On Nov 5, 1:21 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > that's all besides the point. you can't know the truth w/o discerning
> > it.
> But the objective nature of reality is independent of its humanistic
> demonstration.
that doesn't prove that you can't know the truth w/o discerning it.
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 2:11 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 1:21 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > that's all besides the point. you can't know the truth w/o discerning
> > > it.
> > But the objective nature of reality is independent of its humanistic
> > demonstration.
> that doesn't prove that you can't know the truth w/o discerning it.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
On Nov 3, 1:54 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Then, on what basis do you believe that the Bible is objectively true?
> It's an epistemological first principle. It is the standard that
> measures the standard. :)
how can you uphold an "epistemological first principle" on what is
demonstrably false?! there are logical & factual errors in the bible.
a standard that upholds errors is an erroneous standard.
but there is another elephant in the room. you have made the argument
that the scientific method is the wrong tool for the job in regards to
god. you have stated that humanistic verification is untenable. within
this line there is an implicit presumption that science can not prove
the existence of god. that presumption is an integral part of your own
premises. doesn't this make you a dog that chases its own tail? you
have no objective ground to make that presumption.
finding your own fideism untenable you blame the humanists. well,
since skepticism is at the heart of your own premises then an
inquistion won't solve the problem. your denigration of science is
self-defeating. your theocratic objective idealism is just a form of
nihilism. you have no true answers for humankind. only despair &
ignorance.
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:48 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 1:54 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Then, on what basis do you believe that the Bible is objectively true?
> > It's an epistemological first principle. It is the standard that
> > measures the standard. :)
> how can you uphold an "epistemological first principle" on what is
> demonstrably false?! there are logical & factual errors in the bible.
> a standard that upholds errors is an erroneous standard.
> but there is another elephant in the room. you have made the argument
> that the scientific method is the wrong tool for the job in regards to
> god. you have stated that humanistic verification is untenable. within
> this line there is an implicit presumption that science can not prove
> the existence of god. that presumption is an integral part of your own
> premises. doesn't this make you a dog that chases its own tail? you
> have no objective ground to make that presumption.
> finding your own fideism untenable you blame the humanists. well,
> since skepticism is at the heart of your own premises then an
> inquistion won't solve the problem. your denigration of science is
> self-defeating. your theocratic objective idealism is just a form of
> nihilism. you have no true answers for humankind. only despair &
> ignorance.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:48 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 1:54 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Then, on what basis do you believe that the Bible is objectively true?
> > > It's an epistemological first principle. It is the standard that
> > > measures the standard. :)
> > how can you uphold an "epistemological first principle" on what is
> > demonstrably false?! there are logical & factual errors in the bible.
> > a standard that upholds errors is an erroneous standard.
> > but there is another elephant in the room. you have made the argument
> > that the scientific method is the wrong tool for the job in regards to
> > god. you have stated that humanistic verification is untenable. within
> > this line there is an implicit presumption that science can not prove
> > the existence of god. that presumption is an integral part of your own
> > premises. doesn't this make you a dog that chases its own tail? you
> > have no objective ground to make that presumption.
> > finding your own fideism untenable you blame the humanists. well,
> > since skepticism is at the heart of your own premises then an
> > inquistion won't solve the problem. your denigration of science is
> > self-defeating. your theocratic objective idealism is just a form of
> > nihilism. you have no true answers for humankind. only despair &
> > ignorance.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
I did not say this I wrote a piece on Norton and doing investigation that
Science and the Bible or hand in hand --that science discovered that in the
Bible ---Gen-1-1- there was a beginning of the earth and time---this is the
very first part of it---there has been threads done on the norton theory but
know I find it interesting to read---there were many--in the Bible--about
the shifting of Moutains-wind-stars-ect. ;;;;;;So Science agreed with the
Bible when Christains did not (or lack of understanding)
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:56 AM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 5:50 am, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not true....it is real simple...science has found God ...I have written
> on
> > this....
> Wonderful! By what simple scientific experiment or method can one find
> God?
> > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:48 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 1:54 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Then, on what basis do you believe that the Bible is objectively
> true?
> > > > It's an epistemological first principle. It is the standard that
> > > > measures the standard. :)
> > > how can you uphold an "epistemological first principle" on what is
> > > demonstrably false?! there are logical & factual errors in the bible.
