Agnostiscism and atheism

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

How can you do such a estimate when so many people are intimated but the power of Chritianity.As I stated earlier in many states perhaps all, an atheist cannot hold office.There is not a politician in the congress who will admit to being an atheist.We all know they are there.How many disbelievers do you think there are in some of these Muslim countries,where tolerance by the faithful is nil.It is the bully on the block mentality.In these Muslim countries you believe what I believe or I will kill you.Granted Christianity has not gone that far,but then again they do not have the power that these Muslim nations have,though they would very much like to.So your calulations mean nothing.

Hmm... I guess I don't believe we live in the kind of world that you are describing here, Boagie. I think that when most people are asked in a poll whether they believe in God, they are answering honestly. Basically your whole argument is that they are afraid of answering honesty, and therefore give the pollster information that they deem as "safe" for their careers and perhaps their lives. I find that very doubtful. Sorry.

1 Reply

@harvey1,

harvey1,

Then wake up harvey!

1 Reply

@boagie,

Boagie, you have to do better than that. I could just as well say that the number of atheists is less than 0.01%, however the others that are polled are lying because atheism is their way at getting back at a society that didn't love them enough when they were kids. Any evidence to the contrary?: then those people need to wake up.

Obviously that's not the way to have a rational debate. If you have reason to doubt a stat, then you must provide an expert testimony/report that casts doubt on those stats. Conspiracy theories and wild conjecture just don't count. I'm sorry.

1 Reply

@harvey1,

harvey,

Spoken like a true Christian,I didn't give you stats, I told you that an atheists could not hold office in most or all states of the united states,that there is not a politcian in congress that will admit to being an atheist.I drew a analogy between the situtation in Muslim countries and how it is relevent to north america.Why would you assume that there is no pressure on the individual in society to be in the in group,when you have a blatent example in its government.Stats to can be manipulated, this stuff is right out in the open,turn a blind eye if you will.Christians are dammed good at avioding reality.Your stats,the pea is under the middle shell.I am not asking anyone to believe this on faith,check it out.It would seem atheists have no representation in government,how democratic is that?

2 Replies

@boagie,

For my original statement, I was refering to the number of people who profess believe in a diety, but do not accept the entire doctrine that comes with it. The majority do not believe in everything their respective religions teach. Because belief in such a being is as irrational and unbelievable as it gets, any subsequent belief is more acceptable and should be adhered to, but this is not the case. People reject portions of the doctrine they do not agree with, but keep the part, the existence of a diety, that makes them feel good, comforts them, etc. In other words, it's based on emotion, which is not rational. In addition, since we are linear beings, it is reasonable to look for a cause for a given action, but to propose something that has no cause as the reason for all, when the initial rationale for such a being was that everything has a cause is extremely irrational. Nature is not so nice and linear and causal based. There is so much that science explains without the need for a God, without even the hint of a need, that to introduce such a being because of feelings cannot be argued as rational.

AS for what the majority believe, there was a time when the majority believed in religions that no longer exist, yet that did not mean they were valid at the time. Similarly, no matter what the precise number is that currently believe in a diety or dieties does not mean the belief is in anyway valid.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

It would seem atheists have no representation in government,how democratic is that?

Boagie, just for a moment assume that 2.3% of the world is atheist, then why would you expect such a small percentage of people to be prominent in governments? The fact is that there is an elected atheist in the U.S. government, and I'm sure there are more in other countries.

There is a huge difference between running for a government office where people expect their values to be represented, and just answering a poll question.

1 Reply

@Dexter78,

Dexter78 wrote:

Because belief in such a being is as irrational and unbelievable as it gets, any subsequent belief is more acceptable and should be adhered to, but this is not the case... In other words, it's based on emotion, which is not rational.

I'm still waiting for your answer as to why it is irrational to believe in God. This is just opinion. You could have received this opinion after immigrating from the former Soviet Union where state atheism was taught to kids in their public schools. (I've debated such individuals on the internet.)

Dexter wrote:

but to propose something that has no cause as the reason for all, when the initial rationale for such a being was that everything has a cause is extremely irrational.

