Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  A Question to the Athiests
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: A Question to the Athiests  (Read 40373 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Diogenes The Cynic

  • Cynic. Pessimist. Skeptic. Jerk.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3727
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #45 on: January 01, 2010, 12:45:30 AM »




I've been wondering the same thing. It does seem like the whole thing was phrased just to get a reaction from atheists. Ethics and morals aren't something foreign to atheists. The concept of good & evil - were around long before any bible.

I have conversations with my children all the time about making the right choices in how one treats others without ever quoting religious texts. In fact, with my one child who is showing a leaning toward Faith, I tell her - of course it's my daughter - the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" being added to the old testament isn't what makes stealing wrong; it was added to the o.t. because it was wrong. Some people need to be reminded, because they weren't able to figure that out for themselves.

How should I have asked?

I didn't say they were. I was wondering why a person wouldn't say "screw this" and just do what he/she wants. Y'all are just sensitive.
Logged
I am looking for an honest man. -Diogenes The Cynic

Dude, I thought you were a spambot for like a week. You posted like a spambot. You failed the Turing test.

                                -Dennis Goddard

Diogenes The Cynic

  • Cynic. Pessimist. Skeptic. Jerk.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3727
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #46 on: January 01, 2010, 01:45:24 AM »

Atheism only means anything in the face of theism.
You were curious about where atheists stand on ethics.
You said you got your ethics from what you think god expects from you.
I disagreed and provided examples of what I believe is inconsistencies in this viewpoint.
I'll keep the rest of this quick.
Quote
Where does it say its ok to beat slaves?

(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

    When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. 

Since you ripped my head off every time I made a mistake quoting the Torah, do I get to do the same since you apparently don't know the own book you get guidance from?

Quote
The Gemara says that the case of the rebellious son will never happen. Its supposed to teach good parenting traits, which are found in the Gemara.

huh? No jewish parents have rebllious children? Maybe no true jewish parents?


Maybe you mean children will never be killed because of something in the Gemara but I'm not sure.


Quote
The unclean thing is not used for pork. Yet another thing you fail to understand.

What?
Quote
Leviticus 11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you.

Please tell me how I've got this one wrong.

Quote
We don't pick and choose, we just do the things that are applicable today.


There hasn't been a Sanhedrin for the majority of the last 2000 years. Doesn't that make every execution during that time unjust?

If you're really think you should do what god expects you to, why do you take such a laid back attitude? There are literally millions of people walking around in the USA who deserve to be put to death according with the rulings of the Torah.

Let alone all the faggers and non virgin brides walking around in Tel Aviv. If what you believe is representative of what most Jews perceive as Judaism, isn't it a massive failing for pretty much no place on earth to be run by the ethics god set out for you?

If everything god expects is ethical, then doesn't it follow that not following that is unethical? Doesn't that mean your being unethical by not trying to implement gods ethics?

If god didn't want homosexuals to be executed, why did he tell people he did? Why didn't he say "oh by the way, in 2000 years this won't be applicable, but don't worry about it, I'll have changed my mind by then"?

IF its not applicable, shouldn't you be working to make it applicable?. God didn't say men who sleep with men should be put to death, unless in a couple thousand years and you don't really have a jewish law system, then forget about it, I didn't really mean they deserve to be executed.

You can't throw the whole "ignorance" thing in my face. Yeah I don't know the Torah aswell as you, but I'm not making any outlandish claims that I don't have sources for. A couple of times I've mixed up passages from the Torah and New testament (seriously its not that hard to do, how many passages do you know of the Koran or Bhagavad Gita), but I've never been willfully ignorant on any passage.

Also, point of clarification, why exactly is it that god wouldn't want you to just get a gun and start mowing down people he says should be put to death? Is there a passage against vigilantism? What if you got the go ahead from a rabbi?

seems like a pretty fragile judicial institution if it requires a specific temple and a 71 member council to make any execution happen, especially considering the Jews didn't have a homeland for a long time, what where people meant to do before that if they wanted to execute murderers and such?


To your first point. Well, thats fair.

It seems to be telling us what the punishment is for beating a slave to death. Not to be misconstrued with encouraging the same. Its like if I were to point out that the court considers accidentally running someone over to be a misdemeanor (this is hypothetical). If I were to take this law out of context, it wouls seem to encourage running people over.

You get a free pass.

