|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 03, 2008 09:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What I mean is, odds are this big bang event would have an origin.
I don't see why this origin can't be explained by science. Maybe it is, but it just hasn't become widely known. If I had to take a guess, I'd say that it (the previous universe) contracted to an extremely dense particle due to gravity but then electromagnetism pushed it back apart once they were close enough.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 09:28 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 21:34, 03 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Calling religious people superstitutous, illogical, irrational, foolish, ignorant, etc., is quite intolerant.
Superstition: An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
Are religious beliefs superstitions? Yes. There is no way to logically relate god to any physical observation.
Illogical: Not logical; contrary to or disregardful of the rules of logic; unreasoning: an illogical reply.
Are religious beliefs illogical? Yes. See above.
Irrational: 3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
Are religious beliefs irrational? Yes. Ditto.
Ignorant:
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
Are religious beliefs formed from ignorance? Depends. If they are formed out of or buttressed by an incomplete (or nonexistent) understanding of fundamental physical law, such as when people believe that the earth is only 5000 years old, and believe that the commonly accepted age of the earth is wrong because "dating methods are unreliable" due to perceived problems with carbon dating, even though carbon dating has nothing to do with determining the age of the earth, then: yes, these people are ignorant of science and logic. When people claim that evolution is only a theory, which is only done by religious people, are they ignorant? Yes, they are ignorant of what a theory is and what it is useful for. They are also ignorant of the difference between fact and theory. Are all religious people ignorant of science? No. Many believe what they believe despite being well versed in scientific details. But many ARE ignorant. So what? Most people are ignorant of something, and it isn't necessarily insulting. Many scientists are ignorant of religious matters - many muslims are probably ignorant of christian doctrine, many christians are ignorant of muslim beliefs. If a taoist tells me I am ignorant of taoism, am I offended by that? Is the taoist intollerant? No. He speaks the truth. I *am* ignorant of taoism. But at least I know and admit that I am, and recognizing one's own ignorance on a certain topic is the first step to making an informed decision about it.
Foolish. 1. resulting from or showing a lack of sense; ill-considered; unwise: a foolish action, a foolish speech.
Are religious beliefs foolish? If one holds a belief while possessing full knowledge of the facts, then one cannot call that person's belief inherently foolish (although I can certainly contest the belief itself, even if I respect the person's right to hold it). However, if you are basing your belief system out of ignorance, willful or otherwise, is that foolish? If a person believes that evolution is wrong based on a flawed understanding of what evolution is, is that foolish? Is someone foolish who disbelieves in evolution because they think it is a random process, even though people who know that evolution is not random try to tell him as much, and he ignores them? Is that foolish? If a person eats a plant, even after a botanist tells him that the plant has a foul taste, is that foolish? I guess that's up to you to decide.
The point being that illogical, irrational, superstitious, and ignorant are all words that are not inherently pejorative. For some reason, people have taken them to be. My argument with religious people is not on the level of belief. People can believe whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt other people with those beliefs. My argument with religious people is on a political level, when such people would use their beliefs, often out of ignorance, to make policy decisions that benefit only themselves. A good example is intelligent design, which should never, ever, be taught in science class. That is foolish.
I'm not sure how any of that makes me intollerant. I respect a person's right to be religious, regardless of how I may feel about the quality of their beliefs. Compare that to some religious people who do not respect a person's right to, for example, love someone of the same gender, and that disrespect for equal rights has translated into actual discrimination on a legal/political level. I'd say that's leagues more intollerant than simply calling someone's beliefs illogical. When Atheists start passing laws forbidding Christians from marrying one another, then maybe we can start comparing intollerance levels.
Oh and
Quote:
What I mean is, odds are this big bang event would have an origin. Even as an Atheist, I'm not willing to place all bets on this "big bang theory".
You are thinking too one-dimensionally. Consider: for an event to have an origin, it must have a cause. To have a cause, it means that, prior to the event, there must be another event (i.e., the cause is an event, too). This implies that time exists before the event in question. If time starts at the big-bang, there is no "before"; therefore there is no "cause"; therefore there is no origin. What caused the Big Bang? Maybe nothing, because maybe the word "cause" has no meaning in that case.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 09:55 PM |
|
|
Another excellent Corribus post. But there's just one thing I'd like to ask. Do you think that the Big Bang created matter? If so, wouldn't that violate the law of conservation of mass? And if not, was all matter inside that tiny particle for all of the time before the Big Bang?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 10:04 PM |
|
Edited by Lexxan at 22:09, 03 Jun 2008.
|
Tssss...