> > > a standard that upholds errors is an erroneous standard.
> > > but there is another elephant in the room. you have made the argument
> > > that the scientific method is the wrong tool for the job in regards to
> > > god. you have stated that humanistic verification is untenable. within
> > > this line there is an implicit presumption that science can not prove
> > > the existence of god. that presumption is an integral part of your own
> > > premises. doesn't this make you a dog that chases its own tail? you
> > > have no objective ground to make that presumption.
> > > finding your own fideism untenable you blame the humanists. well,
> > > since skepticism is at the heart of your own premises then an
> > > inquistion won't solve the problem. your denigration of science is
> > > self-defeating. your theocratic objective idealism is just a form of
> > > nihilism. you have no true answers for humankind. only despair &
> > > ignorance.
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christia nity%252Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:48 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 1:54 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Then, on what basis do you believe that the Bible is objectively true?
>> It's an epistemological first principle. It is the standard that
>> measures the standard. :)
> how can you uphold an "epistemological first principle" on what is
> demonstrably false?!
I note that the demonstration failed.
> there are logical & factual errors in the bible.
You confuse the indictment with the conviction.
> but there is another elephant in the room. you have made the argument
> that the scientific method is the wrong tool for the job in regards to
> god. you have stated that humanistic verification is untenable. within
> this line there is an implicit presumption that science can not prove
> the existence of god. that presumption is an integral part of your own
> premises. doesn't this make you a dog that chases its own tail? you
> have no objective ground to make that presumption.
I like how Dr. Gordon Clark noted:
"Science, the history of science, and the philosophy of science are
... so inextricably fused or confused that it is impossible to draw
definite boundaries between them. Yet some people believe that the
boundaries are most distinct and obvious. ... Scientists frequently
think that their results spring directly and solely from
experimentation quite apart from philosophic speculation and
metaphysics."
So a scientism that presumes existential or humanistic premises by
which to give meaning and value to observations and results is not
tenable, and simply masks an invalid secular humanism "hiding" behind
observational data.
> finding your own fideism untenable
Against a charge of fideism:
"Fideism is the view that religious belief relies primarily on faith
or special revelation, rather than rational inference or observation
(see natural theology). The word fideism comes from fides, the Latin
word for faith, and literally means faith-ism. Several philosophers
and theologians have articulated the idea that faith is more
important, or valid, or virtuous, than reason in theology."
I simply note that the distinction of exclusivity between relying upon
faith *OR* reason is artificial and affected. More accurate would be
the concept of "precedence" or "pre-eminent" in which faith and reason
operate side-by-side in a person's heart and mind, and only in matters
of disagreement, where "faith" points in one direction and "reason"
points in another, would the choice of which direction be considered a
conflict. And in that limited conflict, one must decide which will
have the pre-eminence. :)
Its just as simple as noting that when one comes to a fork in the
epistemological road, and "reason" says go left, and "faith in God's
word" says go right, that one has to decide which source is
pre-eminent. For the believer, "faith" is pre-eminent over reason.
> you blame the humanists. well,
> since skepticism is at the heart of your own premises then an
> inquistion won't solve the problem.
I've been completely successful: Humanistic verification is quite
inadequate to the challenge, as Bertrand Russell (no Christian he!)
similarly noted:
"Another conclusion which was forced upon me was that not only
science, but a great deal that no one sincerely doubts to be
knowledge, is impossible if we only know what can be experienced and
verified."
> your denigration of science is
> self-defeating.
I don't denigrate science, but I do make clear the scientific method
has notable limitations. There is nothing pejorative in noting that
the scientific method can be abused; I simply defend its honor from
those who would put a "science" label on a bottle that, for example,
contains instead an invalid "secular humanism".
> your theocratic objective idealism is just a form of
> nihilism.
On Nov 9, 1:50 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> But the objective nature of reality is independent of its humanistic
> >> demonstration.
> > that doesn't prove that you can't know the truth w/o discerning it.
> It certainly makes clear that humanistic verification is not adequate
> to so evaluate. :)
no it doesn't. all you're saying is that the truth is independent of
discernment but knowledge is not. in order for a knower to know the
truth they have to discern it.
On Nov 9, 1:56 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Then, on what basis do you believe that the Bible is objectively true?