The "ben sorer u moreh" is the case you mentioned about a rebellious son. It can not and will not ever happen. It says so in the Gemara. You called that one.

http://www.dafyomi.co.il/nidah/backgrnd/ni-in-52.htm

Pigs. So, Leviticus translates to Vayikra. It says the pig is Tamei. I guess that would roughly translate to unclean, but not in the physical sense. It connotes spiritually unclean.

Stoning women who aren't virgins? Ok, yet another thing I've never heard of.

Goyim (thats the rest of you) are expected to make their own courts with their own laws. You guys don't have to follow Jewish law, because it doesn't apply to you, which is why a nonjew who commits a crime in a nonjewish area is punished under their jurisdiction.

My beliefs of Judaism are the correct ones, but they're also the minority in the overall Jewish world, because most people are unobservant. So, people who are Jewish and not observant are a failing on our part.

In terms of applicability, there isn't much we can or are expected to do about this. Israel doesn't run under religious law, and we couldn't implement capital punishment without rabbinical courts.

You can't just get the "go ahead" from a Rabbi to blast people away because thats wrong. The Torah allows justice only in the framework of a court system, and outside of the court system is whats called the "Bet Din Shel Maila" The heavenly court that punishes people via inconveniences they experience in their lives.
Logged
I am looking for an honest man. -Diogenes The Cynic

Dude, I thought you were a spambot for like a week. You posted like a spambot. You failed the Turing test.

                                -Dennis Goddard

gibson042

  • Non-Aggression Principal since 2006
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
    • gibson.mp
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #47 on: January 01, 2010, 02:12:58 AM »

I've been thinking about this question a little bit tonight, and concluded that I personally seem to be hard-wired for ethics.  For example: I don't think I could do state work, even if the job would still exist in a free market or perhaps even if it had significant monkey-wrenching potential, because I would be living in contradiction with my principles.

Generalizing a bit, I figure at least 75% of people (likely 95% or more) are similar.  Penn Jillette has claimed he'd feel comfortable tossing keys to a random stranger with an explanation like "my wife's in labor, please park the Ferrari outside and I'll catch up with you later"... but would never ask for volunteers on the same task.  I agree on both counts.

People are generally good—or at least well-intentioned—and many won't even do wrong when there's an undeniable personal benefit at stake (such as the opportunity to empty a lost wallet of its cash before returning it).  Subjective rationalizations surely abound, but to me it feels deeper than that... an almost instinctual respect for other people.  This kind of ethical behavior is probably merely an expression of the evolutionary advantage of cooperation within one's (subjective) group, but I feel comfortable in considering it to be stepping towards a better society through presumptive reciprocation.

In other words: I'm ethical emotionally because I feel compelled to abide by the golden rule, and intellectually because I know that unethical behavior fosters future negative consequences, both directly (through a bad reputation) and indirectly (through the encouragement of others in society to behave unethically).

Edit: And I trust those negative consequences enough to rely on them entirely for the minority of people that don't feel a strong enough emotional compulsion to do the right thing.  Not that I have a choice anyway, as my principles preclude forcing anything upon them.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 02:17:35 AM by gibson042 »
Logged
"WOOOOOP  WOOOOOP  WOOOOP EH EH EH EH HHHEEEOOOO HEEEOOOOO" Rillion

fatcat

  • Guest
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #48 on: January 01, 2010, 09:50:06 AM »

To your first point. Well, thats fair.

thank you

Quote
It seems to be telling us what the punishment is for beating a slave to death. Not to be misconstrued with encouraging the same. Its like if I were to point out that the court considers accidentally running someone over to be a misdemeanor (this is hypothetical). If I were to take this law out of context, it wouls seem to encourage running people over.

You get a free pass.

well its not entirely the same. If its saying you well get punished for beating a slave to death, doesn't that automatically imply that its okay to beat a slave as long as you don't kill them? Surely if it wasn't permissible to beat slaves, they'd just say, if you beat slave you get punished.

"If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.  "

The whole "since its your property" seems to be justifying beatings as long as they aren't brutally savage.

Quote
The "ben sorer u moreh" is the case you mentioned about a rebellious son. It can not and will not ever happen. It says so in the Gemara. You called that one.

http://www.dafyomi.co.il/nidah/backgrnd/ni-in-52.htm

I'll give you that the Ben sorer moreh thing appears to be so complex an event that it rarely, if ever happens, however we're talking about separate passages. The ben sorer moreh is in (Devarim 21:18-21).