The whole conversation is getting nowhere. Person 1 says "It's this way", while Person 2 stats "It's that way". I often ask myself why people are constantly bickering about things they'll never grasp or understand. Were NOT Sigmund Freud or Albert Einstein.
As for religion, I stated my vision earleir: Religion is something mental, something rational, it's in your head. The the "God(s)" you believe in aren't real physical beings, they only exits in people's minds.
Now, the sour ones will demands that I prove, what I stated above, but a E-Lysander already said, such questions don't make more sense than religion itself.
I must say that religion has done some good things in the past (like fuelling the culture), but also a lot of bad things as well: every kind of conflict with a religious background like: the Crusades, The Isreali-Palestinian conflict, the Serbian-Albania/Kosovarian conflict, the Nazi-Jewish conflict, etc... When I sum up those things I'm be surprised that Titanuim Alloy gave up believing in God; you'd think he left us. Is the point of having a good God, who fights against evil, but didn't interviene al-Quaeda from blowing up the Twin Towers ?
I myself had been brought up in a Catholic way, but I shake my head when I see what had become of the once so powerfull Church: the one side is bunch of narrow-minded grumpy old men ,who wan to go back to medieval times, while the latter half are lame and weak pacifists, preaching fo forgiveness. There are two Catholic Churches: The Church of Narrow-mindedness and the Church of Softiness. If you just look at it, wouldn't you lose faith ?
The Church's biggest problems are the softness of the Forgiving half and Blindness of the Backward half. The Softness weakens the image of the Church and makes sure less people keep their faith. The Blindness makes sure the Church loses it's grasp on the wrold and it's sight on life as well. Do they really think they can delay things like abortion, Euthanasia or Same Sex Mariages ? That's naļvete in it's purest form.
For the rest, I agree 100% with Corribus's statements.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 10:22 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 22:23, 03 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Another excellent Corribus post. But there's just one thing I'd like to ask. Do you think that the Big Bang created matter? If so, wouldn't that violate the law of conservation of mass? And if not, was all matter inside that tiny particle for all of the time before the Big Bang?
I'm not a cosmologist, so any answer I gave you would be pure 100% guess. And probably even cosmologists couldn't do much better.
I'll only say two things.
(1) If all matter expanded out from the big bang, then proceding from now back to the big bang, the density of the universe increases until it reaches infinity at time 0. I mean, the singularity of the big bang is pretty much like a black hole. Considerations of relativity mean that at very high density, time behaves strangely. In fact, if my memory holds, time slows down to an outside observer until it reaches zero at the event horizon. Anyway, the point being that time behaves strangely. So, I think you have to suspend your practical working knowledge of causality.
(2) Along with that, the Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy is a law that governs change. Change implies time. I.e., between event A and later event B, the amount of total energy cannot change. Even if all the matter in the universe popped into existence when the Big Bang blew, if time itself started to tick-tock away at that instance, my guess is that wouldn't violate the Law of Energy Conservation because without time, there is no change. I know, it hurts the brain to think about it, and it is nearly impossible to imagine a scenario where time doesn't exist, let alone the consequences of such a scenario. But I would say that scientific laws that govern change no longer apply, and due to relativity those that DO apply are just very different and bizarre.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 10:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It means politically a Christian is more electable than an athiest.
Ah, for a while I thougt "better" meant "better suited for the job" not "more electable".
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 10:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Religion is something mental, something rational, it's in your head.
Hallucinations are in your head too, and that doesn't make them rational.
Quote:
If all matter expanded out from the big bang, then proceding from now back to the big bang, the density of the universe increases until it reaches infinity at time 0.
Why would it have an infinite density? It would only have an infinite density in two cases: if there was an infinte amount of mass in the universe, or if the particle was infinitely small. As we are alive and not collapsed, we know that the universe's mass is not infinite. As for the size of the particle, it was quite small, but why infinitely small? It could've been just small and dense enough for the electrons (or even protons) to repel each other.
Then again, I'm no cosmologist either.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 11:12 PM |
|
|
@mvass
To save me from having to reinvent the language myself, here you go, conveniently from wikipedia (basically, in a black hole, gravity is so strong that subatomic degeneracy pressure is not even strong enough to give the matter dimensions, so you get an infinitely small point; hence infinite density. of course, general relativity may be incomplete, so that's to be taken with a grain of salt  :
According to general relativity, a black hole's mass is entirely compressed into a region with zero volume, which means its density and gravitational pull are infinite, and so is the curvature of space-time that it causes. These infinite values cause most physical equations, including those of general relativity, to stop working at the center of a black hole. So physicists call the zero-volume, infinitely dense region at the center of a black hole a singularity.
