Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have more respect for a believer who questions their Faith than an atheist who is certain.
Most atheists are not 100% certain, and would change their mind (hopefully) if presented with credible evidence for any of the thousands of alleged gods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FordBronco1967
Why would you want to be right?
Want has nothing to do with it. Just because you want to be right does not mean we have this problem. Do you really think we want atheism to be true?
Most atheists are not 100% certain, and would change their mind (hopefully) if presented with credible evidence for any of the thousands of alleged gods....
Christians don't seem to be able to grasp this. So very limited in their thinking.
Why not? But what about a believer who just accepts without asking the tough questions.
That’s because the consequences of their God, or a God, not existing are too catastrophic.
The “Doubting Thomas” is a classic biblical example to discourage this. (even if often used as a cliche nowadays)
I have more respect for a believer who questions their Faith than an atheist who is certain. Why would you want to be right?
I would totally want to be wrong in this debate. After all I was a devout believer from age 6 to about 37. I left unwillingly at first. Unfortunately everything I have assessed since then only reduces the "odds of gods".
So you see, ironically, I am a (former) believer who questioned my faith. Some believers are fine with questioning their faith, as long as the answer to the question is acceptable (meaning, "I was wrong to ever question it").
I share your respect for believers who are able to question their faith, but I respect their right to go so far as to change their current thinking, too. And I also respect atheists who, like me, are open to assessing validating evidence for religious truth claims, to the point of changing their current thinking if warranted. The problem is that no evidence is ever presented. Personal experience, quote-mined scripture passages and the like abound. These are not evidence, they are claims -- or at best, if you want to be charitable in the case of personal experiences, they are personal evidence that have no meaning and can't be binding on others.
But we live in a society that sells ideas and products based on anecdotes and the desire to be like others all the time, so this kind of uncritical thinking now has a life of its own, even apart from religion.
It is you who is obviously blind to all the other gods that must exist, because other believers sense their gods.
I only sense one God or deity. And he is not defined as in the Bible, mostly discussed in the more Hebraic Old Testament section (the New Testament is mostly focused on Jesus, who I don't consider to be one and the same as God).
No full or accurate written account of God exists. The best we can do is learn and sense him internally through mind and spirit, and even then isn't complete. At best, we get glimpses. But those glimpses are plenty, and all we need. Glimpses shared by the Indians of America as the Great Spirit are recognizable to me. The Tao of Taoism is recognizable as well, with personality aspects removed, highlighting spiritual action and energy. When one drops the need to reject and disprove everything, and instead begin to pick up threads and connections, a big picture can slowly begin to unfold.
The answers and proofs come totally and completely from within. So all this talk from one's perspective begins and end within the person. Moderator cut: Personal attack statements removed.
Last edited by mensaguy; 10-12-2022 at 01:34 PM..
Reason: Read the R&S forum rules.
The primary issue is the parsing and sorting of ancient writings of similar contemporaneity into those that were CHOSEN by men to support a religion and those that were not. You dismiss as fiction those that were chosen specifically to support a religion. That is really an illegitimate way to look at these ancient writings, Thrill.
The mindsets at the time were very different from our modern ones and their motives, purposes, and modes of expression in their recordings of what occurred were not similar at all to those historical tomes of more modern origin. When you proceed from such a biased and illegitimate position with regard to relatively contemporaneous writings as "evidence" you lose all credibility as an objective observer. Caesar was written of as a God, back then, Thrill!!
Mystic, here's the problem with the church writings. This is outside of a little thing that the gospels and epistles reek with which is known as "confirmation bias". We'll put that one aside for now because it is so well known among secular Biblical historians.
The biggest problem with using New Testament writings as proof of the existence of Jesus is that the churchmen were so dishonest and deceptive when writing or revising them. Let me give you a splendid example which occurred early in the church's history possibly even until very late 1st century: Mark's ending.
Very few Christians are aware (because they never study their own religion or read their Bibles) that Mark originally ended at 16:8:
6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”
8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
That's it. That's where Mark's story ends. No resurrection. No appearances to the apostles.
Biblical historians are nearly unanimous in their belief that Mark wrote no further than that.
