ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE ( In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil) ~ Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology).
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their vital structures, organs, and reproductive system hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe works doesn't mean there's no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the apparatus exists to direct the formation of more cells, but how did that first cell originate? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not arrange or produce. If a variation survives then that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION COULDN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
@ThatAtheistGuy20 judicial (stoning of adulterers etc). this was the law of the old covenant which was replaced with the new covenant however Jesus reaffirmed the moral part. and with morals it's as I said before. without a devine source there is no absolute truth. it is completely subjective to the individual or in some cases the group. this would justify what hitler and the Nazis did. and some people don't care how they would feel if someone did what they are doing to them.
@ThatAtheistGuy20 I do. that verse has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. before jesus came the only way to get to heaven was to obey the law given to Moses and then to the people. but no human was capable of completely obeying the law. so Jesus came and he fulfilled or satisfied the law with his death so that all people could go to heaven. and back to the original argument, the law was divided into 3 groups. moral (10 commandments, etc), ceremonial (clean and unclean things etc), and j
@ThatAtheistGuy20 first ya it did say that in the bible but that was meant for the Jews and if you'd actually study the bible you'd also realize that that was part of the old covenant which was replaced by the new covenant when Jesus came so yes Christians do frown upon gays but I wouldn't say we "hate" them, or at least the serious ones
@ThatAthiestGuy20 we need a divine source because otherwise there is no moral standard. everyones morals would be subjective and they would decide for themselves. also what you said about not killing or raping because you don't want to be killed or raped is directly from the bible. Matthew 22:39 .... 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
@cyclone493 Yes its in the bible, what difference does it make? it says the same thing in thousands of other books too.
Morals are subjective, take me for instance. I believe it is wrong to mistreat a person based on sexuality as do most people now, but only a few years ago people felt differently. Infact among the religious there is alot of hate towards gay people, they are slaughtered by religious people because it says so in your book.
first of your animal argument is flawed because most predators like wolves will target the weak, young, and old when they hunt. secondly taking care of a baby isn't really morality. you haven't explained where you get your morals for behavior to others such as how you treat them, about adultery ,and lying. and we aren't nice out of fear of a vengeful god. our god is forgiving and being a christian I'm nice because I've come to follow the rule to "treat others as yourself" and I and other Christ
@cyclone493 We get our morals from an understanding of how we would like to be treated. Being an intelligent creature we are able to communicate our feeling to others and this allows us an even greater ability to fine tune our morals. I know i should not kill because i would not like to be killed, I do not rape because i know i would not want to be. Its as simple as that. Why must our morals be from a divine source?
God is the best explination for why we have morals. I hate when they try to argue "Morals" are connected to god, just like santa shapes the morals of young children, (your bad - no presents). I Don't believe in god, so why do i have morals? Because i believe when i die, i'm done, no memories, no eternal life, just nothingness, and there is no way in hell (Haha) that I want to die early, miserable, and or alone. There are consequences for having no morals just not an eternal one. dontwaistlife!
i never really had any major influence from the bible as a child. i believed in santa for quite a while after i had denounced religion. i never read any of the bible until i was in my late teens and by then i was old enough to not take any of it literally (which i think is one of the flaws of religious people) and yet my morals built themself up fine. i always understood that it's not nice to hurt people and that killing is wrong because it's obvious that i wouldn't want these things done to me.
A person's virtues and vices are a condition of his/her circumstances. So,
if we take a wolf child, brought up by wolves, the child has a moral code but lacks the complexity civilisation has developed. Each religion or philosophy has its embellishments. But because God has little or no scientific knowledge of the Universe he created, the answers to all questions can & will fall upon human science to discover. Eg: Who has the patent rights on morality. Stupid questions included
which is why giraffes dont all kick each other to death.
religious dolts dont have morals, they have rules to abide by, instructions for life. Rules developed by ancient and barbaric humans. they are therefore ancient and barbaric in their views.
and Biblical Morality is pretty horrible. Judges ("shophatim") is a horror show of human sacrifice, genocide, ritual murder, and other abominations. Not to mention the famous "10 Ways to Get A Wife" (do a Google look up) -- most of which are illegal in the State of Michigan (buying a prostitute's contract, rape as courtship, purchase, etc.). People who believe in Biblical Morality have not read the Bible.
A more succinct argument: If I followed every moral standard in the bible, included in those standards would be the persecution/murder of gays, the belief that men are superior to women, and that slavery is okay. No, Christians, it's not up for interpretation. It's your book, so either live by it, or abandon the faith. You don't get to pick and choose what is right and wrong about a holy scripture. If it is holy, it is therefore above your discretion. That is all.
