| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"DJ Particle, RIAAcidal Lesbian Parodist" |
| Date: |
05 Aug 2006 05:45:39 AM |
| Object: |
Fundie behavior pet peeves |
You know, there are three fundie acts that I see so often on this
newsgroup that really bug the HELL out of me (pun intended):
1) "God has a plan for you"/"I pray you come to God"/[insert conversion
tactic here]
See, the reason why atheists are atheists has nothing to do with "hating
God". It's just that they have heard the stories and pronounced them
falsehoods. They do not believe in the existance of a deity, so there
is nothing for them to "hate" in that respect. Saying "if you're good
God will assume you into Heaven" has about as much effect as saying "if
you're good, Santa will come down the chimney and give you toys". That
is how atheists see conversion attempts. Continuing to try and convert
them will just seem childish.
2) "Prove God doesn't exist!"
You can't prove a negative. Plain and simple. The burden of proof is
ALWAYS on the person making the positive assertion -- "John murdered the
busboy", "I cleaned the dishes".... "God exists". There's a reason why
people are presumed innocent until proven guilty! To ask someone to
prove a negative shows a disregard for the laws of logic and shows a
great lack of intelligence!
3) "Marriage is based on procreation, so gays can't marry!"
Funny, the elderly and the barren get married all the time and they
can't procreate, and even if procreative ability *was* the reason, who
says a change in the definition of marriage is a bad thing? Oh that's
right, the Bible does. But you know what? The Bible is a religious
document, it has no place in secular law. I have yet to hear a secular
reason to deny marriage to gays, as every reason I've heard is either
ludicrously incorrect (like the above) or ultimately religious.
Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage for over a year with no ill
effects....in fact, the gay divorce rate in MA so far is a bit LOWER
than the average straight divorce rate nationwide. Maybe that's the big
fear...that gay marriage stats will make straight marriage stats look
bad by comparison ;) There really is a reason for that though. Many
more people who socially identify as straight emotionally repress
themselves in order to conform to some norm, which translates into their
relationships with the opposite sex (some actually repress gay or bi
tendencies and may or may not "come out" as such later in life). Most
out GLBT people, on the other hand, know they will never be society's
definition of "normal" and therefore are more honest and free with their
emotions, translating to stronger-bonding relationships.
Those are my 3 pet peeves about fundies...if I can get even one fundie
to understand what I'm saying and take it to heart, I will call my post
a success.
Thank you
oh P.S. -- I'm a Christian ("salad bar" Christian...at least I admit it
*heh*)
--
DJ Particle - RIAAcial Lesbian Parodist
www.djparticle.com
Otherwise known in the mundane world as "Emi-chan" :)
"Keep your ear to the radio, and keep hot water with you at all times!"
.
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundie behavior pet peeves |
04 Aug 2006 08:18:10 PM |
|
|
DJ Particle, RIAAcidal Lesbian Parodist wrote:
2) "Prove God doesn't exist!"
You can't prove a negative. Plain and simple. The burden of proof is
ALWAYS on the person making the positive assertion -- "John murdered the
busboy", "I cleaned the dishes".... "God exists". There's a reason why
people are presumed innocent until proven guilty! To ask someone to
prove a negative shows a disregard for the laws of logic and shows a
great lack of intelligence!
You can prove god does not exist.
There are seveal classes of gods, the big
class being the class of omni-everything,
creator gods. The claimed attributes of such
gods contradict each other disproving
that class of gods completely
Other classes of gods are also debunkable.
But this big class, the OEC gods are the gods
of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism.
And no other god class even comes close to the
OEC god class.
When on debunks all these god classes, nothing
is left of the idea of god.
Oh yes! One CAN disprove god!
----------------------------------------
IS THERE A GOD? NO.
STRONG ATHEISM'S ANSWER - PART 1.
1. First of all, this proof "God" does not exist
is aimed at an entire class of gods, not
particular gods. This is the class of gods that
are omni-everything and creator of all. If I can
disprove an entire class of gods, all particular
gods that belong to that class are collectively
disproven too. This is an efficient, and sensible
approach to disproving god, by which I mean the
god of major religious and theological traditions.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Brahamanistic
Hinduism and other claimed gods of this class.
This of course does not disprove all possible
gods, nor in Part 1 is this meant to do that, it
is meant only to deal with the gods that are
the main problem for this world, the gods of
4 1/2 billion believers. The god that is the
source of fundamentalism, bigotry, fanaticism,
anti-intellectualism and backwardness.
There are a few other classes of gods but
numerically speaking, by numbers of believers,
these are not that widespread or very important.
Animist gods, such as found in Voodoo and
nature gods and the like. It is possible to sort
other kinds of gods into a few classes of gods and
likewise disprove each class. That shall be
considered in later parts.
Here I am primarily looking at the class of
omni-everything creator gods. This should not be
taken to mean other classes of gods cannot also
be likewise disproven.
Or that such secondary classes are totally
unimportant. But basically the omni-everything
class of gods is so far above any other god that
once it is debunked, its hard to step down to
distinctly second rate gods. Its like stepping
down from a Cadillac to a bicycle.
If we can thus disprove that class, we have done
most of strong Atheism's work.