“The earliest Greek, versional and patristic evidence supports the conclusion that Mark ended his Gospel at Ch. 16:8.” (William Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1974), 601.)
“The undisputed facts are that everything which follows 16:8 in any surviving MS (manuscript) can confidently be declared non-Marcan on grounds of attestation, style, and content; thus the Gospel in the earliest form in which we can trace it ended at 16:8.” (Dennis Nineham, Saint Mark, The Penguin New Testament Commentaries. (London: Penguin Group, 1992), 439)
So apologists around here cannot drop on us that old canard, "Well, it's obvious Mark 16:9-20 just fell off the manuscript and was lost". The Biblical historian community doesn't accept that excuse anymore.
So conservative evangelicals bet their life on the belief that the gospels were inspired by the Holy Spirit directing men what to write. Well, obviously the Holy Spirit fell asleep at the switch if Matthew and Luke had to step in to correct his error.
But really, this is what likely happened:
The Holy Spirit or God or whatever supernatural agent you want to say had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of Mark. The writers of Mark simply chose to end their gospel with no resurrection of Jesus or appearances to the apostles or Great Commission. Early churchmen didn't like this. They wanted an actual account of the resurrected Jesus.
So they decided to add their own.
The first one, called "The Short Ending" didn't work to their satisfaction:
“But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.”
So they decided to beef it up and we get what is called "The Long Ending" which contains all the elements they wanted included in the story's ending and which shows up in most Bibles today. Frankly, in comparison with the earlier part of Mark which is more subdued, the long ending is Mark on steroids.
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.17 And these signswill accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons;they will speak in new tongues;18 they will pick up snakeswith their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands onsick people, and they will get well.”
I mean all this is just so over the top it's laughable. And I'm no Bible scholar and even I can notice the extremes between the original and this Mickey Mouse ending. I mean, just think of all the people who have died over the centuries believing Jesus would protect them when they handled poisonous snakes because deceptive churchmen wanted an ending to Mark that had more punch. And where was God when all this craziness was going on? Was he asleep at the switch too? It's a travesty.
And let's not even get into the "Let him who is without fault cast the first stone" thing in John which was added five or six centuries later.
So you ask me, Mystic why I don't count the New Testament writings as evidence? How can I????????? How can anyone take seriously documents which were so obviously tainted and jimmied in order to make the story more appealing to dumb pagans? And how do we know which ones were jimmied? After reading the ridiculous diatribes of Matthew pertaining to all the fantastic phantasmagorical happenings during Jesus crucifixion with earthquakes and darkness over all the earth (which no culture records, by the way) and the pièce de résistance--the descent of all the zombie dead saints suddenly animating and marching on Jerusalem, how can anyone believe these were the products of honest churchmen who were after the truth, when dozens of their writings (and I've produced some of the writings) attest to the virtue of using deception in order to fool people into believing what they want people to believe?
Last edited by thrillobyte; 10-12-2022 at 11:07 AM..
I only sense one God or deity. And he is not defined as in the Bible, mostly discussed in the more Hebraic Old Testament section (the New Testament is mostly focused on Jesus, who I don't consider to be one and the same as God).
No full or accurate written account of God exists. The best we can do is learn and sense him internally through mind and spirit, and even then isn't complete. At best, we get glimpses. But those glimpses are plenty, and all we need. Glimpses shared by the Indians of America as the Great Spirit are recognizable to me. The Tao of Taoism is recognizable as well, with personality aspects removed, highlighting spiritual action and energy. When one drops the need to reject and disprove everything, and instead begin to pick up threads and connections, a big picture can slowly begin to unfold.
The answers and proofs come totally and completely from within. So all this talk from one's perspective begins and end within the person. Moderator cut: Personal attack statements removed.
The question is...or perhaps I should say that the question be:
All the groups throughout the world (e.g. Muslims, christians, Mormons, and so many more) have different beliefs about god. Some of the beliefs are wildly different, some quite similar. And christians (and some other groups) are fond of saying things along the lines of, "But we're all christians". To which I respond, "So what. Mostly you don't or even can't worship together. Oh yes, some churches do their once a year multi-faith charades, often poorly attended, and then the very next week they're back at their own churches, with many not at all willing to even step inside a different denomination's church with the exception of for weddings or funerals, and sometimes not even then. And although they supposedly worship the same god, how many christians ever visited a mosque? How many Muslims ever visited a christian church. Same for synagogues.
