natural level before it becomes a times a most sombre mystery on the supernatural level, because there it is intimately connected with the mystery of heaven and hell.

(to be continued...

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 12:13:56 GMT
A COHERENT VIEW OF REALITY (98)
The Only True Philosophy
ATHEIST CONFUSION

.100. FREE WILL (Stanley L. Jaki)
(... continued)

Free will is a mystery on the natural level in the sense that it cannot be reduced to anything else. It is a primary datum, a supreme, most immediately known reality.

(to be continued...

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 12:41:40 GMT
Hi Norm

You say:

>>> You have failed to answer the question. Let me give you another chance, can you provide an example of anything that we can detect by any means that has intelligence but is not in the physical universe. This was echoing your contention that "everything we see in the physical universe is intelligible and has a cause". Do you now want to remove the "we see"?

We do not "see," in the normal sense of the word, either Jesus Christ or His Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the physical universe. Nevertheless He and His Mother do, from time to time, appear and converse to privileged members of the Church that He founded.

In the same way we do not "see," in the normal sense of the word, Almighty God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Anyway, Almighty God, apart from in His Divine Son Jesus Christ, God made man, is Spirit, so you could hardly expect to "see" Him, in the normal sense of the word.

To my:
God is everywhere both in and out of the physical universe.

You replied:

>>> How would you know?

Because, through His Divine Son Jesus Christ, He has told us so.

'He always Was, Is and always Will Be. So, obviously, He existed before the universe, which He alone created at the Big Bang. Its intelligible matter or energy evolved according to His wondrous intelligible laws.'

>>> An unproven conjecture.

Proven by the Divine Jesus Christ Himself.

>>> The idea, remember was to show not only that the universe was a result of an act of creation but also that it *must* have been performed by your god.

You have no alternative.

>>> To do that you must show reasons (bot beliefs) why it could not have been Bob the Universe Builder..

As I have said before on this forum, you can call Almighty Intelligent God... or a humble atheist, for that matter: "Bob the Universe Builder..." It is simply quirky terminology. The difference is that Almighty God has actually done it (and continues to do it by His Almighty Will)... the humble atheist cannot even make an atom, an ant or an atheist... let alone an intelligible universe with its intelligible laws... causing its intelligible evolution. ...

Best wishes

Paul

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 12:44:51 GMT
A COHERENT VIEW OF REALITY (98)
The Only True Philosophy
ATHEIST CONFUSION

Insofar as it is a reality, it owes its existence in ultimate analysis to the Creator as nothing can exist without being created by Him.

(to be continued...

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 13:04:28 GMT
Hi Drew

You say:

>>> Democracy requires freewill. ...

Excellent. We agree on this at least... at last.

Now, independently of Almighty God, in Whom you do not believe, can you please answer the questions below:

"FREE WILL, THE ONLY SAFE FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY"!

Q 1. Do you not get it?

You replied:
>>> A 1. Yes

By "Yes," I hope you mean that you understand the point that free will is "the only safe foundation of democracy!" If not, why not?

Q 2. Honestly ?
>>> A 2. Honestly but not the way you insist upon.

Sounds a bit of a fudgy answer to me, Drew. Do you, or do you not believe that free will is "the only safe foundation of democracy!"?

Q 3. Do you not see that in order to have Democracy we need to have a free vote?
>>> A 3. Yes but not freewill.

More fudge, Drew. Do you, or do you not need free will, in order to have a free vote, in order for democracy (whether or not the actual system, in whatever country, is good, bad or mediocre)? If not, why not?

Q 4. Do you not see that this requires us to have free will?
>>> A 4. No.

How on earth can you have democracy without free will?

Q 5. Do you not see that this is not only common sense, it is also rational and true?
>>> A 5. No, you, Tom or the Church just repeating the words rational and true is the lamest of arguments.

More fudge, Drew. It is YOUR arguments we want to read in answer to these questions. So far we seem to be getting fudge and confusion.

(Neither Tom, nor I, nor the One and Only Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself, use the words `rational' and `true' lightly. We are all defenders of reason and truth, on the question of human freedom or free will in this particular instance, and everywhere else, for that matter.)

Q 6. If you cannot agree with the vast majority of mankind on this subject, can you not agree with fellow atheist on this forum, G. Proctor?
>>> A 6. I don't think you are up to speed on the argument to know what people accept when they accept freewill.

"Up to speed!" Get real Drew! You can't even get started on this subject! I give you the opportunity to express your own views clearly concerning free will and democracy... and all you do is fudge.

Q 7. ... Or fellow atheist on this forum, Anti Yaleey?
>>> A 7. No.

Just why are you unable to agree with fellow atheist on this forum, Anti Yaleey, that democracy requires free will? Come on Drew. Let's have a clear answer with no more fudge.

Q 8. ... Or fellow atheist on this forum, Karen?
>>> A 8. An argument rests on its merits not the supernatural leanings of the people advancing it.

So what are the merits of your argument on this subject? Can you please first of all provide your argument, and then point out its merits. Let's read YOUR arguments, ON THEIR OWN MERITS.

Q 9. Why do you believe that you are right and all these people wrong?
>>> A 9. I don't, I'm saying your version of freewill is logically incoherent (in the proper sense of the word) others are acceptable but still speculation.

Let's have your own coherent (in the proper sense of the word) version of free will. Then we can look at its merits. Then we can judge if it is required for democracy or not.

Q 10. Do you really believe that Democracy is only maintained by robots?
>>> A 10. No.

If man has no free will, how do you explain that his actions are not robotic? Come on Drew. Forget the fudge. Let's have your own reasoning and arguments on this most important subject for us all.

Best wishes

Paul

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 13:06:21 GMT
.101. FREE WILL (Stanley L. Jaki)
(... continued)

But insofar as the Creator is infinitely more than a demiurge or a cosmic designer, it is not a contradiction to assume that He and He alone can create something, an act of free will, which is both fully created and in that sense "physically," that is fully determined, and yet genuinely free at the same time.

(to be continued...

Posted on 12 Jan 2013 13:09:29 GMT
Would you and the sound of your own voice like to get a room, Paul?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Important Announcement from Amazon
154 12 Aug 2015
Cure found for homosexuality. 370 7 minutes ago
The Scottish Kirk votes to allow same-sex civil marriages for their ministers. 34 9 minutes ago
Christians outnumbered in UK 3 14 minutes ago
Christopher Hicthens 2289 44 minutes ago
Today's most intelligent and outspoken atheist is .... 150 2 hours ago
Blasphemy vs freedom of speech. 956 3 hours ago
The Power of Prayer. 1037 8 hours ago
Are the BBC promoting DAESHaphobia. 5 11 hours ago
Book (Snapping of the American Mind) shows Harvard tests showing parental neglect causes homosexuality 710 16 hours ago
Was David Bowie the second jesus. 6 1 day ago
The myth of HITLER. The British government so disgusted with itself for starting WW2 created the myth of a cartoon bad guy and never let the facts be spoken of since especially on liberal TV. 3 1 day ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  64
Total posts:  3185
Initial post:  10 Jan 2013
Latest post:  27 Apr 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions