Freethought & Rationalism Archive

10-11-2002, 10:13 PM

"I'll reply. Wait."

My reply : Well, take your time because I'm going off from work in few minutes. I will reply whatever you wrote on Monday.

"Don't play deny game. You've taunted me in other topics that if God exists I'll be in big trouble... "

My reply : What is there to deny?

The whole argument is called Pascal's Wager, NOT Seraphim's Wager.
And Yes, I taunt you to PROVE that God doesn't exist. Pascal's Wager has nothing to do in proving that God exist, it is more toward showing why people believe in God.

"Thanks. You've just opened up a can of whoop ass..."
My reply : Whatever ... As if you scare me now that I'm in your ground. A sheep is a sheep, not matter where it is and a lion is a lion no matter how many sheeps face it.

Goliath · 10-11-2002, 10:20 PM

Seraphim,

Quote:

But that doesn't mean God doesn't exist nor does it mean that Christians are making mistake.

Irrelevant. PW in no way, shape, or form proves that any god of any kind exists.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Corgan Sow · 10-11-2002, 10:31 PM

Reply : True ... of the A1 is rational thing to do.

Rational or MANDATORY? If it is rational, God has no business to punish atheists like me (as if I am).

Reply : In another word (less complicated terms), the agent is performing a task which nets him the MOST profitable outcome/profit. Same as a businessman could do with his business - he will try to get as much profit as possible from the good and services he provides.

What are you trying to say? That there is consequences by people who wouldn't bother purchasing the products?!

If God is trying to save Mankind, why should He resort to salesman tactics? Too imperfect to prove himself?!

In term of Religion, a follower will follow a teaching more strictly than others IF he thinks that he will get more merit out of what he is following.

Good. We infidels care more than kissing ass of an unproven dogma. Like exposing corrupt religionists...

Reply : Pascal thought that humans unable to determine whether is such a force called God through studies of religion, and the only reason humans both to believe in God is because of the possible outcomes (going to heaven or hell for eternity).

Yeah. Agreed.

This is a logical statement from him, SINCE he has no information on religion other than Christianity or maybe even Islam to help him make such assumption.

Ok. No comments.

Reply : Notice the last statement? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose NOTHING. Wager, then, without hesitation that HE is"

It simply means - if humans wage that there is a God, then they gain everything from their wager (assuming that they did good). If there is no God and yet humans believe in Him, then they still do not lose anything in believing Him since they will be dead and dead people do not receive anything if there is no heaven or hell. So which wager is better? Wage that there is a God or wage there is no God?

Have you read refutations for Pascal'a Wager?

The God of Pascal's Wager is objective. This God is flawed since humans are subjective and there are bound to be "defected" ones who chooses to ignore him.

Answer me. Do you wage that God exists?

Reply : The lives he meant was simply means how many "throws" of dice we get in our wages. Since life is only one, and the wager is two, you are forced to make ONE bet/wager in one life time (one throw).

Same as the throw of a dice - you put down your bet in one of the numbers and throw a dice, if you win, you take ALL, if you lose, you lose ALL.

Answer me; are you supporting Pascal's Wager?

Reply : Hacking (1972) makes a wrong assumption by associating Pascal's assumption to that of a lottery. The reason Pascal said that the probability of God's existence is 1/2 is because that is probability chance of you get in ONE lifetime. There is no second chance after you dead.

Wrong. It is lottery. Sure you get only one chance, but what? Gamble, it is.

It is TRUE that the chance of winning a lottery is 1/Million since there is a million people who is betting with the same odd as you would. In such context, you are betting against LUCK, not Logic. And you can always buy more lottery tickets to increase your chances - buying 10 tickets = 10/million. In life, there is no insurance or guarantee that you will come back alive (like a game character) once you are dead. In such context, Hacking is WRONG.

If that is your definition, but this is also diminishes that "Free Will" shit you championed. I call that THREAT. Kiss his ass or suffer. Free will for you?

"But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all..."

Reply : IF you could bet for infinity times (like in a lottery) then the best bet will be that which you could win and you will avoid betting on bets which is against you (winning).