And then there are all the individuals who have substantially different beliefs than any particular sect or denomination.
So there are all these wildly different views in the 'god-world', and you all can't figure out why we atheists don't trust a belief in god...even though there is not anything even close to being a singular belief in god. The different sects and denominations, plus the different individuals can't agree on god, but you all expect every to share that CONFUSION.
You mention that it's a perspective. Well that's sure an attempt to minimize and marginalize the differences in belief that result in violence and even wars and death over who and what god is. Just ask Joe Smith.
You also say that "the best we can do...". Well, for we atheists, the best you can do is not good enough. So get over it.
The other day when I was out driving I happened to notice a church I had never paid much attention to before. It was 'The Church Of God', which strongly implies that other churches are not churches of god. So much for christian unity.
I'm much more appreciative of the Lord Of Life church that I often pass. At least they subconsciously realize their beliefs are LOL.
I agree with you about Thrillobyte. Not because he's an atheist. But because he makes these proclamations (just different than the proclamations that religionists make) and tries to convince us that he has 'proven' his position(s).
But what about my beliefs? Yes, overall I have a Buddhist perspective. But I also don't take ANY of his teachings as fact. I see the teachings as 'things to think about'. To test. To accept OR set aside. I've had what I consider to be a past-life experience; I ask no one else to believe it. There are things in the New Testament I like, and things in the Old Testament I detest (in fact, pretty much the whole OT). I've enjoyed and learned from visits I've made to mosques, Hindu temples, Chinese temples, and synagogues. But to say all those are just different paths to the same place...baloney. Just ask any of the Rohingya people. I was lucky to live most of my life in the D.C. area, and thus worked with and had as friends many people of many religions, an adopted Muslim son, and then there was my time spent studying Buddhist culture in (and for a couple of years living in) Thailand. I'm pretty accepting of different cultures, but that doesn't mean any one religious culture DESERVES to be adopted...perhaps better is adapted.
Last edited by mensaguy; 10-12-2022 at 01:36 PM..
Reason: Quoted post edited.
I agree with you about Thrillobyte. Not because he's an atheist. But because he makes these proclamations (just different than the proclamations that religionists make) and tries to convince us that he has 'proven' his position(s).
But what about my beliefs? Yes, overall I have a Buddhist perspective. But I also don't take ANY of his teachings as fact. I see the teachings as 'things to think about'. To test. To accept OR set aside. I've had what I consider to be a past-life experience; I ask no one else to believe it. There are things in the New Testament I like, and things in the Old Testament I detest (in fact, pretty much the whole OT). I've enjoyed and learned from visits I've made to mosques, Hindu temples, Chinese temples, and synagogues. But to say all those are just different paths to the same place...baloney. Just ask any of the Rohingya people. I was lucky to live most of my life in the D.C. area, and thus worked with and had as friends many people of many religions, an adopted Muslim son, and then there was my time spent studying Buddhist culture in (and for a couple of years living in) Thailand. I'm pretty accepting of different cultures, but that doesn't mean any one religious culture DESERVES to be adopted...perhaps better is adapted.
I like the fact that several people on here, mainly yourself, Mordant, Thrillobyte, Katzpur and Michael Way as well as of course, Mystic (and others) have told me ( and all of us who have read the posts ) why they believe what they believe. Even if it isd not what I believe, and especially if I do not share a belief just because someone else says "This is why I believe this"
I believe that Christianity did far more harm to myself, my family, than it could ever possibly be worth. I believe that Christianity is a very bad philosophy to follow, the idea of sacrificing this life (reality) for an "Afterlife /eternity" which we have Zero evidence or even a suggestion of evidence that it exists. The idea of not taking responsibility for one's self, one's life, one's community, to put all faith in an unseen and unsubstantiated force, to blame all failure on an invisible boogeyman, to fail to step up and take responsibility for one's life. To allow another group of untested and often uneducated people to act as an "authority" of which they should have none. And to say "Well, I will have paradise in heaven when I die " because I followed some incantation or ritual last Sunday or professed to some certain belief.....regardless of how much trouble I cause for everyone else.
