Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: agnostic or atheist?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: agnostic or atheist? Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/13/2010 10:00:37 AM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

As someone who does not believe that evolution is incongruous with an omnipotent creator I have to say that evolution is a theory. It is a good theory. It has much substantiation, but there are still some unknowns to how life truly started, where the spark of life comes from. There is plenty enough room on this message board to address what he said, because we truly do not know the mechanisms that caused life. If it were as scientists suggest, a change reaction of amino acids, well we have never recreated it in the lab, and that to me is telling, if that was how it happened then science should be able to recreate life from amino acids and they can't


I believe you might productively examine the science of Abiogenesis to seek answers to your spark of life question.

The formation of life from amino acids, or more properly DNA has taken at least 3 Billion years. Your assertion that scientists should be able to replicate the process in the lab is a wee bit of a stretch imo.

Actually, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey did find amino acids were formed when in 1953 they passed a 50,000 volt spark through a mixture of gases they hypothesized could represent the earth's early environment. They were piggybacking on the work of a Russian scientist Alexander Oparin from 1924.

Naturally, as in all scientific work, controversy abounds. Nevertheless the task was done and research continues.

Here is a link if you are interested.


Once the right conditions are in place it does not take three billion years for life to be sparked, it only takes an instant... setting up those conditions is what took millions and millions of years.

I am familiar with the experiments you list, but they did not create life. They did not create an organism that consumes, grows, and reproduces. This is something scientists have been trying to do for a very long time (the origin of Frankenstein). I am not saying that they will never do it, but for human beings to believe there was some larger consciousness that sparked the life in the first place is not a "far out" or "ignorant" idea. I mean, scientists, if they spark life, well they will be the "creators" of it... they will become the gods they wish to disprove... quite ironic


_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/13/2010 10:10:54 AM   
eihwaz


Posts: 367
Joined: 10/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
...there are still some unknowns to how life truly started, where the spark of life comes from.

... evolution isn't about "where the spark of life comes from"...

I am addressing the post of the person before me. The conversation between the two individuals discussing evolution and life insinuated the two were analogous, and you are right, they are not.

Bacteria evolve, this is a proven fact. There is much in the fossil record to support evolution. My point is simply this, all the data supporting evolution does not explain how life began in the first place... so basically we agree.

...

How life began: prebiotic chemistry or abiogenesis, I believe. It involves different mechanisms than evolution -- e.g., no natural selection.

ETA: Reference to abiogenesis.


< Message edited by eihwaz -- 5/13/2010 10:18:32 AM >

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/13/2010 10:13:44 AM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

How life began: prebiotic chemistry, I believe. It involves different mechanisms than evolution -- e.g., no natural selection.


No variation either...lol

The issues of how life began and evolution become conflated when discussing god and science.

No one knows how life began.


_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to eihwaz)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/13/2010 10:23:11 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

As someone who does not believe that evolution is incongruous with an omnipotent creator I have to say that evolution is a theory. It is a good theory. It has much substantiation, but there are still some unknowns to how life truly started, where the spark of life comes from. There is plenty enough room on this message board to address what he said, because we truly do not know the mechanisms that caused life. If it were as scientists suggest, a change reaction of amino acids, well we have never recreated it in the lab, and that to me is telling, if that was how it happened then science should be able to recreate life from amino acids and they can't



So then the obvious conclusion is some supernatural being created life?

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/13/2010 10:30:53 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

As someone who does not believe that evolution is incongruous with an omnipotent creator I have to say that evolution is a theory. It is a good theory. It has much substantiation, but there are still some unknowns to how life truly started, where the spark of life comes from. There is plenty enough room on this message board to address what he said, because we truly do not know the mechanisms that caused life. If it were as scientists suggest, a change reaction of amino acids, well we have never recreated it in the lab, and that to me is telling, if that was how it happened then science should be able to recreate life from amino acids and they can't


I believe you might productively examine the science of Abiogenesis to seek answers to your spark of life question.

The formation of life from amino acids, or more properly DNA has taken at least 3 Billion years. Your assertion that scientists should be able to replicate the process in the lab is a wee bit of a stretch imo.

Actually, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey did find amino acids were formed when in 1953 they passed a 50,000 volt spark through a mixture of gases they hypothesized could represent the earth's early environment. They were piggybacking on the work of a Russian scientist Alexander Oparin from 1924.

Naturally, as in all scientific work, controversy abounds. Nevertheless the task was done and research continues.

Here is a link if you are interested.


Once the right conditions are in place it does not take three billion years for life to be sparked, it only takes an instant... setting up those conditions is what took millions and millions of years.