Dex, this is not what theists are saying. Everything has a cause that brings us up to some general principle or brings us up to some ultimate reality (e.g., God). Pantheists label this ultimate reality a non-personal divine Unity (or "God") in the world (e.g., the Tao, or the Absolute), whereas theists believe this ultimate reality (God) possesses consciousness.

Dexter wrote:

There is so much that science explains without the need for a God, without even the hint of a need, that to introduce such a being because of feelings cannot be argued as rational.

I disagree. Science explains nothing without a need for God.

Dexter wrote:

AS for what the majority believe, there was a time when the majority believed in religions that no longer exist, yet that did not mean they were valid at the time. Similarly, no matter what the precise number is that currently believe in a diety or dieties does not mean the belief is in anyway valid.

Good, so do we both agree that your statement here should be retracted?:

Quote:

The fact that many actually chose not to accept it all should show that there is a flaw in the premise of belief in a diety.

0 Replies

@harvey1,

harvey,

WHAT IS THIS ATHEISTS POLITICIANS NAME AND WHAT IS HIS POLITICAL POSITION?WHAT STATE IS SAID POLITICIAN IN? Indeed in other countries there are many atheists in political office but that is because Christianity does not have a strangle hold there.Believe what I believe or your out,works wonders for international relations as well.Actually in some sense I suppose you would not count me as an atheist,as my mind does go to the logical conculsion of looking for a source.The behaviour of Christians has made up my mind in which camp to place my loyalties.One example would be the topic of global warming,which right wing Christians denyed,along with their bed parterners the Bush administration and the corporations all stood firm together.They prefered to believe the scientest hired by the oil companies rather than the mainstream scientific community--no whore like an old whore,just the price changes.

So a leap of faith is rational,do explain how it can leave reason behind and be rational at the same time.I think we should both be realizeing the futility of this dialogue by now--------The time is approaching for Gracy to say good night. WHAT IS THIS ATHEIST POLITICIANS NAME AND HIS POLITICAL POSITION? WHAT STATE IS SAID POLITICIAN IN?

Peter Stark is the first openly nontheistic member of Congress, as announced by the Secular Coalition for America.[1] It is a start.That is one,not only nation wide but historically,they do mean first.I have been to the mountain!

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

WHAT IS THIS ATHEIST POLITICIANS NAME AND HIS POLITICAL POSITION? WHAT STATE IS SAID POLITICIAN IN?

Rep. Pete Stark from Fremont, California. He's a democrat.

boagie wrote:

So a leap of faith is rational,do explain how it can leave reason behind and be rational at the same time.

In my view, the term, "leap of faith" doesn't mean that we leave reason behind. On the contrary, it means that after having considered all the factors entering into a belief, we believe there is enough justification to believe in something that there is little or no empirical evidence for, and even possibly partial empirical evidence against it. So, for example, Einstein's leap to the equivalence principle in formulating general relativity is an example of how a leap of faith is rational. If in the process of taking this leap the world becomes much more approachable to reason, then a leap of faith is justified.

boagie wrote:

I think we should both be realizeing the futility of this dialogue by now--------The time is approaching for Gracy to say good night.

Well, that's too bad if you say, "goodnight Gracy" since we're having a nice civil discussion...

1 Reply

@harvey1,

harvey!

Pete Stark is the first openly nontheistic member of Congress, as announced by the Secular Coalition for America.[1] It is a start.That is one,not only nation wide but historically,they do mean first.I have been to the mountain!

harvey,I have listen to a lot of Christians over the years,they do mean leave reason behind.It is frightening to though,many will look you in the eye without cracking a smile and vow that they believe in the garden of eden and the talking snake,havey this is the company you are keeping.The devil made me do it---again with a straight face,harvey come,come over to the darkside!

This example you have set,I think you have created an oxy moron."An example of how a leap of faith is rational," in its traditional understanding faith is defined for its lack of knowledge,indeed in the presence of knowledge their would be no need of faith.That example you had set was a strictly subjective and intuitive excercise certainly not based upon the lack of knowledge.I realize you do not agree with the standard opinion of Christianity but most of Christianity does hold that a leap of faith is neccessary for salvation and that reason must be left behind.I am afraid at the end of the day,it is the emotional element which carries the day for Christians.