I was talking about "Leviticus 20:9 ESV

For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him."
Quote
Stoning women who aren't virgins? Ok, yet another thing I've never heard of.

   "But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house.  Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.  (Deuteronomy  22:20-21 NAB)"


Quote
Goyim (thats the rest of you) are expected to make their own courts with their own laws. You guys don't have to follow Jewish law, because it doesn't apply to you, which is why a nonjew who commits a crime in a nonjewish area is punished under their jurisdiction.

I've heard this said by you other jewish people before. If ethics come from god, don't the same ethics apply to people whether they believe in god or not? Now I don't know enough about Judaism, so you're probably right about Jews not needing to enforce jewish law on non jews. If so, whats gods plan/ethics system for Non jews? Just wait till people die then judge them? If its okay for non jews to have non jewish courts, presumably they aren't going to be enforcing jewish (i.e. gods) ethics.


Quote
In terms of applicability, there isn't much we can or are expected to do about this. Israel doesn't run under religious law, and we couldn't implement capital punishment without rabbinical courts.

You can't just get the "go ahead" from a Rabbi to blast people away because thats wrong. The Torah allows justice only in the framework of a court system, and outside of the court system is whats called the "Bet Din Shel Maila" The heavenly court that punishes people via inconveniences they experience in their lives.

fair enough, thanks for clearing it up.

I still think its wrong to follow the ethics laid out in the Torah just because you think god has said it, I still don't think you've really addressed the fact that, if god thinks something is wrong, there must be a reason, and if so you don't need god to work out that reason, and that if it was possible for something in the Torah to be a lie or a mistranslation, that you should have your own rational.

However I do withdraw my accusation that you pick and choose
, it seems you are one of the honest true believers (which is the way to be if you genuinely believe there is a god and that the Torah is the word of god), although I'm still unsure how important the Gemara is (i'm guessing not all jews agree its important), and that it might be a subconscious cop out.

but I guess you not wanting to impose it on the whole world is good enough, and thats a bigger argument for another time.
Logged

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #49 on: January 01, 2010, 12:28:38 PM »

I was wondering why a person wouldn't say "screw this" and just do what he/she wants.

And I'm wondering why belief in God should make any difference in terms of one's answer to that question.  After all, you're  doing what you want, which is what you think God wants.  If you didn't want to do what God wants, presumably you wouldn't. 

Logged

SnowDog

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
  • Principled Minarchy is the Answer
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #50 on: January 01, 2010, 12:36:46 PM »

"My question is, why have ethics at all? This ties into point (3) but I don't understand why an atheist would have a conscience about anything. Given a simple cost/benefit analysis, you stand to gain more from not having personal scruples because limiting yourself comes at a disadvantage, while not having those limits produces benefit."

What are 'ethics'? In my opinion, an ethical framework is a set of principles why which you try to live your life. The reason we need to live within such a framework is to maximize our relationship with others. Treat others well; tell them you respect them, and then you'll be able to work with others to mutual benefit.

Would you go into business with someone you don't trust? Many businesses are successfully run through a partnership. Throw away the respect and trust, and you become isolated from society which limits your options,  and significantly impacts your cost/benefit analysis.

Logged

mikehz

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8033
    • View Profile
    • Day by Day
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #51 on: January 01, 2010, 05:40:24 PM »

In any case, it's a moot point. The vast majority of Christians are atheistic when it comes to the other 999 gods out there. Yet, they don't consider their ethics diminished by NOT believing in all these other deities.
Logged
"Force always attracts men of low morality." Albert Einstein

BobRobertson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #52 on: January 01, 2010, 06:52:46 PM »

In my opinion, an ethical framework is a set of principles why which you try to live your life. The reason we need to live within such a framework is to maximize our relationship with others. Treat others well; tell them you respect them, and then you'll be able to work with others to mutual benefit.

When my kids ask me about religion, I point out that the basic rules of action in a community that are espoused in all the religions that I know of are very good rules.

The lessons have stood the test of time because they're good lessons. Leave the "gods" out of it.

Looking at the 10 Commandments that don't deal with "gods", we have "do not murder", "do not envy your neighbor's stuff, or spouse", "no trespassing", things like that.