> >> It's an epistemological first principle. It is the standard that
> >> measures the standard. :)
> > how can you uphold an "epistemological first principle" on what is
> > demonstrably false?!
> I note that the demonstration failed.
that's just denying objective evidence for the errors in the bible. so
what kind of "epistemological first principle"
is based on a rejection of knowledge & an assertion of ignorance? if
that's the standard that measures the standard then you're committed
to propagating errors for the sake of doctrine.
> > there are logical & factual errors in the bible.
> You confuse the indictment with the conviction.
you confuse your denial for the truth & nobody has to buy into your
specious rhetoric.
> > but there is another elephant in the room. you have made the argument
> > that the scientific method is the wrong tool for the job in regards to
> > god. you have stated that humanistic verification is untenable. within
> > this line there is an implicit presumption that science can not prove
> > the existence of god. that presumption is an integral part of your own
> > premises. doesn't this make you a dog that chases its own tail? you
> > have no objective ground to make that presumption.
>... So a scientism that presumes existential or humanistic premises by
> which to give meaning and value to observations and results is not
> tenable, and simply masks an invalid secular humanism "hiding" behind
> observational data.
the scientific method is not scientism, nor does it presume anything
abt gods one way or another. just answer
one question: is the scientific method *in principle* untenable in
regards to god? yes or no?
> > finding your own fideism untenable
> Against a charge of fideism:
> ...For the believer, "faith" is pre-eminent over reason.
that's fideism, no ifs, &s or buts abt it. but more accurately the
rationale of faith is pre-eminent over the actual accountability for
real things. iow, fantasy is pre-eminent over an actual accountability
of reality.
> > you blame the humanists. well,
> > since skepticism is at the heart of your own premises then an
> > inquistion won't solve the problem.
> I've been completely successful: Humanistic verification is quite
> inadequate to the challenge
if you presume that the scientific method is inadequate in regards to
god that is just your arbitrary presumption & that is your own
skepticism, not anybody else's. so perhaps you are completely
successful in fooling yourself with your own specious arguments.
> > your denigration of science is
> > self-defeating.
> I don't denigrate science, but I do make clear the scientific method
> has notable limitations.
& on what objective grounds can you make that presumption?
> > your theocratic objective idealism is just a form of
> > nihilism.
On Nov 9, 2:50 am, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not true....it is real simple...science has found God ...I have written on
> this....
Observer
Good then you will be able to provide us with scientifically
verifiable substantiating data proving the existence of and any acts
of this god.
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:48 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 1:54 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Then, on what basis do you believe that the Bible is objectively true?
> > > It's an epistemological first principle. It is the standard that
> > > measures the standard. :)
> > how can you uphold an "epistemological first principle" on what is
> > demonstrably false?! there are logical & factual errors in the bible.
> > a standard that upholds errors is an erroneous standard.
> > but there is another elephant in the room. you have made the argument
> > that the scientific method is the wrong tool for the job in regards to
> > god. you have stated that humanistic verification is untenable. within
> > this line there is an implicit presumption that science can not prove
> > the existence of god. that presumption is an integral part of your own
> > premises. doesn't this make you a dog that chases its own tail? you
> > have no objective ground to make that presumption.
> > finding your own fideism untenable you blame the humanists. well,
> > since skepticism is at the heart of your own premises then an
> > inquistion won't solve the problem. your denigration of science is
> > self-defeating. your theocratic objective idealism is just a form of
> > nihilism. you have no true answers for humankind. only despair &
> > ignorance.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:05 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 1:50 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> But the objective nature of reality is independent of its humanistic
>> >> demonstration.
>> > that doesn't prove that you can't know the truth w/o discerning it.
>> It certainly makes clear that humanistic verification is not adequate
>> to so evaluate. :)
> no it doesn't. all you're saying is that the truth is independent of
> discernment
Yes, and additionally, humanistic verification is an untenable
standard for discernment.
ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 5:50 am, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not true....it is real simple...science has found God ...I have written
> on
> > this....
> Wonderful! By what simple scientific experiment or method can one find
> God?
> > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:48 PM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 1:54 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Then, on what basis do you believe that the Bible is objectively
> true?