But the problem is, your bet is just one (finite - 1 Life) and you have two wagers - Believe or not to Believe. Common sense suggests that you will bet on the most profitable bet you could find.
In religion's point of view, if a person is given a choice whether he is to believe in God or not to believe, he will believe in Him even so he doesn't believe in existence of a God (no evidence other than Religion) SINCE he rather be in heaven (the best bet) than in hell (worst bet) IF God did existed. This is simply because he has ONLY 1 chance to bet (1 life) against 2 possible outcomes.

If this is not lottery, I agree. THREAT.

Reply : The Pascal Wager could only apply to a Muslim or a Christian (or Atheist) since other religion such as Buddhism, Hindusm and Toast do not believe in a single life. In such context (try or wrong is not the matter here, but the belief that one has more than one chance at the dice/throw), there is an increase in Argument of Expectation since the throw is given has increase as well.

I agree concisely that karmaic religions like Hinduism and Buddhism is not relevant to Pascal's Wager.

In another word, just as someone who doesn't know whether God doesn't exist yet willing to be He does, a person who believes in such concept as reincarnation will assume that the bet he made in One life time can be changed in the next.

If they do not believe in ANYTHING?

Reply : I don't very much understand this. It sounded like this guys argue that there should be more chance since the reward for a bet is infinite (betting in God in 1 lifetime - finite bet, could bring an infinitely reward - forever in heaven).

Funny. I thought that guy should be an idiot because his English is too hard for you to comprehend?

3. There should be more than one infinity in the matrix. There are also critics of the Wager who, far from objecting to infinite utilities, want to see more of them in the matrix. For example, it might be thought that a forgiving God would bestow infinite utility upon wagerers-for and wagerers-against alike---Rescher 1985 is one author who entertains this possibility. Or it might be thought that, on the contrary, wagering against an existent God results in negative infinite utility. (As we have noted, some authors read Pascal himself as saying as much.) Either way, f2 is not really finite at all, but or - as the case may be. And perhaps f1 and f3 could be or -. Suppose, for instance, that God does not exist, but that we are reincarnated ad infinitum, and that the total utility we receive is an infinite sum that does not converge.

Reply : This one has NO place in Pascal's wager. Pascal has only made two assumptions :
1. Life is only 1 - 1 throw of dice
2. There is only two bet - God exist or God doesn't exist

Agreed.

Reply : The original matrix has only two rows with two possible outcome, anything that adds to this rows should be entertained - such as the possibility of reincarnation. Such notion that God bestows anything is illogical since the bet is already made.

Like I said, this God already made a "threat". Because there is only two possible outcome.

Reply : Again, there is an unsuccessful attempt to increase the column and rows with assumption that different religion follow different God thus the matrix should be increased. This has NO place in Pascal's Wager as well.

Assuming that ALL religion in the world plays the SAME role in a human life - bring the person following it to a God, the matrix doesn't change since there is no difference. A person who believe either in a God or Gods will still follow a religion, thus he only have one single choice - to believe in a God/Gods or not to believe in a God. The matrix doesn't change nor does the column increases.

Good point, but I'm intrested if we regard as if God is non-existent or dead. Your answer?

Reply : Stupidity in Action here. When Pascal made this concept, he ASSUMED there is two bets per person - whether to believe in God or not to believe in God. If one wonders whether there is a God, it shows that he already made a bet that there is no God available, thus the bet already made.

I don't care about that answer, just your objections if we pretend God is dead.

Reply : No idea what they are talking about here. As far as I could understand, it is like assuming that rationality is split into two - being rational means not accepting God and being theoretical means accepting God. I don't see what is rationality has to do with Pascal's Wager here.

I think practical rationality is what suits you. Theoretical is what is the best for you according to dogmas...maybe. I could be wrong.

Reply : Wrong. Pascal made the Wager based on most logical choice a person could make, and not because he was a Christian. Best way to look at it is by looking at the game show - "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?