I am familiar with the experiments you list, but they did not create life. They did not create an organism that consumes, grows, and reproduces. This is something scientists have been trying to do for a very long time (the origin of Frankenstein). I am not saying that they will never do it, but for human beings to believe there was some larger consciousness that sparked the life in the first place is not a "far out" or "ignorant" idea. I mean, scientists, if they spark life, well they will be the "creators" of it... they will become the gods they wish to disprove... quite ironic



My point is you are conflating two different concepts: the spark of life and the evolution of a full blown living organism.

Our oldest micro fossils date back to 3 billion years. At this point that is the best we have for the beginning of the process of evolution. So, from the first encapsulated DNA to the first full blown organism (however you wish to define it) took quite awhile to develop considering that about 2 billion years of earth's existence rumbled along before the first primative cells. I think I have the numbers right. I may not. My point is there was a whole lotta time for the chemicals to mix before the first cells were formed.

I did not say anything about "far out" or "ignorant" ideas. Those are your words not mine.

I will object to the sweeping assertion you make without support that scientists have been trying to create life for a very long time. I doubt you can supply the name of a real scientist who conducted such experiments. I think you have an obligation to support generalities..

Frankenstein??? Good grief. Mary Shelley was hardly writing about scientists who were trying to create life. This wiki article speculates she was fretting in 1818 about the beginning of the industrial revolution.

I look forward to your lists of life-creating scientists and the experiments they have done.

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/13/2010 10:32:57 AM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

As someone who does not believe that evolution is incongruous with an omnipotent creator I have to say that evolution is a theory. It is a good theory. It has much substantiation, but there are still some unknowns to how life truly started, where the spark of life comes from. There is plenty enough room on this message board to address what he said, because we truly do not know the mechanisms that caused life. If it were as scientists suggest, a change reaction of amino acids, well we have never recreated it in the lab, and that to me is telling, if that was how it happened then science should be able to recreate life from amino acids and they can't



So then the obvious conclusion is some supernatural being created life?



So is the obvious conclusion that there was no other form of consciousness around prior to the Big Bang? My little pittling Homo sapien brain does not pretend to understand how it all got here, you must forgive my inability to time travel and have it all figured out.

I will say what I always say on this matter.... the only intellectually valid answer about this subject is that of the agnostic. Anyone that pretends to have the one true answer is basing that on their personal beliefs. Yes, I have beliefs, and they are every bit as valid as anyone else's... even those who think some random chain of amino acids explains it all


_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/13/2010 10:33:52 AM   
eihwaz


Posts: 367
Joined: 10/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
First, to the best of my recollection, Newton didn't propound any "theory of gravity."  He did identify (quantify) what we refer to today as the Law of Gravity, though.

Then I guess these guys are some really dumbfucks: News for theory of gravity by newton

Conceded.  (One could argue that Newton's work on gravity is more properly called a law, but you are right, it's commonly referred to as a theory.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
My assertion was there is enough evidence to support the theory and very little to support that God waved his magic wand 6,000 years and created Adam at the same time he created the dinosaurs.

Is it your proposition that anyone who believes in a supreme being necessarily also believes that the earth is 6000 years old, etc.?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
As far as proving the assertion that is why I referenced the internet and the library.
Do you honestly expect me to provide that volume of information on a message board?

Citations of some peer reviewed research would be a good start.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/13/2010 10:36:05 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

See?  I asked you to think beyond barriers.  Where did I claim God to be an omnipotent being?   If you want me to prove to you your definition of God...sorry, I cannot.  If you were willing to hear how I am certain my God exists then just let me know what kind of beer you prefer and how you like your steak.


Isn't that the definition of God, an omnipotent being?

Pittsburgh style, charred outside and rare inside, and I'll pretty much drink anything. 

(in reply to eyesopened)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/13/2010 10:42:35 AM   
eihwaz


Posts: 367
Joined: 10/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
As someone who does not believe that evolution is incongruous with an omnipotent creator I have to say that evolution is a theory. It is a good theory. It has much substantiation, but there are still some unknowns to how life truly started, where the spark of life comes from. There is plenty enough room on this message board to address what he said, because we truly do not know the mechanisms that caused life. If it were as scientists suggest, a change reaction of amino acids, well we have never recreated it in the lab, and that to me is telling, if that was how it happened then science should be able to recreate life from amino acids and they can't

So then the obvious conclusion is some supernatural being created life?

How does it follow from juliaoceania's post that she concludes this?