No other class of gods, a lessor kind of god,
can plug the hole left by the debunked Grand
Gods, the omni-everything creator gods of
classical major religions and theological
systems, either. These systems have all based
themselves on a set of claims about god that
lessor classes of god cannot fulfill, precisely
because to do so, they would have to become again,
omni-everything gods to fulfill the
omni-everything claims made for god in these
traditional systems.
2. A BASIC DEFINITION THE CLASS OF
OMNI-EVERYTHING AND CREATOR OF ALL GODS.
I sometimes call this the Grand God of
Grand Theology. Or the Grand God
for short.
3. NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD
There is no evidence whatsover for god. One may
search the best textbooks of the best divinity
schools and seminaries and philosophy departments
of the best universities in vain for evidence.
2500 years of philosophy and theology have
produced no good hard, undeniable evidence at all.
4. ALL WE HAVE TO WORK WITH IS ASSERTIONS
A. All we have to work from is claims, or
assertions made about god. I have chosen the
following 8 assertions as they are all part of
all great and large religions and theological
traditions of the world. Most of 4 1/2 billion
believers will agree with most of these, and these
are all dogmatic to most mainsteam religions.
B. If we can show these create contradictions, we
can show that the class omni-everything creator
gods, the Grand God, cannot exist. All we have to
work with are assertions and logic, but this is
all we need. I need not use anything more to
achieve my goal.
5. THE 8 MAJOR ASSERTIONS I WILL WORK WITH
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and
consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism. I have chosen the
specifically because they are in fact assertions
made about god traditionally by these religions
and are all that is needed to show this class of
Grand Gods cannot exist.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
6. WE CAN THUS ABSTRACT A GENERAL CLASS OF
OMNI-EVERYTHING GOD FROM THESE 8 GENERAL
ASSERTIONS.
A. We can abstract a class of gods,
omni-everything, creator gods from these 8
characteristics. We could probably drop G. and
collapse B. into A.
We can ignore other claims though such claims
as god's mercy, justice and love are also affected
and could be used to strengthen the argument.
Many of these are destroyed anyway by considering
A. - G. But the idea is to use minimal number of
basic claims found in all major religious and
theological traditions. If these do the job of
disproving this class of gods, that is all we
need. Anything else is a luxury.
B. There are other attributes of god, that god is
eternal, infinite, that god is simple and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above or are destroyed by
discussion of the 8 attributes discussed above.
C. It does not mean we cannot later consider
such secondary claims as many are also rather
useful at showing this class of gods is
impossible. Some are rather amusing in this
regard. But they are secondary and not critical
for the main argument here.
7. CLASSES OF GODS
A. It is important to note here in 2., that this
is a definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods. This is key to this
disproof which is general in nature.
B. If we disprove the entire class of gods by
examining the logical implications of a few
claims, all secondary claims are also destroyed.
We need not examine claims of god's simplicity or
whether god is immanent or transcendent or other
similar claims. We need not break down
omnibenevolence into secondary associated claims
such as such as mercy, justice, or implied claims,
though we might mention their destruction
in passing when appropriate, and damage done to
such concepts of damnation, or punishment or sin.
C. If we disprove a class of gods, those gods
belonging to that class are also disproven. Jesus,
Allah and other gods that properly belong to the
class of omni-everything creator gods are
simultaneously disproven if we succeed.
all known gods and possible new or obscure gods
are all dealt with, we need not worry about a god
we have never heard of it it is of this class.
D. Tertiary claims are also likewise disproven.
Mohammed is not a prophet of god and Jesus was not
son of god. Moses did not meet god on the
mountain, God did not promise all of Canaan to
Abraham. God did not part the Red Sea. God does
not speak to prophets.
8. THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level. I chose these since the majority
of believers 4 1/2 billion approximately belong to
these traditions and related religions and sects.
THE PROBLEMS OF AN OMNI-EVERYTHING, CREATOR GOD
9. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
It is found in Christian writer Lactantius's
"Treatise on the Anger of God".
A basic formulation is:
A. God is defined as powerful
B. God is defined as as good.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not powerful as claimed.
E. Or God is not good as claimed.
F. Or god is neither powerful or
good.
G. Or god is not existant.
It should be noted the original version as found
in Lactantius does not use the words omnipotent
or omnibenevolent, these are much later
restatements of the original problem of evil which
works just as well without these terms.
10. THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
A. The free will defense of the problem of evil
goes back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It
is still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by many other
theologians, old and modern.
B. God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to
do evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
11. THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DISPROVEN. FIRST WAY
God has free will.
God is has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god-like
free will and a god-like good nature.
D. Inability then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
good.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So god can have free will and a good nature and
still be said to have free will despite never
doing evil. Man can thus also have this and
inability to do evil is not a sign of lack of free
will. We both would have potential to do evil, but
simply don't. Here, the free will defense fails,
the problem of evil remains.
13 OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
FREE WILL DISPROVEN PART 2.
God is defined as creator of all in these
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
14. OMNI-EVERYTHING GODS HAVE THUS SELF
DESTRUCTED.
A.The Grand God of Grand Theology is thus self
destroying, it is incoherent and contradictory as
a theory and such a god is impossible.