I also notice that even though the idea of secular rulership is often rationalized, so is the idea that even a ruler can be a bad person and unworthy of rulership.

What's funny is the reaction in an atheist forum I received when I mentioned that I don't believe in the Cult of the Omnipotent State religion either. "Just because you're an anarchist you think you're a better atheist than I am???" etc.
Logged
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776 to acquire self-government and happiness to their country is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, April 26th 1820

BobRobertson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #53 on: January 01, 2010, 06:55:50 PM »

Do ethics matter?

Yes.

Quote
If so, why?

Because unethical people suck.

Complete pragmatists, those for whom there are no underlying principles only the expediency of the moment, cannot be trusted. At all.
Logged
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776 to acquire self-government and happiness to their country is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, April 26th 1820

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #54 on: January 01, 2010, 06:56:20 PM »

In my opinion, an ethical framework is a set of principles why which you try to live your life. The reason we need to live within such a framework is to maximize our relationship with others. Treat others well; tell them you respect them, and then you'll be able to work with others to mutual benefit.

When my kids ask me about religion, I point out that the basic rules of action in a community that are espoused in all the religions that I know of are very good rules.

The lessons have stood the test of time because they're good lessons. Leave the "gods" out of it.

Looking at the 10 Commandments that don't deal with "gods", we have "do not murder", "do not envy your neighbor's stuff, or spouse", "no trespassing", things like that.

I also notice that even though the idea of secular rulership is often rationalized, so is the idea that even a ruler can be a bad person and unworthy of rulership.

What's funny is the reaction in an atheist forum I received when I mentioned that I don't believe in the Cult of the Omnipotent State religion either. "Just because you're an anarchist you think you're a better atheist than I am???" etc.

I like these comments.  In short, we all get the same conscience from our creator (except sociopaths, who seem just as likely to be theist as atheist.)  Some just don't recognize the source.
Logged

fatcat

  • Guest
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #55 on: January 04, 2010, 07:03:12 PM »

In my opinion, an ethical framework is a set of principles why which you try to live your life. The reason we need to live within such a framework is to maximize our relationship with others. Treat others well; tell them you respect them, and then you'll be able to work with others to mutual benefit.

When my kids ask me about religion, I point out that the basic rules of action in a community that are espoused in all the religions that I know of are very good rules.

The lessons have stood the test of time because they're good lessons. Leave the "gods" out of it.

Looking at the 10 Commandments that don't deal with "gods", we have "do not murder", "do not envy your neighbor's stuff, or spouse", "no trespassing", things like that.

I also notice that even though the idea of secular rulership is often rationalized, so is the idea that even a ruler can be a bad person and unworthy of rulership.

What's funny is the reaction in an atheist forum I received when I mentioned that I don't believe in the Cult of the Omnipotent State religion either. "Just because you're an anarchist you think you're a better atheist than I am???" etc.

I like these comments.  In short, we all get the same conscience from our creator (except sociopaths, who seem just as likely to be theist as atheist.)  Some just don't recognize the source.

Is this a joke? (if so apologies for the following rant)

If you're talking about the judeo-christo-muslim abrahamic god, I definately DO NOT get my conscience from him.

I don't think its okay to murder gay people.
I don't think its okay to own slaves and beat them.
I don't think its okay to stone women for not being virgins on their wedding night.
I don't think its okay to kill children who curse their parents.
I don't think its okay to mercilessly kill entire towns full of people, including children who couldn't possibly be responsible for anything other towns people.
I don't think its okay to take sex slaves of the remaining virgins from said towns.
I don't think its okay to torture thieves, and people who disbelieve in god (Even if there was a god), for an infinite amount of time.


The reason why lots of religionists like to claim ethics cam from god is because its fairly universal, and its easy to give credit for universal things because often people don't have a good idea of where they come from.

Like the people who when pressed for evidence of god say, look all around you, trees, birds, clouds, where'd they come from? god did it. Cause they're the same dumbass hicks who have no idea where those things come from so like to abdicate any reasoning to blind faith.

Even if there was a god/creator, we know he didn't give us morals. Humans evolved morals just like they evolved language and use of tools. If anything religion was a major setback to the evolution of ethics because it taught people to be blindly obedient to higher powers rather than to figure out whats right and wrong for themselves.

Ethics have been around for millions of years in one form or another. . And the absolute best case you can make for a god, is that he started the big bang and hasn't done anything since, in which case he can't have inspired ethics.

