| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Granny4364" |
| Date: |
09 Feb 2004 05:47:19 PM |
| Object: |
You Needn't Be A Bible Thumper To Believe In God |
(dave e) wrote in message news:<10ffa4e4.0402080541.3da97274@posting.google.com>...
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message news:<102baggh7q1k332@corp.supernews.com>...
(snip)
For those who don't know, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that
entropy tends to increase, over time, in a closed system.
In most cases, the layman's understanding of the second law is wrong,
or at least incomplete. The layman recognizes the second law as
having something to do with decay. It doesn't take a PhD in physics
(or revelation from God) to observe that most things decay over time.
David makes that observation in Psalm 102.
The greater achievement of science has been introducing the concept of
"entropy" (which is more rigorously defined than "decay") introducing
the concept of "closed" and "open" systems (which Psalm 102 doesn't
mention) and the discovery of means by which high-tech machinery,
developmental biology, and biological evolution are all possible
without violating any of the recognized laws of thermodynamics.
David's understanding of thermodynamics doesn't approach even an 18th
century understanding of the science, let alone a modern one. And
even if it had (which is unlikely to impossible) he didn't communicate
his knowledge in a way which made it accessible to further
experimentation or theoretical improvements. The second law of
thermodynamics wasn't formally introduced until 1834, by Clapeyron,
who specialized in designing steam engines. Clapeyron's discoveries
built on the knowledge of many scientists and engineers who came
before him. David (alleged author of Psalms) wasn't among them.
Sir, I'm wondering if you might not be here making a distinction
without a difference. As I understand it, a closed system is one which
is said not have any interaction with its environment. It exchanges
neither matter or energy with its surroundings. However, since an open
system does just the opposite, isn't the Second Law framed with a view
to closed systems, and hence the inevitable disorder and entropy
inherent to that arrangement? Which brings us to the macro universe
and systems infinitely larger than our own ecosystem.
As regards the universe as a whole, by definition we will never know
whether the whole shebang is open or closed, if the 2nd law even
applies at that scale. We will never have that privileged frame to
determine as much. And if we did, in principle something or somebody
else would require a more privileged frame by which to make judgements
about *our* observations ad infinitum. My guess is only a Supreme
Being rests at this ultimate vantage point, if such can be said to
exist. One simply cannot escape the conundrum of infinite regress when
discussing either the creation of the universe (what's *behind* those
starting blocks?) or speculation on the origin of God Himself. We
typically explain this away by fancy words such as omniscient and
omnipotent. Quite circular in the final analysis.
However, as a simple Theist, I personally believe there is a God and
that His creation is entirely consistent with both evolution and every
scientific advance/discovery since the dawn of time. I am a strong
subscriber to the design argument. Something far beyond our
intelligence, our ability to grasp or fathom, had to have brought all
this into existence. How could it be otherwise is a very fair
question. That we're not given to fully understand it all in this
plane of existence is no more relevant to its objective reality than
is our ability to fully understand quantum mechanics and why
sub-atomic particles behave the way they do. Observership literally
brings reality into being. This scientific fact is more astonishing
than religious faith itself. (Granny)
.
|
|
| User: "Unca Rheeamus" |
|
| Title: Re: You Needn't Be A Bible Thumper To Believe In God |
09 Feb 2004 08:55:12 PM |
|
|
"Granny4364" <AtheitsAreTrueBelievers@linkedto.voteprivacy.com> wrote in
message news:b0eceb8c.0402091547.22c0194b@posting.google.com...
As regards the universe as a whole, by definition we will never know
whether the whole shebang is open or closed, if the 2nd law even
applies at that scale. We will never have that privileged frame to
determine as much. And if we did, in principle something or somebody
else would require a more privileged frame by which to make judgements
about *our* observations ad infinitum. My guess is only a Supreme
Being rests at this ultimate vantage point, if such can be said to
exist. One simply cannot escape the conundrum of infinite regress when
discussing either the creation of the universe (what's *behind* those
starting blocks?) or speculation on the origin of God Himself. We
typically explain this away by fancy words such as omniscient and
omnipotent. Quite circular in the final analysis.