B. Further more such a situation makes god a
problematic idea. If there is no free will and if
thus god makes all decisions to the smallest
physical extent possible, at all times, then not
only is this god not good, but evil, a
contradiction, but it destroys all of this
purported god's secondary attributes. In such a
universe, mercy, justice, god's alleged love of
mankind are all incomprehensible nonsense. It
makes no sense to create a man to do evil acts
and condemn him to eternal torment forever for
something god decided, not that man.
C. Any system of theology that claims god created
all and that god is omniscient, knowing the
future, faces this problem and dissolves into
total incoherent nonsense, a reductio ad absurdum
that makes a mockery of all religions based on a
god that is allegedly creator of all and
omniscient, knowing the future. As we will see,
omnipotence, time and creation will combine
(in future parts) to create a far more powerful
disproof of this class of gods.
15. THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
6. This destroys all other claimed secondary and
good attributes of god.
16. GOD AND TIME.
A. Both Augustine and Boethius described god as
being transcendent to time, outside and beyond it.
Thus there is no past, present, or future to god,
all is now. Since all is now, god must have
create all things at once at once. Including
again, our every act, thought and inclination.
God is said to be out of time because otherwise he
must affected by time, which would mean he is not
as defined, all powerful or omnipotent. But this
means he is omniscient and again, we have no free
will.
B. As seen, explicit claims of omniscience, and
creatorship of god doom free will and more. Any
claim god is outside of time forces us to the
claim god is effectively omniscient.
C. But if we drop claims god is out of time and
now is affected by time, god cannot be as claimed,
omnipotent. And since omniscience, foreknowledge
of the future is important to the concept of
prophecy, that secondary assertion fails too.
Prophecy is a key concept of traditional religions
and theologies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
17. MANY SECONDARY AND LESSOR ATTRIBUTES ARE
DOOMED BY THE CONCEPT OF OMNIPOTENCE AND
CREATORSHIP OF GOD
A. If evil exists, god is evil. We have no free
will which means secondary attributes of God such
as mercy, love, justice are pretty meaningless
in face of a god that creates many of us morally
evil. Heaven, hell, damnation, sin, punishment,
salvation, nothing much makes with such an
omniscient god. Augustine's free will defense of
God in face of Epicurus's problem of evil is
utterly undone by his claim god is sovereign over
time because he is all powerful, or omnipotent.
B. Besides these attributes being destroyed, this
destroys all religions that dogmatically claim
god is omniscient, creator of all and has these
secondary tributes.
18. TIME CONTRADICTS GOD'S CREATION OF ALL.
A. If we say god is omnipotent, all powerful, he
is outside of time then free will is impossible
and all else is simply an Universe utterly alien,
incoherent and mad and most certainly not anything
the great theological traditions tell us it is.
B. To avoid this, if we say god is not outside
of time, this then implies time is outside and
beyond god and he cannot have created it. Thus
contradicting claims of being the creator of all.
Especially ex nihilo as many religions claim.
C. Thus the another contradiction pops up
dooming a major claim, god created all. Theology
cannot keep the claim god is outside of time or
keep the claim god is subject to time, as then
they lose Omnipotence and creatorship of the
entire universe as dogmatic claims.
19. Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand Theology itself as a
methodology. As pointed out, this destroys the
claims and viability of an entire class of
possible gods, all secondary and tertiary
claims for such a god of this class also
fail, as do dogmas or secondary or tertiary
claims hanging off this class of gods in anyway.
This dooms religions based on such gods too.
19. If this entire class of omni-everything
creator gods cannot exist as defined, specific
gods cannot, nor can claims such as this or that
Grand God sent this or that revelation to man or
some prophet or did this or that. This there are
no grounds to use these religions to deny rights
to say, homosexuals, or to claim Genesis myths are
true since they are god's word and thus evolution
must not be taught in schools.
20. This Grand God is thus disproven and is
utter irrelevant to anything real and existant.
And this is not the last of the problems of the
class of Omni-everything gods that are creators
of all.
21.
A. Omniscience and creatorship of all doom free
will, the alledged goodness of god and important
concepts like sin, salvation, punishment, mercy,
love and justice of god besides.
B. Omniscience implies either strong
determination, or creation of all things to the
smallest physical extent, or god out of time,
again creating all at once and dooming free will
and again many secondary assertions made for god,
mercy, love, et al.
C. Free will defenses fail in two ways and cannot
save god from the Epicurean problem of evil.
D. Omnibenevolence creates conditions for god
that are destroyed by contradictions between
omniscience and creatorship, and problems
of free will.
E. God's alledged goodness and omnipotence
combine to destroy god's alledged goodness
as seen in section 11. Evil is still a problem
for a good and omnipotent god who creates us.
F. Omnipotence imlies time is not a limit
on god which becomes a problem.
G. Time is a problem for god as it forces one
into a dilemma, time either means all is created
at once, creating B. above, or showing god is
affected by time which implies god is not creator
of all as claimed.
And there are more problems that will be
considered in other parts to come. Such as the
nature of logic, and the rules and laws of the
Universe. But here at this point we can see that
an omni-everything god that creates all is
impossible to sustain as an existing class of
gods. Religions that rely on such a god as their
basic foundation are also disproven thusly also.