The singularity in a non-rotating black hole is a point, in other words it has zero length, width, and height. The singularity of a rotating black hole is smeared out to form a ring shape lying in the plane of rotation. The ring still has no thickness and hence no volume.
The appearance of singularities in general relativity is commonly perceived as signaling the breakdown of the theory. This breakdown is not unexpected, as it occurs in a situation where quantum mechanical effects should become important, since densities are high and particle interactions should thus play a role. Unfortunately, till date it has not been possible to combine quantum and gravitation effects in a single theory. It is however quite generally expected that a theory of quantum gravity will feature black holes without singularities.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 11:17 PM |
|
|
Here, then, we have something which science has not yet explained. Yet I'm pretty sure that it will, one of these days.
If a singularity's gravitational pull is infinite, why doesn't it pull the whole universe in?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 12:33 AM |
|
|
The gravity force outside a black hole creates is finite, as it has a finite mass. Hence it does not slurp everuthing in.
But once you 'get into' the singularity, there is no escape, as the distance is 0 and only then gravity becomes infinite.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 12:56 AM |
|
|
Well black holes do have a mass, there are diferent sizes of black holes in the Universe. And because gravitation is only as big as the mass of the object, they do not have enough mass to pull all Universe in themselves. Furthermore gravity of a black hole does not work like a vacuum cleaner, it is like a star, but of greater mass and able to hold entire galaxies together - every large galaxy (supposedly) has a supermassive black hole at its center.
So we have a mass of x and a volume of 0. To get the density you are looking at an equation of x devided by zero (x/0). Which is not infinite actually, it has no meaning in our mathematics.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 01:18 AM |
|
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 08:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That's a very general statement, are you saying that a given candidate would be better if he was christian than if he was an atheist? Or that any christian would be better than any atheist?
No I think I said somewhere that they're both equally qualified.
I'm pretty sure Binabik was responding to my comment that a Christian candidate would be chosen over an equally qualified atheist candidate and that he was agreeing with this statement, not necessarily proposing it.
edit:
qp for Corribus  
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 02:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The difference between gravity and God is this: we feel gravity. It is a physical force. Nobody feels God except as a placebo.
I like how scientists assume things about others (you see *nobody* is a pretty strong assumption) and how they have the 'if I can't see it, you can't either!' attitude. No problem, it's your subjective opinion, but please don't talk in the name of others. (oh, and 'feel' is a very good term).
Besides, let's take an alien approach. Some people ask for videos. Quite frankly, can be found on YouTube. If there was a NASA spaceshuttle in the video, most scientists will NOT EVEN question it. But if it's a strange thing (strange from THEIR point of view), then they IMMEDIATELY either:
1) dismiss it as 'fake'
2) try to find a different explanation for it (why they don't this to NASA too?  )
Now if it was not a video and it was live, then people would either:
1) dismiss it as an illusion (hey that CAN'T be true, right?)
2) if it was about a miracle, some people would even dare to say "How do you know it wasn't some aliens pulling a prank on us to make us believe in God?"
or simply: "a law of physics we do not understand yet"
I don't really have to comment on 2, as it is obvious it goes against the atheist principle (and sounds much more complicated than God too). Problem is that you can use the last phrase in EVERY scenario. So why do most atheists expect some 'discussion'? If that phrase is your commandment, then it's like ending a discussion before anyone even replied.
Quote:
"Where did God come from?"
Where did the Big Bang (matter & energy) come from?
Quote:
"Matter has always existed"
God has always existed... is it truly that a different kind of question?
frankly I wouldn't consider 'always' the best choice of words. Let's see this:Quote:
Quote:
Or rather, asking what was before time. 'before' 'after' have no meanings in a world without time, do they?
Well, they do, if you pick some arbitrary point in the cycle.
What do you MEAN by that??
in a 2D world, what sense is there to ask 'what is the z coordinate'? What is "before" in a world without time? Aren't "before" and "after" relative to a point in the cycle (as you said) in the 't' coordinate (time)?? but then, if this coordinate does NOT exist, how can you possibly even make sense out of it?