"The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and
progressive...but in spite of their religion, not because of it.
The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery
from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use
of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it
avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every
step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed
by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in
artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years
before Christian religion was born."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
"But the truth is, that when a Library expels a book
of mine and leaves an unexpurgated Bible lying
around where unprotected youth and age can
get hold of it, the deep unconscious irony of
it delights me and doesn't anger me."
- Sam L. Clements is a letter to Mrs. F. G. Whitmore, 2/7/1907
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: You Needn't Be A Bible Thumper To Believe In God |
09 Feb 2004 06:55:08 PM |
|
|
On 9 Feb 2004 15:47:19 -0800,
AtheitsAreTrueBelievers@linkedto.voteprivacy.com (Granny4364) wrote:
As regards the universe as a whole, by definition we will never know
whether the whole shebang is open or closed, if the 2nd law even
applies at that scale.
True.
We will never have that privileged frame to
determine as much. And if we did, in principle something or somebody
else would require a more privileged frame by which to make judgements
about *our* observations ad infinitum. My guess is only a Supreme
Being rests at this ultimate vantage point, if such can be said to
exist. One simply cannot escape the conundrum of infinite regress when
discussing either the creation of the universe (what's *behind* those
starting blocks?) or speculation on the origin of God Himself. We
typically explain this away by fancy words such as omniscient and
omnipotent. Quite circular in the final analysis.
Fine.
However, as a simple Theist, I personally believe there is a God and
that His creation is entirely consistent with both evolution and every
scientific advance/discovery since the dawn of time. I am a strong
subscriber to the design argument. Something far beyond our
intelligence, our ability to grasp or fathom, had to have brought all
this into existence. How could it be otherwise is a very fair
question.
And "I dont know" is a fair answer.
That we're not given to fully understand it all in this
plane of existence is no more relevant to its objective reality than
is our ability to fully understand quantum mechanics and why
sub-atomic particles behave the way they do. Observership literally
brings reality into being. This scientific fact is more astonishing
than religious faith itself. (Granny)
I find reality generally more interesting than the ideas of religious
faith.
Mark
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: You Needn't Be A Bible Thumper To Believe In God |
09 Feb 2004 05:52:35 PM |
|
|
On 9 Feb 2004 15:47:19 -0800,
AtheitsAreTrueBelievers@linkedto.voteprivacy.com (Granny4364) wrote:
Something far beyond our
intelligence, our ability to grasp or fathom, had to have brought all
this into existence. How could it be otherwise is a very fair
question.
And the fallacy of Argument from Personal Incredulity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Granny" |
|
| Title: Re: You Needn't Be A Bible Thumper To Believe In God |
09 Feb 2004 08:49:34 PM |
|
|
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message news:<me7g20186uf94qilh0ema36et8ejotoaq5@4ax.com>...
On 9 Feb 2004 15:47:19 -0800,
AtheitsAreTrueBelievers@linkedto.voteprivacy.com (Granny4364) wrote:
Something far beyond our
intelligence, our ability to grasp or fathom, had to have brought all
this into existence. How could it be otherwise is a very fair
question.
And the fallacy of Argument from Personal Incredulity.
Dear child, merely identifying, by popular or one's own personal
label, what one perceives as a fallacious argument or untenable
position, is not at all the same as actually refuting that argument. I
am so sorry you are not intellectually equipped to deal with this at
any length beyond the doltish blurb you offered. Perhaps next time,
little boy. (Granny)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: You Needn't Be A Bible Thumper To Believe In God |
10 Feb 2004 12:03:26 AM |
|
|
Granny wrote:
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message news:<me7g20186uf94qilh0ema36et8ejotoaq5@4ax.com>...