(End of Part 1)
*************************************************
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "DJ Particle, RIAAcidal Lesbian Parodist" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundie behavior pet peeves |
05 Aug 2006 10:23:45 PM |
|
|
In article <12dagsfnnl768da@corp.supernews.com>,
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
DJ Particle, RIAAcidal Lesbian Parodist wrote:
2) "Prove God doesn't exist!"
<<well-written language cut simply for length>>
All I can say is: Nice! :)
--
DJ Particle - RIAAcial Lesbian Parodist
www.djparticle.com
Otherwise known in the mundane world as "Emi-chan" :)
"Keep your ear to the radio, and keep hot water with you at all times!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundie behavior pet peeves |
05 Aug 2006 12:41:14 AM |
|
|
DJ Particle, RIAAcidal Lesbian Parodist wrote:
In article <12dagsfnnl768da@corp.supernews.com>,
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
DJ Particle, RIAAcidal Lesbian Parodist wrote:
2) "Prove God doesn't exist!"
<<well-written language cut simply for length>>
All I can say is: Nice! :)
Here is a very short one.
GOD FREE WILL, GOOD NATURE.
God has free will, no higher gods, or forces
can limit god's will. God is all good, he has
a good nature, and he cannot do moral evil.
Being all good god hates evil. If god wishes to
eliminate moral evil, he would give man a god-like
free will and a god-like good nature incapable
of doing moral evil.
But moral evil exists. If god could do this and
fails to, he then is responsible for all moral evil
that exists and cannot be said to be all good, or to
hate evil as claimed. He is in fact, omni-malevolent
since all evil is due to god's refusal to give man a
god-like good nature and a god-like free will.
Since god supposedly designed and created man to begin
with, there is no reason not to have created man
this way, free from moral evil from the beginning.
Moral evil exists, and a god that is alledgedly
all good and hates evil cannot exist.
- End
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundie behavior pet peeves |
06 Aug 2006 12:59:22 AM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12db097236hf91e@corp.supernews.com...
DJ Particle, RIAAcidal Lesbian Parodist wrote:
In article <12dagsfnnl768da@corp.supernews.com>,
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
DJ Particle, RIAAcidal Lesbian Parodist wrote:
2) "Prove God doesn't exist!"
<<well-written language cut simply for length>>
All I can say is: Nice! :)
Here is a very short one.
And a very wrong one.
GOD FREE WILL, GOOD NATURE.
God has free will, no higher gods, or forces
can limit god's will.
The one does not imply the other. The fact that no higher gods or forces
limit god's will, doesn't necessarily imply that god has complete free will.
So you're making an assertion that isn't supported.
God is all good, he has
a good nature, and he cannot do moral evil.
According to only some traditions. What does this say about all possible
gods?
Being all good god hates evil.
Unsupported assertion. It was stated that you could disprove god...period.
Unless you're referring to some specific god, this assertion doesn't
necessarily apply to any possible god.
If god wishes to
eliminate moral evil
But you haven't proven that god must wish to eliminate moral evil.
, he would give man a god-like
free will and a god-like good nature incapable
of doing moral evil.
Non sequitur. God cannot give man BOTH a god like free will and an
incapability of doing moral evil. That's a logical contradiction.
So your argument fails completely at right this point just as it always has.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundie behavior pet peeves |
05 Aug 2006 03:09:29 AM |
|
|
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God is said by theologians to have created the Universe
and all in that Universe.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all that is in
the Universe and he knows the future state of the Universe
and the state of all its contents as he contemplates creating
the Universe.
C. Augustine claimed that god is sovereign over time and thus
must be outside and transcedent over time. To god, past,
present and future are all one thing to god who thus knows all
that existed, exists and will exists as time is an illusion
to god. Boethius a century later also stated this.
D. If god creates a Universe, he will know that in 13 billion
years this Universe will have a man named John Smith in it
because he is omniscient, all knowing.
E. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and damned, in
the distant future, God will know whether John Smith is
to be good or evil.
F. God knows that the Universe created in its present state will
have a John Smith, god must then contemplate the future state
of Smith and decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith or if
god will create the Universe in another manner that will have
a good Smith who is saved in preference to a Smith who is evil
and damned.
G. Thus, Smith will be good or evil only because of a specific
personal and will choice made solely by god who must make
a choice faced with the knowledge of the future and implement
his choice of what the future Smith will be, good or evil.
H. Since this all happens as god contemplates creation of the
Universe, Smith has no say in whether he is to be good or evil
as he does not exist yet and cannot influence god's choice.
I. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god. In fact all moral evil done by creations of god
will be evil and do evil only because of personal and willful
creations of god allowing evil acts to be done, by direct
decision of god.
J. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient, creator god,
it is solely and only because god allows evil.
K. If evil exists solely because of personal choices of god,
god then is not as defined, omnibenevolent. Nor merciful,
just, or similar good qualities.
L. Man and any other sentient being in such a Universe cannot
have any free will, not even in principle. A Universe with
a god that creates all, and knows all precludes free will for
all beings god creates in the strongest possible manner.