Which on a side note, someone mentioned the fictional character of Barabbas, which sits inside a crucifixion fable which anyone with any time to fully examine it can see that it could have never ever existed or happened as accounted in the gospels. Should we go to our president or governor and demand that next Passover he pardon this man because he was just acting out of his faith? seriously? anyone say Yes?
Back to the point, which is we have no evidence that these characters existed. In fact, we have a lot that they did not. but in a logical/debate philosophy where a negative cannot be proven, let's look at the opposite for a moment.
Matt Dillahunty just left the ACA ATHEIST EXPERIENCE Internet broadcast show last week. I have mixed opinion on this, my son pointed out that while Matt was knowledgeable and sometimes entertaining, he would tell us NOT to treat theists like they were stupid or ignorant, then he would curse out any theist that did any little thing he did not like. I have been in the presence of many Christians who had foul mouths and cursed out anyone that they did not like. SO part of the solution became part of the problem.
Each week, someone would call in saying "I have PROOF OF GOD" and it would be one of three arguments: one, that something(creation) had to come from a creator (It does not)....Or two, that the Bible says (And the Bible is the claim, not the proof, and it was the written beliefs of a few superstitious people from superstitious times) ....or three "God is real because I say/think/know so so no proof is needed...."
These would be promptly and thoroughly disproven, rebuked and the theist would leave in shame, sometimes with bad words back at Matt, then next week, same thing over again, so it was distracting of what atheists who want to be more visible were doing and wanting....it became often times, the MATT DILLAHUNTY ARGUMENT SHOW
Now I will point out that the Bible does not make God or Jesus real any more than the Patterson -Gimlin film makes Bigfoot real or Bram Stroker's Novel makes Dracula real. BUT for years, people have tried to say that "Vlad the Impaler" was the source of Dracula Vampire stories, even though Vlad died in 1477 stayed dead and by that time his stories of cruelty in battle had made him a national hero in the eyes of Patriotic Romanians....And never mind that the TV is clogged to the top some nights with shows like "Finding Bigfoot" or "The Real wives of Bigfoot" When in fact, we really have no evidence that the thing exists and really no scientific plausibility that it could exist, outside of being a Native American fable. BUT people are entertained.
We have no evidence that a Jewish Teacher, perhaps a rabbi, perhaps a wondering day laborer named Yeshua ben Yosef, worked as a teacher in the Area of Occupied Rome in Judea or Jerusalem, and we have over the years shown how his crucifixion story could not have plausibly happened. We have also shown that the teachings and beliefs of this prophet, if he existed, had influences of not just Jewish teaching, but ventured away from orthodox Judaism into influences of Egyptian Greek and Roman mythology. And above all else, we have no record whatsoever, from the Romans especially, who kept very good records and references of seditionists, that there was ever a Yeshua ben Yosef in Jerusalem who was attempting to start a rebellion against Rome, which would have been about the only thing to have him killed on the spot.
That is why many of us see the story as a fable, or a myth, and ask ourselves, as Spock would say, "What practical use does it serve to me? "
Other than an interesting story, maybe, very little, and there are many many writers who are far better at writing than those who wrote and later translated the Bible. Which beings up a big question
Is religion entertaining? IS Atheism Entertaining? IS it meant to be?
We have to ask ourselves at the end of the day, is my belief system good for me? Am I happy, content, secure, healthy as a result of it? Do I feel threatened by opposing beliefs? DO I have self love, self esteem and self confidence because of my religion. And do I respect myself and my faith and prove it by respecting others, including their rights and their beliefs which may be different than my own.
If someone caught a Sasquatch, brought it to a college or zoo and showed it to everyone, and let everyone see it, examine it, have scientists and taxonomists classify it, then I would say "Huh How about that. There was a Bigfoot all along" Until that happens, I do not believe such a thing exists, although many people have claimed to have encountered one. But claims are not evidence, and evidence is lacking. Sam with a God or a Jesus....