On 9 Feb 2004 15:47:19 -0800,
AtheitsAreTrueBelievers@linkedto.voteprivacy.com (Granny4364) wrote:
Something far beyond our
intelligence, our ability to grasp or fathom, had to have brought all
this into existence. How could it be otherwise is a very fair
question.
And the fallacy of Argument from Personal Incredulity.
Dear child, merely identifying, by popular or one's own personal
label, what one perceives as a fallacious argument or untenable
position, is not at all the same as actually refuting that argument. I
am so sorry you are not intellectually equipped to deal with this at
any length beyond the doltish blurb you offered. Perhaps next time,
little boy. (Granny)
Granny,
Great! I have high hopes that you will apply this to the
on-line and usenet works of, for instance, one Jason Gastrich.
He's a deep well of self-righteous fallacy finding (at least
recently, since he's boned up on it to avoid issues in a debate),
which you can never drink dry.
Tom McDonald
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lionel" |
|
| Title: Re: You Needn't Be A Bible Thumper To Believe In God |
11 Feb 2004 02:05:46 AM |
|
|
Kibo informs me that (Granny)
stated that:
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message news:<me7g20186uf94qilh0ema36et8ejotoaq5@4ax.com>...
On 9 Feb 2004 15:47:19 -0800,
AtheitsAreTrueBelievers@linkedto.voteprivacy.com (Granny4364) wrote:
Something far beyond our
intelligence, our ability to grasp or fathom, had to have brought all
this into existence. How could it be otherwise is a very fair
question.
And the fallacy of Argument from Personal Incredulity.
Dear child, merely identifying, by popular or one's own personal
label, what one perceives as a fallacious argument or untenable
position, is not at all the same as actually refuting that argument.
Rubbish. It's logically obvious that an individual's inability to
understand the universe does not, ipso facto, prove the existance of a
'Supreme Being' who /is/ intelligent enough to understand the universe.
(Although in the case of the people who usually advance that particular
bit of idiocy, it's tempting to argue for their case, on the basis that
their definition of 'Supreme Being'[0], would include the repair guy who
fixed their toaster last week after they stuck a knife in it - & they
have the repair bill to prove that /he/ exists.)
I
am so sorry you are not intellectually equipped to deal with this at
any length beyond the doltish blurb you offered. Perhaps next time,
little boy. (Granny)
The thing I find particularly amusing about that line of argument is
that it's almost invariably espoused by people who barely have the
intellectual capacity to master a pop-up toaster two tries out of three,
much less fathom the myriad intricacies of the universe. And despite the
fact that their entire argument rests on their own lack of intellectual
capacity, they'll repeat this gibberish until they run out of breath,
rather than admit that they just don't understand the numerous saner
explanations.
[0] ie; Someone a hell of a lot smarter than they are.
Oh yeah, I nearly forgot: The major flaw in the Argument from Personal
Incredulity is that it doesn't answer the very obvious question of why
it is, exactly, that anyone or anything needs to be capable of
understanding the universe, for it to exist. As every parent learns the
hard way, creating something most definitely doesn't mean that you
understand it.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: You Needn't Be A Bible Thumper To Believe In God |
09 Feb 2004 09:27:39 PM |
|
|
On 9 Feb 2004 18:49:34 -0800,
(Granny) wrote:
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message news:<me7g20186uf94qilh0ema36et8ejotoaq5@4ax.com>...
On 9 Feb 2004 15:47:19 -0800,
AtheitsAreTrueBelievers@linkedto.voteprivacy.com (Granny4364) wrote:
Something far beyond our
intelligence, our ability to grasp or fathom, had to have brought all
this into existence. How could it be otherwise is a very fair
question.
And the fallacy of Argument from Personal Incredulity.
Dear child,
Yes, old hag?
merely identifying, by popular or one's own personal
label,
Or by the standard rules of logic.
what one perceives as a fallacious argument or untenable
position, is not at all the same as actually refuting that argument.
It doesn't need to be refuted, as it's logically invalid. What part of
that don't you grasp?
am so sorry you are not intellectually equipped to deal with this at
any length beyond the doltish blurb you offered.