M. This is precisely because knowing all and faced with
what will be, god at all times must make a personal choice
to actually create what he is contemplating creating with
full knowledge and acceptance of what his creation will
entail, or he must change his creation to conform to his
wishes for the type of world he wants. Thus free will is
impossible, only god's will can be expressed in a
Universe where god is creator of all and omniscient.
***********************************************************
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundie behavior pet peeves |
06 Aug 2006 01:49:31 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12db8v6hpsged57@corp.supernews.com...
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
Not in all or even most religions.
A. God is said by theologians to have created the Universe
and all in that Universe.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all that is in
the Universe and he knows the future state of the Universe
and the state of all its contents as he contemplates creating
the Universe.
Most religions do not believe this Augustinian dogma.
C. Augustine claimed that god is sovereign over time and thus
must be outside and transcedent over time. To god, past,
present and future are all one thing to god who thus knows all
that existed, exists and will exists as time is an illusion
to god. Boethius a century later also stated this.
Luckily, Augustine doesn't get to define God. Again, the Augustinian view
is not true of all or even most religions. Barwell is arguing against
medievalism. Since god need not be omniscient in order to be the most
powerful being in the universe, most of the rest of the argument does not
follow.
H. Since this all happens as god contemplates creation of the
Universe, Smith has no say in whether he is to be good or evil
as he does not exist yet and cannot influence god's choice.
A concept denied by free will which is recognized by most religions. If
John Smith has free will, God cannot know precisely what Smith will do. If
God did know, Smith would not have free will.
I. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely because of a choice
made by god.
But since most religions deny this, the argument fails.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundie behavior pet peeves |
06 Aug 2006 08:08:36 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
Not in all or even most religions.
In the religions of 4.3 billion, yes.
In OEC gods, yes.
You lose.
Because this was about debunking OEC gods.
Stupid loser.
Now, the other gods.
GOD IS DISPROVEN
(Short version)
CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
Preliminary
God as a concept is not really a single concept
To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
consider god by classes of gods. Broad classes
of god are fairy easy to disprove, and when a
class of gods is disproven all members of that
class with class characteristics are disproven.
This is economical and powerful.
Some gods map onto other classes of gods.
If a class is impossible, a class that maps
onto to that is also impossible. This makes
the concept of classes of gods a very powerful
tool for examining god ideas for viability.
Basically, there are not that many classes of gods,
about 25 or so depending how you count classes of
gods and god like ideas. Some of this is problematic,
is the concept of souls a god class idea or not?
At the bottom of the list of broadest classes of god
ideas, are classes of things hard to decide if they
are truly worth much in this regard.
Some classes of gods, myth cycles of gods can be
mapped to OEC gods or nature gods, or allegorical gods.
One can brek myth cycle gods down to smaller categories,
Celtic, Greek, Roman gods, henotheistic gods, soter gods,
etc, but that adds little to our task at hand and is
really not necessary
OEC or nature god mappings are all that really matter.
Once a class is disproven, all secondary and tertiary
claims and assertions about that class of gods are
disproven. All particular gods of that class and related
doctrines, theologies, and dogmas are eliminated.
THE MAJOR CLASSES OF GODS.
1. The greatest god imaginable
A. Supergods - Ashvara
The greatest god imaginable must be free of all limits
of logic. But then that god, perfect, all good, all
powerful has no limits to eliminating evil. Evil exists,
so this god cannot exist. Its self contradictory
2. Omni-Everything class class gods
Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, creation
of all combine to create multiple overlapping
incompatibilities and contradictions that show
the class of OEC gods cannot exist.
3. Transcendent
4. Immanent
5. Maya
6. Idealism
These classes of gods map onto OEC class gods
and are thus shown to be impossible. An OEC god is
impossible whether its transcendent or immanent.
Each attribute simply adds further problems
to an OEC class god.
7. Deism
A. Maps to OEC
B. Maps to Pantheistism
Deism class gods thus fail.
8. Pantheism
A. Allegorical
B. Metaphysical
Allegorical is useless. There is no mechanism
for the Universe as a whole to be somehow
intelligent, and science can show all that
the Universe does is in fact a matter of physics.
9. Process theology/metaphysics god
This class of gods has failed. Designed as a
metaphysical rather than revealed god, process
theology from the beginning invented its own
physics and hung its god on that. This physics is
wrong and this god does not work with modern physics,
ruling it out as a viable class of gods.
10. Nature gods
A. Nature gods, numina etc
B. Tutelary gods, guardians of
places, sites, people.
Science has removed room for nature gods. Only science can
explain rain, crop fertility and natural phenomenon. The huge
swarms of nature gods of the past, cannot explain anything.
Nature gods are either reflections of real nature, in which
case the lack of real nature such as jet streams, techtonic
plate movements, atoms, chemistry principles, true biology
principles show the ancients were just guessing and not at
the important underlying forces of nature.
And of course the other aspect, revelation is absent here.
No god's came down to man and introduced themselves,
the gods of quarks, the goddess of the strong nuclear force,
or the goddess of gravity.
Obviously, then, nature gods are impossible and useless.