What faculty do you suppose the atheist is short on that the Christian has in adundance,which enables him to discern what escapes the atheist? Just to make a point,often Christians are fond of spreading misinformation about famous people or scientests,Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal god,this he stated clearly,frustrated at the use of his name in this reguard,he thought it time for humanity to grow up.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

harvey come,come over to the darkside!

There's still good in you father... Smile

boagie wrote:

I realize you do not agree with the standard opinion of Christianity but most of Christianity does hold that a leap of faith is neccessary for salvation and that reason must be left behind.I am afraid at the end of the day,it is the emotional element which carries the day for Christians.

There's many people in the Christian faith. Not all are encouraged in their denomination to leave their sense of reason. Historically, Christianity always encouraged reason. That's why science was mostly encouraged in medieval Europe even when the results were not favorable.

boagie wrote:

What faculty do you suppose the atheist is short on that the Christian has in adundance,which enables him to discern what escapes the atheist?

Well, speaking from my opinion and experience with theists and atheists over the years, I'd say that there's generally four categories. You have the fundamentalists on both sides, and these people can be quickly dismissed for their ability to reason since they are more or less focused on dogma. Within the two remaining categories I'd say that the mindful Christian (i.e., non-dogmatic) and the mindful atheist (i.e., non-dogmatic) are both very clever types of people. Both types generally are "sold" that their version of the world best explains the world that we see. However, the mindful atheist prefers to avoid the implication of certain paradoxes that their view presents. The mindful theists I've known seem to be more willing to consider the implication of these paradoxes, and it convinces them to avoid atheism.

boagie wrote:

Just to make a point,often Christians are fond of spreading misinformation about famous people or scientests,Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal god,this he stated clearly,frustrated at the use of his name in this reguard,he thought it time for humanity to grow up.

That would be those dogmatic theists that I have little patience for.

2 Replies

@harvey1,

I gave a few reasons as to why such a diety is irrational, like proposiing being with no cause as a cause, which in fact many people of religion offer up as an argument for proof of such a being. Also, this existence of this being would pose logical contraditions, why would a being lacking nothing create anything, it cannot add anything to existence, it can not desire for this requires a lack of something. Yet, supposedly, this is precisely what happened. To simply dismiss this, and many other similar concepts as, "we are not meant to understand" or "it's all part of a plan" is to admit no understanding of what they chose to accept. How can this be considered rational?

Quote:

Science explains nothing without a need for God.

How so? What equations point to God, what formulas require a God variable in order to be valid? What theories would lose validity if their were no God?

1 Reply

@harvey1,

harvey1

If this was true at sometime in the past,a reasonable Christianity,what the hell happened?:eek:

Actually it has been said that humanity is mythologically compelled.I have noticed that Christians are fond of people who believe,even if it is in something else,they are one up on the atheist in the eyes of Christians.That seems to have changed,I can remember when Christians addressed other faiths a devil whorshippers,which was rather strange, seeing as it is only those desert nomads that believe in the devil.(Judeo-Christian and Islamic religions) chief spirit of evil and adversary of God; tempter of mankind; master of Hell. What do you make of the fact the man is mythologicallly compelled,does that fortifiy your belief.

I have noticed to that the Christians I know have never even pondered the human condition and certainly the church does not approach it in any real way,nor encourage such thought.I had to inform some of my friends that they were not outside looking in at the state of the rest of the animal world,that their lives were supported by consuming others,life lives upon life,they thought they were out of this on some higher plane,dispite eating three times a day.I know Christianity never really deals with explaining the human condition,accept perhaps to lay quilt upon humanity.The church does not try to deal with reality,but simply the level of awareness of its congregation,and that level it is not responsiable for.Christianity does not seems any smarter then its unaware congregations.

My friend that turned born again Christian,after sometime he informed me he did not believe in psychology,but believed in the devil.To me this is frightening,how anyone could willingly abort their own thinking to such a degree as to equal retardation.

I guess I am rambling mainly because I do see this discussion as futile.You are very skilled in your defense of Christianity,I admire the skill not the intent.No one has ever proved or disproved the existence of god,but I tend to believe the Hindu,all gods and demons come from within,as a psychological reality it is more reasonable to me.We could go on a great deal longer but to no avail,I am not likely to influence you and you dispite your skill, do not have the stuff to make Christianity seem reasonable.It is my hope America follows suite with europe,and becomes largely atheist.