I'm so sorry that you're not intellectually equipped to present an
actual argument, rather than a blatant fallacy. Try to do better next
time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arjen Klaver" |
|
| Title: Re: You Needn't Be A Bible Thumper To Believe In God |
10 Feb 2004 01:15:05 PM |
|
|
at news:b0eceb8c.0402091547.22c0194b@posting.google.com
AtheitsAreTrueBelievers@linkedto.voteprivacy.com (Granny4364) wrote in
news:b0eceb8c.0402091547.22c0194b@posting.google.com:
dgenglish@hotmail.com (dave e) wrote in message
news:<10ffa4e4.0402080541.3da97274@posting.google.com>...
However, as a simple Theist, I personally believe there is a God and
that His creation is entirely consistent with both evolution and every
scientific advance/discovery since the dawn of time. I am a strong
subscriber to the design argument. Something far beyond our
intelligence, our ability to grasp or fathom, had to have brought all
this into existence. How could it be otherwise is a very fair
question. That we're not given to fully understand it all in this
plane of existence is no more relevant to its objective reality than
is our ability to fully understand quantum mechanics and why
sub-atomic particles behave the way they do. Observership literally
brings reality into being. This scientific fact is more astonishing
than religious faith itself. (Granny)
How did you make the huge step that there is a god that started
everything, and that this god is exactly the same as the one in the bible?
That you call that thing god and that name is also written in the bible
doesn't make them the same.
If allah was the real god how would the universe look like? You need to
answer this question, if you believe in creationism by the xtian god.
Greetings,
Arjen Klaver
.
|
|
|
| User: "Granny" |
|
| Title: Re: You Needn't Be A Bible Thumper To Believe In God |
10 Feb 2004 07:36:08 PM |
|
|
Arjen Klaver <chips@stack.nl> wrote in message news:<Xns948BCE4615044chipsstacknl@194.134.2.2>...
(snip)
How did you make the huge step that there is a god that started
everything, and that this god is exactly the same as the one in the bible?
That you call that thing god and that name is also written in the bible
doesn't make them the same.
If allah was the real god how would the universe look like? You need to
answer this question, if you believe in creationism by the xtian god.
Greetings,
Arjen Klaver
I am a Deist and do not accept the Bible as even accurate history,
much less the revealed word of God. I am a Deist. One needn't be an
adherent to any organized religion to believe in God. I hope we have
that cleared up beause this is the atheists' favorite straw man.
(Granny)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: You Needn't Be A Bible Thumper To Believe In God |
11 Feb 2004 10:57:39 PM |
|
|
"Granny" <WonkedOutWanda@linkedto.cypherprivacy.com> wrote in message
news:2dcc6dff.0402101736.61ea4847@posting.google.com...
Arjen Klaver <chips@stack.nl> wrote in message
news:<Xns948BCE4615044chipsstacknl@194.134.2.2>...
(snip)
How did you make the huge step that there is a god that started
everything, and that this god is exactly the same as the one in the
bible?
That you call that thing god and that name is also written in the bible
doesn't make them the same.
If allah was the real god how would the universe look like? You need to
answer this question, if you believe in creationism by the xtian god.
Greetings,
Arjen Klaver
I am a Deist and do not accept the Bible as even accurate history,
much less the revealed word of God. I am a Deist. One needn't be an
adherent to any organized religion to believe in God. I hope we have
that cleared up beause this is the atheists' favorite straw man.
(Granny)
Interesting.
What do you believe or not believe about Jesus?
So what is God's role? What does/did he do?
--
Ron Baker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: You Needn't Be A Bible Thumper To Believe In God |
11 Feb 2004 10:20:05 AM |
|
|
On Tue 10 Feb 2004 07:36:08p,
(Granny) kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke
up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting
out:
I am a Deist and do not accept the Bible as even accurate history,
much less the revealed word of God. I am a Deist. One needn't be an
adherent to any organized religion to believe in God. I hope we have
that cleared up beause this is the atheists' favorite straw man.