Related are tutelary gods, gods that offer protection to state,
cities, homes, tribes, families, children, women, personal
protection, et al, these are simply nonsense.
They never protected much, life was always cheap, whole states,
towns, cities, peoples were destroyed despite supposed protector
gods in the past. All the gods of Gaul did not protect them from
the Romans, the Roman gods did not protect them from barbarians.
Without modern medicine, vast numbers of people died alone
and in vast epidemics.
Tutelary gods and nature gods did not help even a little bit here.
For the vast numbers of people in the past, this was religion.
Science leaves no room for them.
11. Myth cycle gods.
A. Maps to OEC class
B. Maps to Nature god
C. Maps to allegorical god class
D. Maps to tutelary gods.
12. Allegorical gods, gods and goddesses that are
simple personifications of human nature or nature itself.
Hope, fear, love, and similar. Ate, goddess of violence,
Fama, goddess of rumor, Eris, goddess of discord, etc.
The stuff of poets, not really meant to be taken seriously.
Useless to explain the creation of this world, or anything
about it.
LESSOR THINGS.
Stuff so low down the food chain its not worth discussing,
spirits, fairies and nonsense.
Nothing that can take the place of god.
Thus we can start with the most powerful imaginable classes
of gods and work down to fairies and there simply is no
viable class of gods.
All viable particular gods are thus disproven.
God cannot exist.
(End)
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundie behavior pet peeves |
07 Aug 2006 12:16:08 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12deescqc7t6v09@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
*****************************************************
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
Not in all or even most religions.
In the religions of 4.3 billion,
Which doesn't disprove the existence of god.
You've failed.
GOD IS DISPROVEN
(Short version)
CLASSES OF GODS 8-1-06
Preliminary
God as a concept is not really a single concept
To deal with the idea of god it is necessary to
consider god by classes of gods. Broad classes
of god are fairy easy to disprove
Not by anything you've shown.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundie behavior pet peeves |
07 Aug 2006 04:44:50 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
In the religions of 4.3 billion,
Which doesn't disprove the existence of god.
The class of OEC gods has failed.
You have failed.
You are a kook. Now go away.
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundie behavior pet peeves |
08 Aug 2006 05:14:12 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12di1ftfaepd5fd@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
In the religions of 4.3 billion,
Which doesn't disprove the existence of god.
The class of OEC gods has failed.
Not due to anything you've shown.
You are a kook. Now go away.
Or what?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundie behavior pet peeves |
05 Aug 2006 03:08:58 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
GOD, MAN AND FREE WILL.
1. For sake of argument, let us say man has free will.
God also has free will, this of course is a basic
claim for god, what could limit god's free will?
If free will exists at all it must exist for god
in the strongest sense, and for one, St. Thomas
Aquinas makes that explicit in his Summa Theologica.
1A. "Summa Theologica, The One God, Does God have free will?"
"Since then God necessarily wills His own goodness, but
other things not necessarily, as shown above (3), He
has free will with respect to what He does not necessarily
will."
2. God also has a good nature, incapable of doing evil.
Yet the fact is god is said to be incapable of doing
moral evil because of his good nature, theology does
not allow that god therefore lacks free will. This and
similar sorts of arguments limiting god's free will (God
cannot sin, therefore lacks a totally free will) have
uniformly been denied by theology as in any way limiting
god's free will.
3. So if god can have a good nature incapable of doing
moral evil and if god still has free will, man likewise
can also have a god-like free will and a god-like good
nature incapable of moral evil.
4. Since Augustine, many theologians have claimed that
man has free will and that god allows man to do evil
to perserve that free will. But we see this must be
false. Man can have free will and a good nature incapable
of doing moral evil exactly as god has free will and a good
nature, therefore the free will defense of Augustine is
simply false.
5. Since man can indeed have a god-like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of evil, we must then
confront the problem that moral evil does exist, though
it should not with a good god who supoosedly hates evil.
6. If god is morally good, he must then give man a god-like
free will and a god-like good nature, if he does not, god
is then directly responsible for all moral evil that exists
and god is then morally evil, not morally good, a contradition
in basic claims, that god is morally good. The Summum bonum,
omnibenevolent.
7. As a way out of this predicament, one must drop either claims
god created all, or claims god is omnipotent or omnibenevolent.
The idea that claims god created man can be abandoned are impossible
on several grounds, mainly that this is not what the Bible or Quran
or other sacred books plainly state. And leave the question of where
man and the Universe came from open and unsolved if one does drop
that claim.
8. Likewise we cannot drop claims god is good. That is a claim made
in Bible and Quran, and most other similar books.
9. That leaves omnipotence, but there is no reason to think god
creates man and yet cannot give man a god like good nature.
Even if one drops omnipotence explicitly, omnipotence isn't
needed for a creator god to creat man with a good nature.
So dropping claims of omnipotence won't help either.
10. Claims of hidden reasons for failing to give man a god-like
free will and a god-like good nature incapable of evil are simple
desperate examples of ad-hocism and are thus rejected for lack
of coherence and sense faced with obvious facts there are no
reasons not to give man a good nature and free will and both
together would be necessary attributes if god existed and could
indeed give man the same characteristics god has.