If you pick a far enough common ancestor, you can find one where they have no system of justice and no concept of ethics.  There's a clear path between less complex life, and more complex life with more complex communication and social abilities. Ethics are a part of that evolution.

There are lots of tribal animals out there, they have very rudimentary system of ethics by which other animals (family) are protected (to an extent).

Humans evolved to live in larger groups, and to be more co operative (division of labor is as old as humans as far as we can tell), so it makes sense for ethics to have evolved simultaneously to allow this larger group living.

Humans are just higher up on the path, with the added tweat that we simultaneous developed cognition and self awareness in order that we may better survive, make tools, solve problems etc. With that cognition we can also reason ethics, and not just do them on instinctive drive like other animals do.

A testament to the evolution of ethics is the fact that there are now places where most people don't think its okay to murder homosexual people, non believers or stone disobedient children anymore.

God has never told people that its wrong to murder someone just because they sleep with someone of the same sex (an act that harms no one), but yet we figured it out, even though for thousands of years most of the christian and muslim world believed the creator of the universe wanted gay people to be put to death.

Thats a hell of a bias to overcome, but we did it, because by and large we're fucking brilliant.

Religious ethics are bad precisely because they don't encourage people to reason and evolve ethics, but to stick to some handed on high set of rulings from a higher authority (sound like any bad ideas you know?).

The 10 Commandments are a great example. an incredibly dumb set of rules, the first 5 seeming to be from a petty and self obsessed asshole who only cares about worship from beings ostensibly infinitely less interesting and wise( itsalmost as if it was a fictional creation designed to inspire blind loyalty)

Quote
1.I am the Lord your God    
2.You shall have no other gods before me
3.You shall not make for yourself an idol    
4.You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God    
5.Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

Shit, those are all definitely more important than murdering people.

The only 3 that are actually substantive ethics, are don't kill, don't steal, don't bear false witness. The others are only mildly good advice (don't be jealous and don't fuck someone elses wife).

wheres?

Quote
Thou Shalt not make people into slaves.
Thou shalt not initiate force.
Thou shalt not murder peaceful same sex couples.
Thou shalt not use force to censor others speech.
Thou would also be doing yourself a favor if you thought for yourself

Assuming this is the word of the "creator", and we all got our ethics from the same "creator", seems like he missed a trick by including mostly self absorbed bullshit about worshipping himself, and forgetting to mention that slavery is bad, aswell as some other pretty important ethics that are now common place.

huh, its almost as if the judeo-christian god was a fictional creation from backwards ass middle easterners who had mostly the same dumbass social-cultural views as most other people in that area at that time.

The 'source' of most peoples ethics is from the culture we're brought up in, and what we figure out from then on.

If you're going to give god credit for ethics, you might aswell give him credit for maths (he made the universe on which its based), music (he made the physics to make it possible), and pretty much everything else humans have been responsible for.

 And then you can be a fucking subservient asshole who has no appreciation for the brilliance of human kind and wants to differ it all away to some higher power.

<close vent>
Logged

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #56 on: January 04, 2010, 07:11:31 PM »

You're entitled to be wrong.
Logged

The ghost of a ghost of a ghost

  • Owned by Brasky. Deal with it.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1026
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #57 on: January 04, 2010, 08:59:19 PM »

ALWAYS GOOD FOR A LAUGH!
[youtube=425,350]<object width="660" height="525"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pkRYaMiP4K8&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pkRYaMiP4K8&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="525"></embed></object>[/youtube]
Logged

gibson042

  • Non-Aggression Principal since 2006
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
    • gibson.mp
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #58 on: January 04, 2010, 08:59:48 PM »

[youtube=425,350]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8YX-gqRdK_8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8YX-gqRdK_8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]
...
Logged
"WOOOOOP  WOOOOOP  WOOOOP EH EH EH EH HHHEEEOOOO HEEEOOOOO" Rillion

The ghost of a ghost of a ghost

  • Owned by Brasky. Deal with it.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1026
    • View Profile
Re: A Question to the Athiests
« Reply #59 on: January 04, 2010, 09:03:28 PM »

By the way Diogenes The Cynic, are you unable to be skeptical or cynical about your jerkish-pessimistic religion?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  A Question to the Athiests

// ]]>

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 32 queries.