> > > > It's an epistemological first principle. It is the standard that
> > > > measures the standard. :)
> > > how can you uphold an "epistemological first principle" on what is
> > > demonstrably false?! there are logical & factual errors in the bible.
> > > a standard that upholds errors is an erroneous standard.
> > > but there is another elephant in the room. you have made the argument
> > > that the scientific method is the wrong tool for the job in regards to
> > > god. you have stated that humanistic verification is untenable. within
> > > this line there is an implicit presumption that science can not prove
> > > the existence of god. that presumption is an integral part of your own
> > > premises. doesn't this make you a dog that chases its own tail? you
> > > have no objective ground to make that presumption.
> > > finding your own fideism untenable you blame the humanists. well,
> > > since skepticism is at the heart of your own premises then an
> > > inquistion won't solve the problem. your denigration of science is
> > > self-defeating. your theocratic objective idealism is just a form of
> > > nihilism. you have no true answers for humankind. only despair &
> > > ignorance.
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christia nity%252Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
On Nov 10, 7:07 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > no it doesn't. all you're saying is that the truth is independent of
> > discernment
> Yes, and additionally, humanistic verification is an untenable
> standard for discernment.
verification is always untenable as far as any magical thinking is
concerned. making faith "pre-eniment" doesn't
determine things one way or another. faith is just hopium & you're
evidently a junkie.
You are really way off base evidently---so you think if you say I'm a Junkie
than I am--people like you need to controll your tongue when it comes to
accuseing we see were your mind is---it does not make you smarter by calling
people that are not Junkie's--Junkies
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:03 AM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 7:07 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > no it doesn't. all you're saying is that the truth is independent of
> > > discernment
> > Yes, and additionally, humanistic verification is an untenable
> > standard for discernment.
> verification is always untenable as far as any magical thinking is
> concerned. making faith "pre-eniment" doesn't
> determine things one way or another. faith is just hopium & you're
> evidently a junkie.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=.
On Nov 14, 8:41 am, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are really way off base evidently---so you think if you say I'm a Junkie
> than I am--people like you need to controll your tongue when it comes to
> accuseing we see were your mind is---it does not make you smarter by calling
> people that are not Junkie's--Junkies
Doris, don't get your knickers in a knot.
I think Xeno has a typo here. I think he meant to type Opium. There
is
an old saying that "Religion/faith is the opium of the masses." Xeno
may
have been having "a play on words" hence "hopium" (based on hope).
Whatever, the end is the same. All he is saying is that just as a
Junkie
gets a high from a drug fix, so too do the religious people get a
high
(spiritual experience?) from their religion. He is not accusing you
of
being a junkie in the sense of you taking illegal drugs. Okay?
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:03 AM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 7:07 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > no it doesn't. all you're saying is that the truth is independent of
> > > > discernment
> > > Yes, and additionally, humanistic verification is an untenable
> > > standard for discernment.
> > verification is always untenable as far as any magical thinking is
> > concerned. making faith "pre-eniment" doesn't
> > determine things one way or another. faith is just hopium & you're
> > evidently a junkie.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:48 PM, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 8:41 am, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You are really way off base evidently---so you think if you say I'm a
> Junkie
> > than I am--people like you need to controll your tongue when it comes to
> > accuseing we see were your mind is---it does not make you smarter by
> calling
> > people that are not Junkie's--Junkies
> Doris, don't get your knickers in a knot.
> I think Xeno has a typo here. I think he meant to type Opium. There
> is
> an old saying that "Religion/faith is the opium of the masses." Xeno
> may
> have been having "a play on words" hence "hopium" (based on hope).
> Whatever, the end is the same. All he is saying is that just as a
> Junkie
> gets a high from a drug fix, so too do the religious people get a
> high
> (spiritual experience?) from their religion. He is not accusing you
> of
> being a junkie in the sense of you taking illegal drugs. Okay?
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:03 AM, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 10, 7:07 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > no it doesn't. all you're saying is that the truth is independent
> of
> > > > > discernment
> > > > Yes, and additionally, humanistic verification is an untenable
> > > > standard for discernment.
> > > verification is always untenable as far as any magical thinking is
> > > concerned. making faith "pre-eniment" doesn't
> > > determine things one way or another. faith is just hopium & you're
> > > evidently a junkie.
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christia nity%252Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=.
|