CONCLUSIONS
OMNIPOTENCE AND A GOOD NATURE AND FREE WILL
1. A godlike good nature incapable of moral evil as we see cannot
contradict free will by theology's own rules.
2. There is no inherent reason that is contradictory to common sense
or reason, or logic in the sense of an married batchelor or a
square circle.
3. Nor is the concept impossible in the sense of something undesirable
from god's point of view, being good, he would want his creations
also to be good and would attempt to make them good if he could.
4. Omnipotence puts this ability to create man with free will
and a good nature well within god's abilities, there is no
logical or rationaly reason to deny man can have free will and
a good nature.
FREE WILL IS NOT VALUED BY GOD
1. The argument free will is valuable to god and accounts for man's
moral evil is false and cannot stand.
2. The Bible also shows us in Romans and elsewhere we do not
have free will, hardening of hearts so as to manipulate men
as seen in Exodus and Joshua also debunk the claim god strongly
favors free will.
2A.God hardens men's hearts. Exodus 4, 7-12, Joshua 11:20, Deuteronomy
2:30)
2B. Predestination, John 12:37-41, Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:13-38
Romans 11:5-10 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 Ephesians 1:1 - Ephesians 1:23
Ephesians 2:8-9
A GOD THAT HAS FREE WILL AND A GOOD NATURE CANNOT EXIST
The existance of moral evil then shows us even if we accept
that man has free will, this does not explain away evil, but
compounds the problems.
1. God has free will
2. God has a good nature
3. Because God is supremely good, god should by the duty
imposed on him by his supreme goodness have given man a
god-like free will and a god-like good nature.
4. Therefore moral evil should not exist.
5. Thus a god that has free will and is supremely good
cannot exist.
***************
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundie behavior pet peeves |
06 Aug 2006 01:47:14 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12db8u8hbr0oa35@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
GOD, MAN AND FREE WILL.
1. For sake of argument, let us say man has free will.
But we really can't say that because regardless of whether god enters the
equation or not, the debate between free will, determinism, compatibilism,
incompatibilism, dualism and so on rages on.
God also has free will, this of course is a basic
claim for god,
Not for many gods. Basically, it's only a claim for the Augustinian notion
of god which is the only one that you know anything about or can formulate
an argument for.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundie behavior pet peeves |
05 Aug 2006 03:22:20 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
But we really can't say that because regardless of whether god enters the
equation or not, the debate between free will, determinism, compatibilism,
incompatibilism, dualism and so on rages on.
Is a dogma of the RCC et al.
Now, let us see where that dogma leads us.
Later we will do Calvinism and Islamic qadar.
Original sin and infant depravity.
All lead to the same place, a debunked god.
Argue free will or no free will.
Don't say "You argue free will, not allowed,
now you argue no free will, not allowed!".
That tiresome old game is *****.
This one is free will as per Aquinas, the
RCC, Anglicans and modern day theologians
like Alvin Plantinga using free will to battle
atheism.
Go away. You simply haven'y any ability
to argue anything, you are clueless.
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundie behavior pet peeves |
06 Aug 2006 06:18:25 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12dcjtktnbjp6d8@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
But we really can't say that because regardless of whether god enters the
equation or not, the debate between free will, determinism,
compatibilism,
incompatibilism, dualism and so on rages on.
Is a dogma of the RCC et al.
Now, let us see where that dogma leads us.
You're boring, Barwell. You're not going anywhere with this, just like
you're not going anywhere with anything else.
All you've got is old arguments and the pretence that they're new.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundie behavior pet peeves |
06 Aug 2006 06:35:42 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Is a dogma of the RCC et al.
Now, let us see where that dogma leads us.
You're boring, Barwell. You're not going anywhere with this, just like
you're not going anywhere with anything else.
So, you admit defeat. dgeated on facts, yu play games.
basically, yes, free wil is a dogma of the RCC.
As explicitly stated by the RCC, anmd made dogmatic
at teh Council of Trent.
Now we take that claim, run it out to its logical conclsuion
and we show god cannot exist.
Now , You and Jtem rant and rave that nobody takes
free will seriously. I show you it is a dogma.
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saintS/ncd03400.htm
Against the Protestant Reformers, the Council of Trent has solemnly
condemned those who affirm that the free will of man was lost through the
sin of Adam and those also who maintain that God's grace removes freedom
from the human will.
JTEM is still lost, utterly unable to understand any of this
and you change your cretinous tune again.
You of course wil not admit "I screwed up, I said free will
was not important while in fact it is still a Catholic dogma,
and still a dogma too of Anglicans and other denominations
that support free will."
If there is supposedly free will, it is a meaningful
dogmatic claim. You were wrong and being utterly,
totally dishonest personally, you wil not admit it.
Instead you sneer and bolviate hoping nobody notices,
Gandy brayed and bellowed free will was no longer
important and it is.
You lost again. JTEN lost but does't seem able
to figure out any of this.
Free will is a dogma, but if man has free will,
there is no reason god cannot give man also a
god like good nature.
God also has free will, see Aquinas.
Their definitions, not my definition, theirs
do not work together.
You lost and admit it by desperately trying
to divert attention. You are so dishonest as a person.