Jesus. You've contradicted yourself. You said that Pascal had only Christianity or none to consider: Reply : Pascal thought that humans unable to determine whether is such a force called God through studies of religion, and the only reason humans both to believe in God is because of the possible outcomes (going to heaven or hell for eternity).

You sit on the hot seat with the host staring at you. The time is ticking away and you are required to make ONE choice out of 4 options available to you. Assuming you cannot make the choice, you will call someone to make for you and the host will ask whether to follow that choice or your own. Here is where Pascal's Wager comes in. You are to make 1 bet from 4 choice and you have your friend's choice (which you are not sure true or not) with you. Do you pick your own choice assuming your friend is wrong? Do you go with your friend's choice, assuming he or she is right about it?

You support Pascal's Wager then?

Reply : Such notion is true IF it is applied to Islam and Christianity where treatment toward no-believers are different to those who believes. However, such is NOT the case when applying to Hindusm, Buddhism or Taoist.

Okay.

Reply : In another word, ACT like you believe. Not sure what this will accomplish.

Nothing.

Reply : in another word, even acting like you believe in God is an act of waging for God, and Pascal or his followers believers believe that such act is the first step toward God, since you have NOTHING to lose if God doesn't exist.

No more comments.

Goliath · 10-11-2002, 10:34 PM

Seraphim,

Quote:

Frankly speaking, you guys are too scared to even think about other posibilities other than what your little minds tell you.

Care to back up that assertion?

Or, as Mr. White in the movie Resevoir Dogs would say: "Are you gonna bark all day, little doggie? Or are you gonna bite?"

Quote:

You have no belief,

Correct in my case, if by "belief" you mean "belief regarding anything supernatural."

Quote:

no faith

Again, correct.

Quote:

and no strength,

And why is this?

Quote:

and whenever you guys see someone else who is different, you all gang up on him and try to scare him into following you ...

Uh-huh...and your assertion is based on...what, exactly?

Have you talked to HelenM, Seebs, or Rev. Joshua about this? They are xians that post on this board and are treated with a fair amount of respect.

So, it looks as though your last quoted assertion above is demonstrably false.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Corgan Sow · 10-11-2002, 10:42 PM

Goliath, this guy is obviously unpleased since my stand was that all religions failed to do their job. I think he's Hindu or militant agnostic or something.

If you find his taunts lame, just forget him.

After all, we asians are that complecent...

And Seraphim, prove that God exists before posting any more topics. Us, disprove? That is like disproving Santa Claus, baby!

Kantian · 10-11-2002, 11:48 PM

My first and last comment on Pascal's wager....
Pascal's wager is a species of argumentum ad baculum, or appealling to the cudgel, since it tries to leverage the desires of the subject into indoctrination. Somehow, Christians think that the fear from going to hell makes, by magic, the belief in God rational.

An appeal to fear of pain and suffering always falls under the fallacy of relevance. It's no more valid than the Godfather's suggestion:

"I made him an offer he couldn't refuse."
~Transcendentalist~

lunachick · 10-12-2002, 01:17 AM

Quote:

My reply : True. Pascal's Wager works only in Christian community since Christians believe in a single life, single God, and single chance for starvation.

Shouldn't that be salvation?

Or were you referring to the practice of some wealthier churches expecting their more impoverished faithful to tithe their family's bread money?

<thought bubble> to eat, or not to eat? Hmmmm...better give the dough to God, just in case he exists...</thought bubble>

Buffman · 10-12-2002, 01:39 AM

Seraphim

Well ... I'm not Atheist if that what you guys expecting and don't ask what I believe either.
OK, here's a basic rule around me :
Don't step on me and I won't stomp on you.

Frankly speaking, you guys are too scared to even think about other posibilities other than what your little minds tell you. You have no belief, no faith and no strenght, and whenever you guys see someone else who is different, you all gang up on him and try to scare him into following you ... just like Christians and Muslims are doing with their religion. So do think you guys are any different from a Religionist.

I hope the big, bad, bullies aren't beating up on you. But how can they if they have no faith, belief or strength? Could it be that they are able to reason more critically than you do? If so, that would instantly separate them from Religionists.