(Granny)
Oh dear me, HOW could we have made such a DEPLORABLE mistake?! Why,
Granny is a Deist! Not a Christian! In fact, if we'd just had the
honesty to read her other posts here, we'd already KNOW that! In fact,
let's go ahead and examine Granny's lovely little Deist beliefs, shall
we?
Dear Granny:
I am a senior in high school and I need your advice on what my father
told me yesterday. When I asked him how the whole universe was
created, he told me it wasn't created and that it just is. Well, I got
to thinking, if it just *is,* and didn't need something or someone to
create it, then how come when we dig up ancient ruins we can't say the
same thing? Like, they just *are* and nobody or nothing created them?
Wouldn't that make as much sense? Isn't the universe, and everything
that's in it, infinitely more complex than anything we dig up made by
man? Like, you know, an atomic reactor couldn't just be an accident,
right? Someone with great intelligence would have to design and build
such a thing, forget about actually making the natural elements from
which to fashion it. So why can't we look at, say, a skyscraper and
assert that it, too, is an accident - that it just *is?*
Well, when I asked him these things, he got very angry at me,
muttering something about the old design argument or something. Did I
do something wrong?
Sincerely, Stumped in Steubenville
Dear Stumped in Steubenville:
Did you do something wrong? I'll say! Your father got angry because
you challenged accepted atheistic dogma, his own sort of religion. He
also got angry because he couldn't actually offer any meaningful
comments beyond putting a label on the argument as opposed to actually
refuting the argument. Christians also blindly cling to certain
beliefs like this, too. I'll bet your dad thinks Christians are dumb
and he's a genius, huh?
Oh, and don't ask your father any more of these questions, especially
seeing as how he's such a brilliant atheist. They don't make
arguments themselves; they just demand them from others.
------------------------------
Dear Granny:
I am in the ninth grade and attend a Catholic school. A bratty little
neighbor girl told me that religion isn't necessary for someone to act
morally and be a good person. I then asked her, "If you don't get your
notions of what's right and wrong from the bible, then where do you
get them from?" I then asked her who *her* authority was for what good
and evil or right and wrong is.
When she couldn't answer me, she got mad and called ma a nutjob. Do
you think I am a nutjob, Dear Granny?
Sincerely,
Not A Nutjob In Norwich
Dear Not A Nutjob In Norwich:
Nutjob, indeed! You sound pretty normal to me, atually pretty bright
for a ninth grader. But then you attend a Catholic school, so you do
have a great advantage here. Public school kids are rather slow as you
know.
I believe your bratty neighbor girl got mad because she didn't want to
admit that she doesn't know where her notions of right and wrong come
from. And if you asked her parents, they'd probably mumble something
goofy about ethics and such. If this girl comes back at you with the
ethics dodge, ask her, "Whose ethics?" Ask her where those came from.
And then ask again where those in turn came from.
You see, dear girl, we all have our own little Gods, now don't we?
Even bratty little neighbors who claim not to have any.
Sincerely,
Dear Granny
-----------------------------------
Dear Granny:
We cannot afford to send our youngest child to a parochial school like
our two other children, so we will have to put him in 1st grade in a
public school (ugh!) this fall. The problem is he often says things
like, "Holy Smokes," "Jesus, Joseph and Mary," and "I hope to God..."
As you know, Dear Granny, this will get him in deep trouble in a
public school these days. After all, they do have their standards.
Unfortunately, we didn't figure on sending Timmy to a public school,
otherwise we would have taught him rap lyrics and such.
How do we deal with this since he's likely to be kicked out of this
school on the first day because of some Motzah Ball kid with an ACLU
lawyer father ratting him out and suing the entire universe? Sheesh,
maybe even a parallel universe as well if Harvey, Esq. (the rat fink
kid's father) can serve papers!