Anytime in AA we can show god cannot exist, that
is interesting. Watching idiots like you get beat
like a gong is not.
Loser, go away.
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundie behavior pet peeves |
07 Aug 2006 12:16:11 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12de9e6cnslbr99@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Is a dogma of the RCC et al.
Now, let us see where that dogma leads us.
You're boring, Barwell. You're not going anywhere with this, just like
you're not going anywhere with anything else.
So, you admit defeat.
I admit you're boring and you're not going anywhere with this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundie behavior pet peeves |
07 Aug 2006 01:03:11 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12de9e6cnslbr99@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Is a dogma of the RCC et al.
Now, let us see where that dogma leads us.
You're boring, Barwell. You're not going anywhere with this, just like
you're not going anywhere with anything else.
So, you admit defeat.
I admit you're boring and you're not going anywhere with this.
You are bored being beaten like a big bass drum? OK.
FREE WILL? NO FREE WILL? GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE
(Short version)
W.C. Barwell 8-4-06
Romans 8-11 state that man has no free will, god
predestines all. But not all Christian sects follow
Romans, many claim man indeed does have free will.
Either man has free will or man does not have
free will, and all is predetermined as per Romans 8 - 11.
Each claim can be taken as a starting argument
and run to its logical conclusion to see if it
is a viable claim.
FREE WILL - After Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas et al.
Roman Catholics, Anglicans et al
God could give man a god-like free will (good)
and a god-like good nature incapable of moral evil.
If god can and does not all evil is god's fault.
A god defined as all good yet resopnible for
all moral evil is a contradiction.
This god in a world of free will cannot exist.
It is a dogmatic claim fromCouncil of Trent
man has free will. It is a dogmatic claim
from Summa Theologica that god has free will.
NO FREE WILL - Calvinists, Lutherans
Calvinists and other predestinatrians, (following Romans)
claim all is predestined. Why are some men evil, and
damned? Because they are infected with original sin.
See Calvinism's 5 points for particulars.
Again, if god is all powerful and all good and hates
sin, he would have destroyed original sin on day one
since it generates evil and, which he hates. It cause
mankind to be damned, where as god wants all to be saved.
In a world here man has no free will, all is
predetermined, a god that is alledgedly all good
and hates evil cannot exist in a world of original
sin and evil. He is responsible for that evil
because he could have eliminated origial sin and
chose not to.
Free will? A good god cannot exist in a world where
man has free will and moral evil exists.
No Free will? A good god cannot exist in a world
where man has no free will and original sin is allowed
to create evil and damnation.
Either way, free will, no free will, a totally
good god cannot exist in a world where there is evil.
All evil is sole responsibility of god.
If god is alledgedly all good, but creates all
evil, we have a contradiction that disproves god.
(End)
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundie behavior pet peeves |
08 Aug 2006 05:26:52 PM |
|
|
DJ Particle, RIAAcidal Lesbian Parodist wrote:
You know, there are three fundie acts that I see so often on this
newsgroup that really bug the HELL out of me (pun intended):
1) "God has a plan for you"/"I pray you come to God"/[insert conversion
tactic here]
See, the reason why atheists are atheists has nothing to do with "hating
God". It's just that they have heard the stories and pronounced them
falsehoods. They do not believe in the existance of a deity, so there
is nothing for them to "hate" in that respect. Saying "if you're good
God will assume you into Heaven" has about as much effect as saying "if
you're good, Santa will come down the chimney and give you toys". That
is how atheists see conversion attempts. Continuing to try and convert
them will just seem childish.
2) "Prove God doesn't exist!"
You can't prove a negative. Plain and simple. The burden of proof is
ALWAYS on the person making the positive assertion -- "John murdered the
busboy", "I cleaned the dishes".... "God exists". There's a reason why
people are presumed innocent until proven guilty! To ask someone to
prove a negative shows a disregard for the laws of logic and shows a
great lack of intelligence!
3) "Marriage is based on procreation, so gays can't marry!"
Funny, the elderly and the barren get married all the time and they
can't procreate, and even if procreative ability *was* the reason, who
says a change in the definition of marriage is a bad thing? Oh that's
right, the Bible does. But you know what? The Bible is a religious
document, it has no place in secular law. I have yet to hear a secular
reason to deny marriage to gays, as every reason I've heard is either
ludicrously incorrect (like the above) or ultimately religious.
Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage for over a year with no ill
effects....in fact, the gay divorce rate in MA so far is a bit LOWER
than the average straight divorce rate nationwide. Maybe that's the big
fear...that gay marriage stats will make straight marriage stats look
bad by comparison ;) There really is a reason for that though. Many
more people who socially identify as straight emotionally repress
themselves in order to conform to some norm, which translates into their
relationships with the opposite sex (some actually repress gay or bi
tendencies and may or may not "come out" as such later in life). Most
out GLBT people, on the other hand, know they will never be society's
definition of "normal" and therefore are more honest and free with their
emotions, translating to stronger-bonding relationships.
Those are my 3 pet peeves about fundies...if I can get even one fundie
to understand what I'm saying and take it to heart, I will call my post
a success.
I'd have to say that their breathing is my pet peeve.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