The point I hope you will appreciate is that your above statements reveal far more about you than about those taking the time and effort to rehash this subject with you.

<a href="http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Essays/pascal_weager.htm" target="_blank">http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Essays/pascal_weager.htm</a>

bonduca · 10-12-2002, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seraphim:
Frankly speaking, you guys are too scared to even think about other posibilities

I used to be a Christian. I thought about other possibilities, which is what brought me here. Why would you think letting go of the sky daddy and going it alone is an act of cowardice?

Quote:

other than what your little minds tell you.

No god has spoken to me, only other humans. Do you mean I should trust the little minds of others over my own?

Quote:

You have no belief, no faith and no strenght

Again, I do not see how following the crowd is an act of particular strength and bravery.

Quote:

whenever you guys see someone else who is different, you all gang up on him and try to scare him into following you

I don't mean to sound cruel, but I usually don't pay much attention to you at all. You are free to believe whatever you wish. No one here is stopping you. But if you insist on posting things you can't defend properly on an atheist forum, why get your shorts in a knot when everyone doesn't agree with you?

Perhaps you should pray for patience?

Corgan Sow · 10-12-2002, 05:51 AM

Uh people, He's not Christian...again.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-11-2002, 10:13 PM	#31
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	"I'll reply. Wait." My reply : Well, take your time because I'm going off from work in few minutes. I will reply whatever you wrote on Monday. "Don't play deny game. You've taunted me in other topics that if God exists I'll be in big trouble... " My reply : What is there to deny? The whole argument is called Pascal's Wager, NOT Seraphim's Wager. And Yes, I taunt you to PROVE that God doesn't exist. Pascal's Wager has nothing to do in proving that God exist, it is more toward showing why people believe in God. "Thanks. You've just opened up a can of whoop ass..." My reply : Whatever ... As if you scare me now that I'm in your ground. A sheep is a sheep, not matter where it is and a lion is a lion no matter how many sheeps face it.