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/13/2010 10:48:01 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz

Is it your proposition that anyone who believes in a supreme being necessarily also believes that the earth is 6000 years old, etc.?


No, that was mostly a joke but there are a lot of people who do fervently believe that and the reason I mentioned it was to point out some of the absurdity of certain religious beliefs.

My neighbor, who is an otherwise very intelligent man, belongs to a fundamentalist Lutheran church and firmly believes this is true.

quote:


Citations of some peer reviewed research would be a good start.


Well again, while I do normally like to provide citations for controversial items I don't see the need to do so here.

We are not talking about things that there is not an abundance of research on.

It would be a waste of my time and I'm curious what you expect me to provide citations for that is not already common knowledge unless you are trying to discredit the entire theory of evolution.

(in reply to eihwaz)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/13/2010 10:49:42 AM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

My point is you are conflating two different concepts: the spark of life and the evolution of a full blown living organism.


Read what I was responding to, which was a conflating of the two concepts by those discussing them.

I did not conflat it, I was responding to those who were discussing the concepts. I clarified my position, and since you are unwilling to acknowledge that I wonder what your agenda is.

quote:

I did not say anything about "far out" or "ignorant" ideas. Those are your words not mine.


The opening post to this thread set the tone of marginalizing anyone that believes in religion as believing in silly things, and the gist of the thread has taken the trajectory of pitting science against belief... if you do not believe people that have spiritual beliefs are ignorant, then perhaps I mischaracterized you slightly, but in light of the other posts on this thread, I do think it would be best to preface your comments to take a position on the matter (such as you don't think religious people are stupid).


quote:

I will object to the sweeping assertion you make without support that scientists have been trying to create life for a very long time. I doubt you can supply the name of a real scientist who conducted such experiments. I think you have an obligation to support generalities..



Mary Shelley wrote in response to those who were trying to create life... you did know this, right? Just because people did not have modern labs with amino acids doesn't mean that scientists haven't been trying to bring dead things back to life, or create life where there was no life...Your insistence that I bring forth sources is rather comical to me, anyone familiar with the Age of Scientific Reason knows these things, it is part of history 101 lessons... are you still insisting that I come up with sources? I could google them fairly quickly.But I tend to think that you are just attempting to be controversial and argumentative

Here is a link to the themes if frankenstein, which are not as simplistic as you purport

http://www.english.upenn.edu/Projects/knarf/Themes/index.html


http://www.google.com/search?q=history+of+science+creating+life&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=XTI&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=b&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=cDvsS7OMGJHOtAPC57S9Dw&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CFMQ5wIwCg&cts=1273773009433




_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/13/2010 10:51:27 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
As someone who does not believe that evolution is incongruous with an omnipotent creator I have to say that evolution is a theory. It is a good theory. It has much substantiation, but there are still some unknowns to how life truly started, where the spark of life comes from. There is plenty enough room on this message board to address what he said, because we truly do not know the mechanisms that caused life. If it were as scientists suggest, a change reaction of amino acids, well we have never recreated it in the lab, and that to me is telling, if that was how it happened then science should be able to recreate life from amino acids and they can't

So then the obvious conclusion is some supernatural being created life?

How does it follow from juliaoceania's post that she concludes this?



Gosh, let me see...................hmmmmmmmmmm.

Is there some third possibility I'm unaware of?

(in reply to eihwaz)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/13/2010 10:57:29 AM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
As someone who does not believe that evolution is incongruous with an omnipotent creator I have to say that evolution is a theory. It is a good theory. It has much substantiation, but there are still some unknowns to how life truly started, where the spark of life comes from. There is plenty enough room on this message board to address what he said, because we truly do not know the mechanisms that caused life. If it were as scientists suggest, a change reaction of amino acids, well we have never recreated it in the lab, and that to me is telling, if that was how it happened then science should be able to recreate life from amino acids and they can't

So then the obvious conclusion is some supernatural being created life?

How does it follow from juliaoceania's post that she concludes this?



Gosh, let me see...................hmmmmmmmmmm.

Is there some third possibility I'm unaware of?



Yes, that IF there was a creator being, it wasn't "supernatural" one, but something entirely "natural".


_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/13/2010 11:42:34 AM   
eihwaz


Posts: 367
Joined: 10/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
Citations of some peer reviewed research would be a good start.

...

We are not talking about things that there is not an abundance of research on.

It would be a waste of my time and I'm curious what you expect me to provide citations for that is not already common knowledge unless you are trying to discredit the entire theory of evolution.