Time was created much like matter. So asking what was BEFORE God is completely absurd, much like asking what was before the Big Bang if you BELIEVE in the law of conservation of energy. (you haven't observed anything that contradicts it? fine I haven't observed anything that contradicts God either ).
@Moonlith:Quote:
Did you look up at the sky one day and tell yourself out of the blue; "I believe there is some higher being we haven't seen yet" for no apparent reason?
We have been gifted with many senses, eyes are only one, ears are second, etc.. do 'morals' come from our five senses? I suppose we have other senses (that we regard as feelings). Did we look at the sky and decided what's moral and what's not? Not at all, our eyes don't have anything to say regarding that, for example. It's like asking for a video of God, but then again, you'll most likely regard it as an illusion or as a fake. I think we have been gifted with a lot more 'senses' but we are too ignorant.
Did mathematics and 'logic' come from our senses? Nope, but from our thoughts. Do remember what Einstein said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
@Corribus:Quote:
Superstition: An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
What does 'logically' mean? Does it mean that it is repetitive and can be reproduced? Does induction mean logic? If you are a father and watch over your children, for example, does that mean that the explanation "my father helped me" is illogical? Well of course it can't be reproduced, it is not a 'law' that reacts to what we want.
Is this belief, in induction and in the law of contradiction, the belief of science? I think so, it would get absolutely nowhere without them. It is the core belief. Is this belief called 'logic'? I disagree.
It is important to know that science is based upon evidences which are themselves held to be true because of principles which are accepted on faith, induction.
Suppose some aliens come and destroy most of the Earth without us seeing them. Now is it illogical to assume aliens destroyed it? It is of course not reproducible -- aliens have their own will, so to speak, they don't obey laws or whatever. Especially that we were given signs regarding aliens (for example) -- is it illogical because it is not reproducible?
People that think they can disprove prayers/God/whatever because it is not reproducible (or ASSUME that it should be reproducible) are, must I say, foolish. It is like saying your mother's actions should be reproducible... and then you put up your mother against all kinds of tests, just so you can be satisfied. Why should she do it for someone that does not trust her?
How would you feel if someone would want you to make the same things all over again, just so they could believe you can do it? But more importantly, why would you do it for them, people who usually despise you and don't think you can do it? Just so they can believe that you can? Do you even care? Will that change what kind of people they are? Then why do they expect him to do it for them, to satisfy their own senses?
Please take the following quote philosophically rather than Biblically (religiously):Quote:
"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed"
.
Do not reply with 'foolish'. Think about it. Someone THAT DOES NOT TRUST YOU wants to see with his own eyes to believe that you can do something (let's say something like telekinesis to keep it simple). Question is, seriously, why would you do it for HIM and not the others that trust and believe in you? He can criticize them all the way because he has not seen anything -- and he will ignore those that say that you truly have telekinesis (atheists ignore people that say God helped them, dismiss it as illusions, because THEY DRAW ANALOGIES FROM THEMSELVES, they assume things about the theists as they do about themselves, bad approach).
I ask you this, if you would have followed him like a slave and showed him that you have telekinesis, WOULD HE CHANGE? Would he be a different person? (change = a different mentality, not just that something exists or not). Does that change the degree to which he trusts people? Those that do it do not require any kind of proof from you, they are admirable in this sense (at least FROM YOUR perspective, you = the one with telekinesis remember? ).
Now what's even MORE: suppose you send countless 'live' evidence (so to speak) to people so they can believe you (this is pure OUT OF LOVE, if you were rational, you would not do it, because heck why do you even care what others think about you?). Fast-forward 2000 years, and people will doubt that you EVEN existed, much less that you had telekinesis abilities. What can you do in such a case? Send live evidence again? To what end? People will ALWAYS demand more and more, because it simply goes against their beliefs and religion: "the belief that induction & law of contradictions are true", also "the belief in the law of conservation of energy" and COUNTLESS others.
Quote:
You are thinking too one-dimensionally. Consider: for an event to have an origin, it must have a cause. To have a cause, it means that, prior to the event, there must be another event (i.e., the cause is an event, too). This implies that time exists before the event in question. If time starts at the big-bang, there is no "before"; therefore there is no "cause"; therefore there is no origin. What caused the Big Bang? Maybe nothing, because maybe the word "cause" has no meaning in that case.
Nice explanation, then why do some people still ask "What created God" or "What was before God?" when they can accept the above explanation easily? (i'm not saying that YOU do).
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 02:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Time was created much like matter. So asking what was BEFORE God is completely absurd, much like asking what was before the Big Bang if you BELIEVE in the law of conservation of energy. (you haven't observed anything that contradicts it? fine I haven't observed anything that contradicts God either ).