1 Reply

@Dexter78,

Dexter78 wrote:

I gave a few reasons as to why such a diety is irrational, like proposiing being with no cause as a cause, which in fact many people of religion offer up as an argument for proof of such a being.

I don't see how that is irrational since even in physics journals like the esteemed Foundations of Physics this notion of consciousness being fundamental to the universe is being proposed as the source of qauntum laws.

Dexter78 wrote:

Also, this existence of this being would pose logical contraditions, why would a being lacking nothing create anything, it cannot add anything to existence, it can not desire for this requires a lack of something. Yet, supposedly, this is precisely what happened. To simply dismiss this, and many other similar concepts as, "we are not meant to understand" or "it's all part of a plan" is to admit no understanding of what they chose to accept. How can this be considered rational?

Dexter, rationality is not equivalent to knowing the fact behind something. If that were true, then the unification laws that physicists seek to unite quantum mechanics and relativity theory would be irrational. We presently do not know how to unite QM and SR/GR, but that doesn't make the belief that they can be united as an irrational belief.

In addition, I can think of a few possibilities that would immediately void your concern. For example, Pseudo-Dionysius in the 4th or 5th century and later in the middle ages, Bonaventure, held that God was "the Good," and believed in what is called platonic exemplarism. PD's exemplarism held "the Good" had a primary nature of self-diffusion and to emanate that goodness to a world. The early Christian theologian Origen in the 3rd century believed that omnipotence required a creation in order to be omnipotent--a quality that he believed that God must have. There's just scores of possibilities. Maupertuis in the 18th century held that God is greatest by acting with least action in the world, and God demonstrates God's majestic nature by creating according to this process. (This is the person who discovered the least action principle; a principle that Richard Feynman based his formulation of quantum electrodynamical theory upon.)

So, I just don't see why you are attributing this belief to irrationality other than your personal dislike for a belief in God.

Dexter78 wrote:

How so? What equations point to God, what formulas require a God variable in order to be valid? What theories would lose validity if their were no God?

It's actually very elementary. Either the world obeys scientific equations because they are the basis of reality, or those equations are just mere approximations of how material stuff behaves. If the latter, then they are useful fictions. If the former, then propositions exist and as a result of them existing the meaning of those propositions has force in the world. In that case, we are saying that reality is fundamentally derived from a mental phenomenon since propositions require interpretation--hence a Mind: or God.

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

If this was true at sometime in the past,a reasonable Christianity,what the hell happened?

You should attend the UCC, or any liberal Protestant church for that matter.

boagie wrote:

What do you make of the fact the man is mythologicallly compelled,does that fortifiy your belief.

Philosophers talk in terms of abstract concepts, physicists and mathematicians talk in terms of abstract mathematical structures, but the general populace talks in terms of myths. Myth is the everyday language of the abstract. The problem is that people confuse myth (i.e., the icon) with the thing itself, and that's when fundamentalism creeps in.

boagie wrote:

We could go on a great deal longer but to no avail...

Well, to each his own. It's been good chatting with you. If you change your mind, please continue to provide your views. I love to hear an intelligently constructed opinion even if it is different than my own.

1 Reply

@harvey1,

[/QUOTE]I don't see how that is irrational since even in physics journals like the esteemed Foundations of Physics this notion of consciousness being fundamental to the universe is being proposed as the source of qauntum laws.[/QUOTE]

The probablistic nature of quantum physics, the collapse of a probability function into one state, is often sited as a prerequisite for consciousness, but the diety you are proposing would come before this, unless you are saying that quantum physics permits God. One application of quantum is to try and explain the nature of consciousness, but you are saying that a pre-existing consciousness explains quantum theory.

Quote:

The early Christian theologian Origen in the 3rd century believed that omnipotence required a creation in order to be omnipotent--a quality that he believed that God must have

Indeed he did say this. Any why does omnipotence require a creation in order to be omnipotent? Becuase the early Christian theologian Origen in the 3rd century believed it so? What is conditional unlimited power?

Quote:

Maupertuis in the 18th century held that God is greatest by acting with least action in the world, and God demonstrates God's majestic nature by creating according to this process

Again, a statement, not an argument. This appears to start with the assumption that God exists, and then looking around forcing what he sees to confirm, this conclusion. Unless he first started with the observation of, "Hmm, existence seems to be a demonstration of greatness with least action in the world..." and came to the conclusion of a God.