Sincerely,
Plagued Parent In Pensacola
Dear Plagued Parent In Pensacola:
I really feel sorry for you, dear, because there is no solution to
your problem short of receiving reimbursement for property and school
taxes being squandered to build and maintain these zoos. In the
meantime, consider home schooling or selling your house so you don't
have to send your child to an insane asylum masquerading as a public
school.
SIncerely,
Dear Granny
------------------------------------
Dear Granny:
I am 14 years old and my sister, who is seventeen, got pregnant. And
she didn't even tell our parents until she was six months along. She
is kind of heavy so nobody could really tell. Anyway, I overheard my
mom and dad talking about sending her to some sort of clinic to get an
abortion next week.
Well, Dear Granny, we are a family that loves the environment and all
sorts of animals and stuff and we have a 10 day, "Save The Whales"
excursion coming up right at that same time. Don't you agree that my
sister is being selfish for not wanting to postpone her abortion so we
won't all miss this opportunity to save the whales?
Sincerely,
Whale Watcher in Waterton
Dear Whale Watcher in Waterton:
Selfish? I should say so! As you know our environment is fragile and
needs good families like yours to protect it, especially the
endangered whales. You should tell your sister that her baby can be
ki, er, aborted any time but the whales can't wait. Also, young lady,
if *you* get pregnant in the next year or so, use some judgment and
make sure it's not during whale watching season!
Sincerely,
Dear Granny
Quite the Deist you are, there, Granny. One of those Bible-believing,
Jesus-loving, praying Deists. Yep. It's all clear to me now!
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arjen Klaver" |
|
| Title: Re: You Needn't Be A Bible Thumper To Believe In God |
11 Feb 2004 12:57:31 PM |
|
|
at news:2dcc6dff.0402101736.61ea4847@posting.google.com
WonkedOutWanda@linkedto.cypherprivacy.com (Granny) wrote in
news:2dcc6dff.0402101736.61ea4847@posting.google.com:
Arjen Klaver <chips@stack.nl> wrote in message
news:<Xns948BCE4615044chipsstacknl@194.134.2.2>...
(snip)
How did you make the huge step that there is a god that started
everything, and that this god is exactly the same as the one in the
bible? That you call that thing god and that name is also written in
the bible doesn't make them the same.
If allah was the real god how would the universe look like? You need
to answer this question, if you believe in creationism by the xtian
god.
Greetings,
Arjen Klaver
I am a Deist and do not accept the Bible as even accurate history,
much less the revealed word of God. I am a Deist. One needn't be an
adherent to any organized religion to believe in God. I hope we have
that cleared up beause this is the atheists' favorite straw man.
(Granny)
Yeah right, as Mekkala already said: "Quite the Deist you are, there,
Granny. One of those Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, praying Deists. Yep.
It's all clear to me now!"
If it walk like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it
probably is a duck, and not a horse.
If you were a deist would would not made the following claim:
I personally believe there is a God and that His creation is entirely
consistent with both evolution and every scientific advance/discovery
since the dawn of time.
From deism.com: "Deism teaches that the Creator is knowable and
discoverable through the creation itself." In this case creation is always
consistant with evolution, because god 'created' evolution. So you made
one total 'null-statement'. Also 'His creation'? How did you figure out
god is masculine?
Also note that deism is closer to atheism and to xtianity. Deist don't
make claims about the things god wants. Again from deism.com:
"Unlike the revealed religions, Deism makes no unreasonable claims. The
revealed religions encourage people to give up, or at least to suspend,
their God-given reason. They like to call it faith. For example, how
logical is it to believe that Moses parted the Red Sea, or that Jesus
walked on water, or that Mohammed received the Koran from an angel?
Suspending your reason enough to believe these tales only sets a precedent
that leads to believing a Jim Jones or David Koresh.
<snip>
Deism doesn't claim to have all the answers to everything, we just claim
to be on the right path to those answers. "
Note the definition of deism (which is quite accurate):
"The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and
then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on
natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation."
[ref] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Greetings,
Arjen Klaver
.
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|