In the end, it becomes whether an individual wants to have a belief, a religious relationship with others, or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
My prayer is that I never hate someone as much as thrill hates Christians and Christianity.
I want to second that.
Everything I learned about Hate, I learned growing up in a church. A Baptist church in West Texas. But I want to point out that there is a church of Christ in Central Texas that is nothing short of a hate congregation. They hate everyone (probably each other) and even the other church of Christ across town.....It seems to me that they get together every Sunday to dwell on hate. And that kind of religion I have no tolerance for. I could not believe when a friend took me there, I knew the church I grew up in was more or less hate/fear based but this was WAY off the scale even compared to that!
Also, we have a priest nearby that I cannot stand, not just because he is a total @r$eh0le but because he openly hates non-catholics and some catholics too because they associate with non-catholics. This guy is a separatist, and while his congregation has not been identified with such, the southern poverty law center lists similar separatists as being part of a catholic hate group.
I can arrange to introduce you if you want.
He would hate BOTH of us....You, because you are not catholic and Me, because I am not catholic. Kind of like that crybaby in South Florida that was balling on the phone because I did not buy a car from him...wah wah. I have met way too many clergy who have the personality of car-salesmen and vice versa that I think I am justified, along with professional training, to spot a con when I see one. And I see a LOT of Cons in churches and religions. (New Age Especially)
Point is, we need to NOT ever be part of the problem.
People need to see how guys like the local Priest are doing more harm to their congregation and the world around him, too, so that people can become aware, realize that they do have a choice (Some of his followers probably do not realize that) and make decisions based not on Hate, Fear and Desperation, but on kindness, love and a desire to make the world around them a better place for everyone involved.
I like the fact that several people on here, mainly yourself, Mordant, Thrillobyte, Katzpur and Michael Way as well as of course, Mystic (and others) have told me ( and all of us who have read the posts ) why they believe what they believe. Even if it isd not what I believe, and especially if I do not share a belief just because someone else says "This is why I believe this"
I believe that Christianity did far more harm to myself, my family, than it could ever possibly be worth. I believe that Christianity is a very bad philosophy to follow, the idea of sacrificing this life (reality) for an "Afterlife /eternity" which we have Zero evidence or even a suggestion of evidence that it exists. The idea of not taking responsibility for one's self, one's life, one's community, to put all faith in an unseen and unsubstantiated force, to blame all failure on an invisible boogeyman, to fail to step up and take responsibility for one's life. To allow another group of untested and often uneducated people to act as an "authority" of which they should have none. And to say "Well, I will have paradise in heaven when I die " because I followed some incantation or ritual last Sunday or professed to some certain belief.....regardless of how much trouble I cause for everyone else.
Which on a side note, someone mentioned the fictional character of Barabbas, which sits inside a crucifixion fable which anyone with any time to fully examine it can see that it could have never ever existed or happened as accounted in the gospels. Should we go to our president or governor and demand that next Passover he pardon this man because he was just acting out of his faith? seriously? anyone say Yes?
Back to the point, which is we have no evidence that these characters existed. In fact, we have a lot that they did not. but in a logical/debate philosophy where a negative cannot be proven, let's look at the opposite for a moment.
Matt Dillahunty just left the ACA ATHEIST EXPERIENCE Internet broadcast show last week. I have mixed opinion on this, my son pointed out that while Matt was knowledgeable and sometimes entertaining, he would tell us NOT to treat theists like they were stupid or ignorant, then he would curse out any theist that did any little thing he did not like. I have been in the presence of many Christians who had foul mouths and cursed out anyone that they did not like. SO part of the solution became part of the problem.
Each week, someone would call in saying "I have PROOF OF GOD" and it would be one of three arguments: one, that something(creation) had to come from a creator (It does not)....Or two, that the Bible says (And the Bible is the claim, not the proof, and it was the written beliefs of a few superstitious people from superstitious times) ....or three "God is real because I say/think/know so so no proof is needed...."