Quote:

Dexter, rationality is not equivalent to knowing the fact behind something. If that were true, then the unification laws that physicists seek to unite quantum mechanics and relativity theory would be irrational. We presently do not know how to unite QM and SR/GR, but that doesn't make the belief that they can be united as an irrational belief.

It's true, physicists have not successfully derived the equation that would contain quantum physics and relativity. However, they have a wealth of previous bodies of work and experiements they can reference, they do not simply believe something because it can potentially explain something. They test it, and retest, experiement, and modify the theories when necessary. If someone had proposed M-theory, and physicists said, "Yep, that explains it" and made no attempt to verify, then yes, I would agree this would be irrational, but this is not what occurs.

Quote:

It's actually very elementary. Either the world obeys scientific equations because they are the basis of reality, or those equations are just mere approximations of how material stuff behaves. If the latter, then they are useful fictions. If the former, then propositions exist and as a result of them existing the meaning of those propositions has force in the world. In that case, we are saying that reality is fundamentally derived from a mental phenomenon since propositions require interpretation--hence a Mind: or God.

It is the properties of stuff, and subsequent behavior, that equations attempt to decribe, but none of the properties arise from pre-existing equations. The fundamental properties are what they are because they could not be otherwise. Are you suggesting that because these properties exist, they therefore have meaning, and since meaning requires interpretation, there is therfore a God?

1 Reply

@Dexter78,

Dexter78 wrote:

One application of quantum is to try and explain the nature of consciousness, but you are saying that a pre-existing consciousness explains quantum theory.

No, that's what a published article in the "Foundation of Physics" suggests. Quantum theory might be explained by yet a more fundamental theory. However, I think that consciousness is the most fundamental aspect of reality.

Dexter78 wrote:

Indeed he did say this. Any why does omnipotence require a creation in order to be omnipotent? Becuase the early Christian theologian Origen in the 3rd century believed it so? What is conditional unlimited power?

Again, you are trying to attribute irrationality to something simply because we lack a "theory of God." But, this is not a justified position since we lack a lot of theories that science is currently seeking. This by no means makes the world irrational, or makes the scientific quest an irrational quest.

I have no problem with restrictions on omnipotence. I don't think strong omnipotence is biblical, and I don't see any instances of Christians ever believing in a strong version of omnipotence. I prefer a weaker version of omnipotence where God can do whatever is physically possible and still accomplish the divine will.

Dexter78 wrote:

Again, a statement, not an argument. This appears to start with the assumption that God exists, and then looking around forcing what he sees to confirm, this conclusion. Unless he first started with the observation of, "Hmm, existence seems to be a demonstration of greatness with least action in the world..." and came to the conclusion of a God.

I'm not making arguments but showing a small sampling of how an unknown (i.e., a God theory of how God could have motivation to create a world) can be resolved with numerous possible answers that have been proposed.

Dexter78 wrote:

It's true, physicists have not successfully derived the equation that would contain quantum physics and relativity. However, they have a wealth of previous bodies of work and experiements they can reference, they do not simply believe something because it can potentially explain something. They test it, and retest, experiement, and modify the theories when necessary. If someone had proposed M-theory, and physicists said, "Yep, that explains it" and made no attempt to verify, then yes, I would agree this would be irrational, but this is not what occurs.

That's not my point, though. A proposed phenomena (e.g., God, the unification of the laws of physics) that includes an unknown (e.g., intention to create, some unification theory that does not yet exist) does not mean the proposed phenomena is irrational. If a proposed phenomena included an unknown that has no possible solution (e.g., logical contradiction), then the belief in that proposed phenomena is therefore irrational. However, in this case you are just throwing out unknowns and that is not sufficient to show that God is an irrational belief. You must show that there is something inherent in every possible proposed solution that is logically impossible. That's a very tough task, and I don't think you have even begun to do so.

Dexter78 wrote:

It is the properties of stuff, and subsequent behavior, that equations attempt to decribe, but none of the properties arise from pre-existing equations.