Yours is an interesting point re the instances of altruistic behavior among other species. Now, I am ready to let the chips fall where they may in researching humanity's own paper trail leading to its own discrete improvements in altruism. Since there have been discrete improvements, step by step, in the consciously growing inclusiveness of the "social compact", eon by eon, is it possible to study the specific written "proddings" in each eon and determine some common factor behind all of them?
Hmm quite possible, i cannot say for certain as this is not my field of experties.
I think holy texts etc are a great way of seeing how morality has grown even in recent years. I mean you would even dream of going to see a stoning right.
Institutional _use_ of holy texts is often pernicious: separatism, exceptionalism, dogmatism ... But recent secular scholarship shows that the earlier the texts -- delving into various strata in the canons of Buddhism, Christianity, whatever -- the more inclusive/egalitarian the tone. Often, the canon is "invaded" by bogus later material also viewed as "holy" but ultimately to the detriment of the first inclusive message. That may or may not say much about atheism vs. theism in general.
Finally a REAL, outlook on morals, goodwork
axejoker1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE ( In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil) ~ Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their vital structures, organs, and reproductive system hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe works doesn't mean there's no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the apparatus exists to direct the formation of more cells, but how did that first cell originate? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not arrange or produce. If a variation survives then that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION COULDN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Mogley52 5 months ago
@ThatAtheistGuy20 judicial (stoning of adulterers etc). this was the law of the old covenant which was replaced with the new covenant however Jesus reaffirmed the moral part. and with morals it's as I said before. without a devine source there is no absolute truth. it is completely subjective to the individual or in some cases the group. this would justify what hitler and the Nazis did. and some people don't care how they would feel if someone did what they are doing to them.
cyclone493 6 months ago
@ThatAtheistGuy20 I do. that verse has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. before jesus came the only way to get to heaven was to obey the law given to Moses and then to the people. but no human was capable of completely obeying the law. so Jesus came and he fulfilled or satisfied the law with his death so that all people could go to heaven. and back to the original argument, the law was divided into 3 groups. moral (10 commandments, etc), ceremonial (clean and unclean things etc), and j
cyclone493 6 months ago
@ThatAtheistGuy20 first ya it did say that in the bible but that was meant for the Jews and if you'd actually study the bible you'd also realize that that was part of the old covenant which was replaced by the new covenant when Jesus came so yes Christians do frown upon gays but I wouldn't say we "hate" them, or at least the serious ones
cyclone493 6 months ago
@cyclone493 I think you should study your own bible. maybe then you will become and atheist.
You say the old covenant was changed by jesus, Rofl read this.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Jesus says he has not come to destroy the old law??????? so please tell me again about your morals........
ThatAtheistGuy20 6 months ago
@ThatAthiestGuy20 we need a divine source because otherwise there is no moral standard. everyones morals would be subjective and they would decide for themselves. also what you said about not killing or raping because you don't want to be killed or raped is directly from the bible. Matthew 22:39 .... 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
cyclone493 6 months ago
@cyclone493 Yes its in the bible, what difference does it make? it says the same thing in thousands of other books too.
Morals are subjective, take me for instance. I believe it is wrong to mistreat a person based on sexuality as do most people now, but only a few years ago people felt differently. Infact among the religious there is alot of hate towards gay people, they are slaughtered by religious people because it says so in your book.
Oh how cute religion is.........
ThatAtheistGuy20 6 months ago
first of your animal argument is flawed because most predators like wolves will target the weak, young, and old when they hunt. secondly taking care of a baby isn't really morality. you haven't explained where you get your morals for behavior to others such as how you treat them, about adultery ,and lying. and we aren't nice out of fear of a vengeful god. our god is forgiving and being a christian I'm nice because I've come to follow the rule to "treat others as yourself" and I and other Christ
cyclone493 6 months ago
@cyclone493 We get our morals from an understanding of how we would like to be treated. Being an intelligent creature we are able to communicate our feeling to others and this allows us an even greater ability to fine tune our morals. I know i should not kill because i would not like to be killed, I do not rape because i know i would not want to be. Its as simple as that. Why must our morals be from a divine source?
ThatAtheistGuy20 6 months ago
God is the best explination for why we have morals. I hate when they try to argue "Morals" are connected to god, just like santa shapes the morals of young children, (your bad - no presents). I Don't believe in god, so why do i have morals? Because i believe when i die, i'm done, no memories, no eternal life, just nothingness, and there is no way in hell (Haha) that I want to die early, miserable, and or alone. There are consequences for having no morals just not an eternal one. dontwaistlife!
enigma12889 6 months ago
Is there a naked woman on his right side?
PythonandFelidae 7 months ago
I think he's reading from a teleprompter...