10-11-2002, 10:31 PM	#33
Corgan Sow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Posts: 1,537	Reply : True ... of the A1 is rational thing to do. Rational or MANDATORY? If it is rational, God has no business to punish atheists like me (as if I am). Reply : In another word (less complicated terms), the agent is performing a task which nets him the MOST profitable outcome/profit. Same as a businessman could do with his business - he will try to get as much profit as possible from the good and services he provides. What are you trying to say? That there is consequences by people who wouldn't bother purchasing the products?! If God is trying to save Mankind, why should He resort to salesman tactics? Too imperfect to prove himself?! In term of Religion, a follower will follow a teaching more strictly than others IF he thinks that he will get more merit out of what he is following. Good. We infidels care more than kissing ass of an unproven dogma. Like exposing corrupt religionists... Reply : Pascal thought that humans unable to determine whether is such a force called God through studies of religion, and the only reason humans both to believe in God is because of the possible outcomes (going to heaven or hell for eternity). Yeah. Agreed. This is a logical statement from him, SINCE he has no information on religion other than Christianity or maybe even Islam to help him make such assumption. Ok. No comments. Reply : Notice the last statement? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose NOTHING. Wager, then, without hesitation that HE is" It simply means - if humans wage that there is a God, then they gain everything from their wager (assuming that they did good). If there is no God and yet humans believe in Him, then they still do not lose anything in believing Him since they will be dead and dead people do not receive anything if there is no heaven or hell. So which wager is better? Wage that there is a God or wage there is no God? Have you read refutations for Pascal'a Wager? The God of Pascal's Wager is objective. This God is flawed since humans are subjective and there are bound to be "defected" ones who chooses to ignore him. Answer me. Do you wage that God exists? Reply : The lives he meant was simply means how many "throws" of dice we get in our wages. Since life is only one, and the wager is two, you are forced to make ONE bet/wager in one life time (one throw). Same as the throw of a dice - you put down your bet in one of the numbers and throw a dice, if you win, you take ALL, if you lose, you lose ALL. Answer me; are you supporting Pascal's Wager? Reply : Hacking (1972) makes a wrong assumption by associating Pascal's assumption to that of a lottery. The reason Pascal said that the probability of God's existence is 1/2 is because that is probability chance of you get in ONE lifetime. There is no second chance after you dead. Wrong. It is lottery. Sure you get only one chance, but what? Gamble, it is. It is TRUE that the chance of winning a lottery is 1/Million since there is a million people who is betting with the same odd as you would. In such context, you are betting against LUCK, not Logic. And you can always buy more lottery tickets to increase your chances - buying 10 tickets = 10/million. In life, there is no insurance or guarantee that you will come back alive (like a game character) once you are dead. In such context, Hacking is WRONG. If that is your definition, but this is also diminishes that "Free Will" shit you championed. I call that THREAT. Kiss his ass or suffer. Free will for you? "But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all..." Reply : IF you could bet for infinity times (like in a lottery) then the best bet will be that which you could win and you will avoid betting on bets which is against you (winning). But the problem is, your bet is just one (finite - 1 Life) and you have two wagers - Believe or not to Believe. Common sense suggests that you will bet on the most profitable bet you could find. In religion's point of view, if a person is given a choice whether he is to believe in God or not to believe, he will believe in Him even so he doesn't believe in existence of a God (no evidence other than Religion) SINCE he rather be in heaven (the best bet) than in hell (worst bet) IF God did existed. This is simply because he has ONLY 1 chance to bet (1 life) against 2 possible outcomes. If this is not lottery, I agree. THREAT. Reply : The Pascal Wager could only apply to a Muslim or a Christian (or Atheist) since other religion such as Buddhism, Hindusm and Toast do not believe in a single life. In such context (try or wrong is not the matter here, but the belief that one has more than one chance at the dice/throw), there is an increase in Argument of Expectation since the throw is given has increase as well. I agree concisely that karmaic religions like Hinduism and Buddhism is not relevant to Pascal's Wager. In another word, just as someone who doesn't know whether God doesn't exist yet willing to be He does, a person who believes in such concept as reincarnation will assume that the bet he made in One life time can be changed in the next. If they do not believe in ANYTHING? Reply : I don't very much understand this. It sounded like this guys argue that there should be more chance since the reward for a bet is infinite (betting in God in 1 lifetime - finite bet, could bring an infinitely reward - forever in heaven). Funny. I thought that guy should be an idiot because his English is too hard for you to comprehend? 3. There should be more than one infinity in the matrix. There are also critics of the Wager who, far from objecting to infinite utilities, want to see more of them in the matrix. For example, it might be thought that a forgiving God would bestow infinite utility upon wagerers-for and wagerers-against alike---Rescher 1985 is one author who entertains this possibility. Or it might be thought that, on the contrary, wagering against an existent God results in negative infinite utility. (As we have noted, some authors read Pascal himself as saying as much.) Either way, f2 is not really finite at all, but or - as the case may be. And perhaps f1 and f3 could be or -. Suppose, for instance, that God does not exist, but that we are reincarnated ad infinitum, and that the total utility we receive is an infinite sum that does not converge. Reply : This one has NO place in Pascal's wager. Pascal has only made two assumptions : 1. Life is only 1 - 1 throw of dice 2. There is only two bet - God exist or God doesn't exist Agreed. Reply : The original matrix has only two rows with two possible outcome, anything that adds to this rows should be entertained - such as the possibility of reincarnation. Such notion that God bestows anything is illogical since the bet is already made. Like I said, this God already made a "threat". Because there is only two possible outcome. Reply : Again, there is an unsuccessful attempt to increase the column and rows with assumption that different religion follow different God thus the matrix should be increased. This has NO place in Pascal's Wager as well. Assuming that ALL religion in the world plays the SAME role in a human life - bring the person following it to a God, the matrix doesn't change since there is no difference. A person who believe either in a God or Gods will still follow a religion, thus he only have one single choice - to believe in a God/Gods or not to believe in a God. The matrix doesn't change nor does the column increases. Good point, but I'm intrested if we regard as if God is non-existent or dead. Your answer? Reply : Stupidity in Action here. When Pascal made this concept, he ASSUMED there is two bets per person - whether to believe in God or not to believe in God. If one wonders whether there is a God, it shows that he already made a bet that there is no God available, thus the bet already made. I don't care about that answer, just your objections if we pretend God is dead. Reply : No idea what they are talking about here. As far as I could understand, it is like assuming that rationality is split into two - being rational means not accepting God and being theoretical means accepting God. I don't see what is rationality has to do with Pascal's Wager here. I think practical rationality is what suits you. Theoretical is what is the best for you according to dogmas...maybe. I could be wrong. Reply : Wrong. Pascal made the Wager based on most logical choice a person could make, and not because he was a Christian. Best way to look at it is by looking at the game show - "Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Jesus. You've contradicted yourself. You said that Pascal had only Christianity or none to consider: Reply : Pascal thought that humans unable to determine whether is such a force called God through studies of religion, and the only reason humans both to believe in God is because of the possible outcomes (going to heaven or hell for eternity). You sit on the hot seat with the host staring at you. The time is ticking away and you are required to make ONE choice out of 4 options available to you. Assuming you cannot make the choice, you will call someone to make for you and the host will ask whether to follow that choice or your own. Here is where Pascal's Wager comes in. You are to make 1 bet from 4 choice and you have your friend's choice (which you are not sure true or not) with you. Do you pick your own choice assuming your friend is wrong? Do you go with your friend's choice, assuming he or she is right about it? You support Pascal's Wager then? Reply : Such notion is true IF it is applied to Islam and Christianity where treatment toward no-believers are different to those who believes. However, such is NOT the case when applying to Hindusm, Buddhism or Taoist. Okay. Reply : In another word, ACT like you believe. Not sure what this will accomplish. Nothing. Reply : in another word, even acting like you believe in God is an act of waging for God, and Pascal or his followers believers believe that such act is the first step toward God, since you have NOTHING to lose if God doesn't exist. No more comments.