Well, that's your opinion. Many other physicists now and throughout recent past have an entirely different view (e.g., Einstein, Heisenberg, Feynman, Hawking, Weinberg, etc., etc.).

Dexter78 wrote:

The fundamental properties are what they are because they could not be otherwise. Are you suggesting that because these properties exist, they therefore have meaning, and since meaning requires interpretation, there is therfore a God?

I'm suggesting that the propositions of math exist and as a result they in turn dictate the propositions (laws) of physics. The only way a proposition can exist is if it is different than jiberish, and therefore a proposition requires interpretation and comprehension. This requires God to exist.

The argument against your nominalism of physical laws is that it does not explain the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics." For example, Murray Gell-Mann's Eightfold Way is a mathematical structure that he proposed by doing the math. If it were just a useful fiction as you suggest, then he'd be exceedingly lucky to happen to stumble upon a unique process of nature. In my opinion, if your view were correct then physics would be much more similar to psychology than mathematics. We'd have theories of nature, but we would have very little success with prediction since our theories are just very rough approximations that other theories would contend to explain just as well as another theory. We don't see this kind of situation in physics. Rather, the world, or at least a great deal part of it, is neatly described by a few equations.

0 Replies

@andykelly,

Havey1

nice, very nice, go baby go

*********
Mankind must be under the Truth, The Way, and The Life, for mankind cannot make any of these. Only declare or deny they are, or lie about it.
**********

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

This article attempts to explain consciousness mathematically using simplified forms of the wave equations of quantum physics which collapse nicely to a solution when the observer is taken as a constant, therefore eliminating the superposition paradox, Schrodinger's cat, etc. Stating that consciousness existed before because constant observation make the equations nicer is the equivalent of introducing a fudge factor, like Einstein's cosmological constant. There is much that can be done in mathematics that does not occur in reality, it must also be verified experimentally. Even if one grants every claim the paper makes, the consciousness it proposes is more in line with new age religion as opposed to an omnipotent God. It is an awareness of potentialities, but no will, a response, a reaction to what else exists. It is not a single governing entity, but an amalgamation of all consciousnes, which itself changes as potentialities are actualized.

Quote:

I don't think strong omnipotence is biblical, and I don't see any instances of Christians ever believing in a strong version of omnipotence.

Oh? I've seen it many times, the many Christians who interprete the Bible literally accept a God who violates physical law at will. The great flood, turning someone into a pilar of salt, stoping the sun in the sky, all violate physical laws, as would accepting that the earth is 6000 years old. Back when I went to youth group meetings I was often told that there is nothing God cannot do, not that there is nothing within physical law that God cannot do. There are even posts in this forum that allude to an unconditional omnipotence. Miralces often invoke the impossible happening, which is a violation of physical law.

Quote:

Again, you are trying to attribute irrationality to something simply because we lack a "theory of God

I was making no appeal to irrationality whatsoever, I was simply asking why does an omnipotent being require a creation to be omnipotent.

Quote:

Well, that's your opinion. Many other physicists now and throughout recent past have an entirely different view (e.g., Einstein, Heisenberg, Feynman, Hawking, Weinberg, etc., etc.).

Which view? They had very different views from each other, they did not share the same single view.

I never stated that I think math is a useful fiction, I think it is exact, and can describe nature exactly. I'm saying that the fundamental properties of the universe, and what the universe came from are fixed, and this is why mathematics can explain all that it explains. You are assuming that these properties, or governing equation, either way, must be giberish by default, that their current state implies proposition. This is merely an interpretation, and far from verification of a God or Gods.

2 Replies

@Dexter78,

Hi All!

A public service annoucement http://www.debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/ Very Happy

"A myth is said to be the other man's religion,religion is said to be a misinterpretation of a myth." It's alright Stanley!:rolleyes:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,763,n,n :p

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. Wink

http://www.shipoffools.com/curses/ excellent curses from the bible,you'll be able to curse like a holyman. Very Happy

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/mencken.htm :eek:

http://www.talkorigins.org/ :eek:

Who says there is no humor in the bible-------its a bloody treasure house-------those tears are from laughter!! Very Happy

Discuss the nature of myth/other man's religion,at the late Joseph Campbell's foundation forum

http://www.jcf.org/forum/ Smile

0 Replies

Agnostiscism and atheism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know