The distinction is between evolution and the origins of life (prebiotic chemistry or abiogenesis) -- different processes, events,  disciplines, and relevant evidence.  There is abundant evidence for the former while the latter is more problematic. Evolution describes the processes and mechanisms by which various life forms develop.  That's predicated on the existence of life.  (As you know, Darwin's titled his original exposition of evolution The Origin of Species, not the origin of life.)

Prebiotic chemistry/abiogenesis deals with how animate life -- which seems to require at minimum self-replicating genetic material and amino acids -- emerged from inanimate matter.  There appears to be agreement among vincentML, juliaoceania, myself and certain other contributors to this thread that the origins of life can be accounted for by naturally occurring processes (such as chemical reactions).  There's little conclusive evidence as to what exactly those processes were or how it happened.

The evidence sought concerns your assertions (explicit or implicit) about the proven elucidation of the genesis of life from amino acids, which is the domain of prebiotics/abiogenesis, not evolutionary theory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
So then the obvious conclusion is some supernatural being created life?
quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
How does it follow from juliaoceania's post that she concludes this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
Gosh, let me see...................hmmmmmmmmmm.

Is there some third possibility I'm unaware of?
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
Yes, that IF there was a creator being, it wasn't "supernatural" one, but something entirely "natural".




Possibility 3.5: There's not (yet) enough evidence to know.

< Message edited by eihwaz -- 5/13/2010 11:51:16 AM >

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/13/2010 12:15:23 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

here appears to be agreement among vincentML, juliaoceania, myself and certain other contributors to this thread that the origins of life can be accounted for by naturally occurring processes (such as chemical reactions). There's little conclusive evidence as to what exactly those processes were or how it happened.


There are certain people that would like to think naturally occurring processes exclude spiritual forces (call it spiritual because I do not know what else to call it). Anyone who challenges the "there is no god" view gets shot down as somehow being ignorant or superstitious, etc. So even if you agree with them, if you do not come to exactly the same conclusion, well they attack you... my experience anyways.




_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to eihwaz)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/13/2010 12:24:20 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

Or how about people that judge those who do not believe in God as living in sin, going to hell, etc... you know how they say "we hate the sin and not the sinner"... same damn thing as what she said in my mind


To me, they sound just as judgmental. So how about them? Not all religious people are close minded idiots. Not all religious people are christian. No matter how many times people try to make it look that way on CM.


_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/13/2010 1:11:04 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
So then the obvious conclusion is some supernatural being created life?

I heard it was a unicorn orgy.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/13/2010 1:12:25 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		the devil whispers his lies widely.

Father Muckenfutch, of the church of Jesus H Christ, what's happenin' now???!!!!

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/13/2010 6:48:27 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
So then the obvious conclusion is some supernatural being created life?

I heard it was a unicorn orgy.



I heard that some random string of events happened out of no where and there is no meaning to any of it... it is just a fucking random and meaningless existence.

Personally, I do not subscribe to that view, and those who do amuse me greatly, especially with how condescending and know-it-all they are, when they do not know their asses from a hole in the ground


_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: agnostic or atheist? - 5/14/2010 4:18:58 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

The opening post to this thread set the tone of marginalizing anyone that believes in religion as believing in silly things, and the gist of the thread has taken the trajectory of pitting science against belief... if you do not believe people that have spiritual beliefs are ignorant, then perhaps I mischaracterized you slightly, but in light of the other posts on this thread, I do think it would be best to preface your comments to take a position on the matter (such as you don't think religious people are stupid).


I addressed the nonsense in the opening post of this thread earlier and do not feel the need to repeat myself with each succeeding post where the subject is more specifically different.


quote:

Mary Shelley wrote in response to those who were trying to create life... you did know this, right? Just because people did not have modern labs with amino acids doesn't mean that scientists haven't been trying to bring dead things back to life, or create life where there was no life...Your insistence that I bring forth sources is rather comical to me, anyone familiar with the Age of Scientific Reason knows these things, it is part of history 101 lessons... are you still insisting that I come up with sources? I could google them fairly quickly.But I tend to think that you are just attempting to be controversial and argumentative


It is your burden if you assume I was trying to be controversial rather than conversational. It is curious to me that you would preemptively make such a defensive assumption.

I glanced through the list of articles in the citation you provided. With the exception of two from the post-genome era there are none that even hint at a history of scientists trying to create life. It may be a fictional fabrication from Mary's mind or yours but it is not a fact from the history of science until examples can be given. Instead of supporting your assumption with evidence you resort to condescending remarks about "anyone familiar with the Age of Scientific Reason" and "history 101 lessons." Pretty weak response I think.



_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: agnostic or atheist? Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125