Well this was certainly an unfair stab.
You can conduct experiments which 100% of the time confirm the law of the conservation of energy. There is evidence for it. There's no evidence for god.
Basing belief on whether or not there is anything that contradicts the thing you are believing in is quite reckless As I have said approximately infinity times, there is nothing that contradicts the boogey man But there's nothing that supports him either, and there is no reason to believe in him.
If one day it is observed that the law of conservation of energy is false then it will be changed, it's not really faith.
Quote:
Nice explanation, then why do some people still ask "What created God" or "What was before God?" when they can accept the above explanation easily? (i'm not saying that YOU do).
These people don't really bring much to the discussion as I agree that that question is meaningless, unless the person is stating it the other way around, that "something must have been before the big bang THERE FORE GOD!" In which case it goes both ways.
Not saying you say this either
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 02:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well this was certainly an unfair stab.
You can conduct experiments which 100% of the time confirm the law of the conservation of energy. There is evidence for it. There's no evidence for god.
What do you mean by evidence? Do you mean the "confidence in the law of non-contradiction could be said to be faith. There is no direct way to prove the law of contradiction except that it must be presupposed in order to learn anything or differentiate anything from anything else. Likewise, the principle of induction, which states that the future will be generally like the past, is what makes possible the formulation of scientific laws and theories. We cannot test the truth of this principle scientifically, for we would be assuming the truth of induction to try and prove it.".
Experiments are based on the above belief system. Maybe the above belief system can't be used for God (since you said no evidence based on the above can be used for God).
(I know you'll say that we have to start with certain assumptions, but then why not religious assumptions? that's purely a subjective opinion ).
Quote:
If one day it is observed that the law of conservation of energy is false then it will be changed, it's not really faith.
If this will be changed, why are you implying that it's true RIGHT NOW?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 02:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
God has always existed...
Or never existed.
Quote:
What do you MEAN by that??
You have a repeating cycle, see? And you select a point in the cycle as a point of reference.
Quote:
So asking what was BEFORE God is completely absurd, much like asking what was before the Big Bang if you BELIEVE in the law of conservation of energy.
No, that's if you don't agree with the law of conservation of energy. If you think that the law of conservation of matter and energy is true, then you can answer the question with "The previous universe."
Quote:
do 'morals' come from our five senses?
Sort of, since our interactions with other people are what creates our ideas of morals.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 02:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You have a repeating cycle, see? And you select a point in the cycle as a point of reference.
I meant for my question: "How can you have 'before' and 'after' in a world without time". this simple non-religious question was the one I was in topic with
Quote:
No, that's if you don't agree with the law of conservation of energy. If you think that the law of conservation of matter and energy is true, then you can answer the question with "The previous universe."
Sorry but the Universe is accelerating (at least if you believe what they say), so it won't collapse into a point. Kinda rules out the 'next Universe' thing
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 03:20 PM |
|
Edited by Galev at 15:22, 04 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
I have seen intolerance to Islam and pagan religions, as well as to atheism, mostly coming from Christians.
I have not seen American atheists having an intolerant attitude to religion. They oppose it, but they aren't intolerant.
Interesting idea...
Quote:
posted June 03, 2008 09:39 AM
Edited by mvassilev at 09:42, 03 Jun 2008.
I would, however, like for you to respond to the question: why believe in the Abrahamic God and not Zeus?
quote:You can't see heat = undetected -by eyes. You take special glasses and the problem solved.
Or, you know, you can feel it with your skin.
quote:But you could detect it, if you encountered it.
If I ever encounter God, I'll detect him/her/it. Until then...
quote:From satan's point of view, atheism would be much more an efficient tool than satanism.
On the other hand, Christianity is an easier path for Satan to get people to turn to Satan worship, since Christians believe in God and Satan, whereas atheists believe in neither
Well,
You misunderstood the whole thing. I'm sorry. That heat-paralell wasn't the best choice, now I see. (anyway, I wanted to explain the difference betveen undetected and undetectable, not faith or God, but it's not that very important anymore)
So in a much more simple way: One need no proof about God. If there were any proofs it would be knowledge, not faith. And you know, it's not all the same.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 04:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I have seen intolerance to Islam and pagan religions, as well as to atheism, mostly coming from Christians.
That intolerance date's back to BC time. Human nature is like that, we are intolerant to all who do not share our beliefs
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