FlaviusMaximus1967 7 months ago
@FlaviusMaximus1967 yeah kinda was, has notes in front of me
ThatAtheistGuy20 7 months ago
if god isn't real then what hitler did is only a matter of opinion
3BALL4 9 months ago
@3BALL4 Morality is a matter of opinion anyway, this is why we have votes etc, because there is a line where good and bad become subjective.
also your statement is unfair. you have claimed that without god then whah hitler did was a matter of opinion.
I could equally say without the flying spaghetti monster what hitler did was a matter of opinion.
Sorry
ThatAtheistGuy20 9 months ago
Wrong 99% of the world species are extinct cause they were atheists.(jk)
scrap222666 1 year ago
Sounds like you're out in the wind. Other than that, great content.
Filiforme 1 year ago
i never really had any major influence from the bible as a child. i believed in santa for quite a while after i had denounced religion. i never read any of the bible until i was in my late teens and by then i was old enough to not take any of it literally (which i think is one of the flaws of religious people) and yet my morals built themself up fine. i always understood that it's not nice to hurt people and that killing is wrong because it's obvious that i wouldn't want these things done to me.
ScotchMonkey08 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution supplies all that is needed for the development
of codes of conduct that preserve and facilitate
survival and co-operation,
which is precisely what these "laws" do.
Such sensitivities in no way support any particular god.
In fact, as Christians believe that their most heinous acts
will be magically vanished and forgotten via human sacrifice,
they actually have very little incentive to act in a moral manner.
Hmmm..
That just might explain a hell of a lot.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
A person's virtues and vices are a condition of his/her circumstances. So,
if we take a wolf child, brought up by wolves, the child has a moral code but lacks the complexity civilisation has developed. Each religion or philosophy has its embellishments. But because God has little or no scientific knowledge of the Universe he created, the answers to all questions can & will fall upon human science to discover. Eg: Who has the patent rights on morality. Stupid questions included
listen2meokidoki 2 years ago
which is why giraffes dont all kick each other to death.
religious dolts dont have morals, they have rules to abide by, instructions for life. Rules developed by ancient and barbaric humans. they are therefore ancient and barbaric in their views.
.
fantasy0coach 2 years ago 5
and Biblical Morality is pretty horrible. Judges ("shophatim") is a horror show of human sacrifice, genocide, ritual murder, and other abominations. Not to mention the famous "10 Ways to Get A Wife" (do a Google look up) -- most of which are illegal in the State of Michigan (buying a prostitute's contract, rape as courtship, purchase, etc.). People who believe in Biblical Morality have not read the Bible.
StarTrekLivz 2 years ago 4
Spot on.
wavymavy 2 years ago
PLEASE - Re-do the sound & re-post
meow1964 2 years ago
Some socks need put over the mic - and the speech not so close.
jazzx251 2 years ago
A more succinct argument: If I followed every moral standard in the bible, included in those standards would be the persecution/murder of gays, the belief that men are superior to women, and that slavery is okay. No, Christians, it's not up for interpretation. It's your book, so either live by it, or abandon the faith. You don't get to pick and choose what is right and wrong about a holy scripture. If it is holy, it is therefore above your discretion. That is all.
Good video. :]
OneDarkThrenody 2 years ago 10
Thanks nice argument.
ThatAtheistGuy20 2 years ago
I do not agree, but I observe your argument as valid
CABductionFilms 2 years ago
Then we will agree to disagree.
ThatAtheistGuy20 2 years ago
@ThatAtheistGuy20 if some one says your argument is valid, doesnt that just mean they agree?
skwerl23 1 year ago
@CABductionFilms
if you observe the arguement as valid then which part do you disagree with?
ScotchMonkey08 1 year ago
Yours is an interesting point re the instances of altruistic behavior among other species. Now, I am ready to let the chips fall where they may in researching humanity's own paper trail leading to its own discrete improvements in altruism. Since there have been discrete improvements, step by step, in the consciously growing inclusiveness of the "social compact", eon by eon, is it possible to study the specific written "proddings" in each eon and determine some common factor behind all of them?
grig035 2 years ago
Hmm quite possible, i cannot say for certain as this is not my field of experties.
I think holy texts etc are a great way of seeing how morality has grown even in recent years. I mean you would even dream of going to see a stoning right.
ThatAtheistGuy20 2 years ago
Institutional _use_ of holy texts is often pernicious: separatism, exceptionalism, dogmatism ... But recent secular scholarship shows that the earlier the texts -- delving into various strata in the canons of Buddhism, Christianity, whatever -- the more inclusive/egalitarian the tone. Often, the canon is "invaded" by bogus later material also viewed as "holy" but ultimately to the detriment of the first inclusive message. That may or may not say much about atheism vs. theism in general.
grig035 2 years ago
Amen :) Great explanation..
afroschlan 2 years ago
thanks alot
ThatAtheistGuy20 2 years ago