10-11-2002, 10:42 PM	#35
Corgan Sow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Posts: 1,537	Goliath, this guy is obviously unpleased since my stand was that all religions failed to do their job. I think he's Hindu or militant agnostic or something. If you find his taunts lame, just forget him. After all, we asians are that complecent... And Seraphim, prove that God exists before posting any more topics. Us, disprove? That is like disproving Santa Claus, baby!

10-11-2002, 11:48 PM	#36
Kantian Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Konigsberg Posts: 238	My first and last comment on Pascal's wager.... Pascal's wager is a species of argumentum ad baculum, or appealling to the cudgel, since it tries to leverage the desires of the subject into indoctrination. Somehow, Christians think that the fear from going to hell makes, by magic, the belief in God rational. An appeal to fear of pain and suffering always falls under the fallacy of relevance. It's no more valid than the Godfather's suggestion: "I made him an offer he couldn't refuse." ~Transcendentalist~

10-12-2002, 01:39 AM	#38
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Seraphim Well ... I'm not Atheist if that what you guys expecting and don't ask what I believe either. OK, here's a basic rule around me : Don't step on me and I won't stomp on you. Frankly speaking, you guys are too scared to even think about other posibilities other than what your little minds tell you. You have no belief, no faith and no strenght, and whenever you guys see someone else who is different, you all gang up on him and try to scare him into following you ... just like Christians and Muslims are doing with their religion. So do think you guys are any different from a Religionist. I hope the big, bad, bullies aren't beating up on you. But how can they if they have no faith, belief or strength? Could it be that they are able to reason more critically than you do? If so, that would instantly separate them from Religionists. The point I hope you will appreciate is that your above statements reveal far more about you than about those taking the time and effort to rehash this subject with you. <a href="http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Essays/pascal_weager.htm" target="_blank">http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Essays/pascal_weager.htm</a>

10-12-2002, 05:51 AM	#40
Corgan Sow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Posts: 1,537	Uh people, He's not Christian...again.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.