These would be promptly and thoroughly disproven, rebuked and the theist would leave in shame, sometimes with bad words back at Matt, then next week, same thing over again, so it was distracting of what atheists who want to be more visible were doing and wanting....it became often times, the MATT DILLAHUNTY ARGUMENT SHOW
Now I will point out that the Bible does not make God or Jesus real any more than the Patterson -Gimlin film makes Bigfoot real or Bram Stroker's Novel makes Dracula real. BUT for years, people have tried to say that "Vlad the Impaler" was the source of Dracula Vampire stories, even though Vlad died in 1477 stayed dead and by that time his stories of cruelty in battle had made him a national hero in the eyes of Patriotic Romanians....And never mind that the TV is clogged to the top some nights with shows like "Finding Bigfoot" or "The Real wives of Bigfoot" When in fact, we really have no evidence that the thing exists and really no scientific plausibility that it could exist, outside of being a Native American fable. BUT people are entertained.
We have no evidence that a Jewish Teacher, perhaps a rabbi, perhaps a wondering day laborer named Yeshua ben Yosef, worked as a teacher in the Area of Occupied Rome in Judea or Jerusalem, and we have over the years shown how his crucifixion story could not have plausibly happened. We have also shown that the teachings and beliefs of this prophet, if he existed, had influences of not just Jewish teaching, but ventured away from orthodox Judaism into influences of Egyptian Greek and Roman mythology. And above all else, we have no record whatsoever, from the Romans especially, who kept very good records and references of seditionists, that there was ever a Yeshua ben Yosef in Jerusalem who was attempting to start a rebellion against Rome, which would have been about the only thing to have him killed on the spot.
That is why many of us see the story as a fable, or a myth, and ask ourselves, as Spock would say, "What practical use does it serve to me? "
Other than an interesting story, maybe, very little, and there are many many writers who are far better at writing than those who wrote and later translated the Bible. Which beings up a big question
Is religion entertaining? IS Atheism Entertaining? IS it meant to be?
We have to ask ourselves at the end of the day, is my belief system good for me? Am I happy, content, secure, healthy as a result of it? Do I feel threatened by opposing beliefs? DO I have self love, self esteem and self confidence because of my religion. And do I respect myself and my faith and prove it by respecting others, including their rights and their beliefs which may be different than my own.
If someone caught a Sasquatch, brought it to a college or zoo and showed it to everyone, and let everyone see it, examine it, have scientists and taxonomists classify it, then I would say "Huh How about that. There was a Bigfoot all along" Until that happens, I do not believe such a thing exists, although many people have claimed to have encountered one. But claims are not evidence, and evidence is lacking. Sam with a God or a Jesus....
In the end, it becomes whether an individual wants to have a belief, a religious relationship with others, or not.
I want to second that.
Everything I learned about Hate, I learned growing up in a church. A Baptist church in West Texas. But I want to point out that there is a church of Christ in Central Texas that is nothing short of a hate congregation. They hate everyone (probably each other) and even the other church of Christ across town.....It seems to me that they get together every Sunday to dwell on hate. And that kind of religion I have no tolerance for. I could not believe when a friend took me there, I knew the church I grew up in was more or less hate/fear based but this was WAY off the scale even compared to that!
Also, we have a priest nearby that I cannot stand, not just because he is a total @r$eh0le but because he openly hates non-catholics and some catholics too because they associate with non-catholics. This guy is a separatist, and while his congregation has not been identified with such, the southern poverty law center lists similar separatists as being part of a catholic hate group.
I can arrange to introduce you if you want.
He would hate BOTH of us....You, because you are not catholic and Me, because I am not catholic. Kind of like that crybaby in South Florida that was balling on the phone because I did not buy a car from him...wah wah. I have met way too many clergy who have the personality of car-salesmen and vice versa that I think I am justified, along with professional training, to spot a con when I see one. And I see a LOT of Cons in churches and religions. (New Age Especially)
Point is, we need to NOT ever be part of the problem.
People need to see how guys like the local Priest are doing more harm to their congregation and the world around him, too, so that people can become aware, realize that they do have a choice (Some of his followers probably do not realize that) and make decisions based not on Hate, Fear and Desperation, but on kindness, love and a desire to make the world around them a better place for everyone involved.
I wonder if Buddha and Mohammed must be agreed to as being myths as well. Or just Jesus gets the venom. Probably so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
