Philosophy Offtopic: Atheism as a philosophy

Mycernius

The Hairy Wookie
Messages
901
Reaction score
98
Points
0
Location
Hometown of George Eliot
Ethnic group
English
However, you can rejoice that Communism, which is far worse than Nazism and Fascism in general in murdering 100 million individuals, is an unmitigated atheist philosophy.
Really, is that why you get christian communists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
Atheism isn't a philosophy, a religion or any other category you wish to put it in. It is merely the non-belief in a god or gods. I get tired of this old canard being trotted out time and time again.
Those millions were not killed in the name of atheism. Communists had a tendency to kill anyone who did not agree with their way. Intellectuals were normally the first to go, and guess what, you find that most of these intellectuals were atheists. In the killing fields of Cambodia just wearing glasses was enough to get you murdered as it was thought intellectuals wore glasses.
I will also point out that during WW2 Stalin, an atheist and a communist opened churches and encouraged attendance in a way to bring the Russian people together.
 
Really, is that why you get christian communists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
Atheism isn't a philosophy, a religion or any other category you wish to put it in. It is merely the non-belief in a god or gods. I get tired of this old canard being trotted out time and time again.

It's true that not all communists are atheists, but official communism has tended to be atheistic, following Marx:

Karl Marx said:
Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction.

Also, I don't think that JFWR was saying anything against your point of how atheism is not itself a philosophy or a religion.

I will also point out that during WW2 Stalin, an atheist and a communist opened churches and encouraged attendance in a way to bring the Russian people together.

Stalin was a pragmatic nationalist in many ways. But he was still himself an atheist, and his premiership was sandwiched between two anti-religious campaigns.
 
Really, is that why you get christian communists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

I mean Marxist communism, not utopian, Christian, et cetera, which were not the intellectual background of the USSR, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, et cetera.


Atheism isn't a philosophy, a religion or any other category you wish to put it in. It is merely the non-belief in a god or gods. I get tired of this old canard being trotted out time and time again.

That's nonsense. Atheism is a philosophical position. It is the disbelief in God, which is itself a question of philosophical import. There are also many philosophies which can be described as Atheistic amongst which would be Marxism, Epicureanism, Nihilism, the philosophy of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche's philosophy, et cetera.

No one is claiming Atheism is a religion, though. It has no churches, no rituals, no expression of the numinous, or anything else of the sort.

Those millions were not killed in the name of atheism. Communists had a tendency to kill anyone who did not agree with their way. Intellectuals were normally the first to go, and guess what, you find that most of these intellectuals were atheists. In the killing fields of Cambodia just wearing glasses was enough to get you murdered as it was thought intellectuals wore glasses.
I will also point out that during WW2 Stalin, an atheist and a communist opened churches and encouraged attendance in a way to bring the Russian people together.

Those killed were killed under the understanding of these regimes' Marxist doctrine. Marxist doctrine is officially Atheistic. Marx does not quibble on this point.

For a good scholarly source on Stalin's massive persecutions of Christians and others, please see:

Dimitry V. Pospielovsky. A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice, and the Believer, vol 2: Soviet Anti-Religious Campaigns and Persecutions, St Martin's Press, New York (1988) p. 89

Stalin removed some supression in order to rally the Russian peasants behind the Soviet war effort. Your claim that he helped the church, however, is equivalent to saying an arsonist who builds you a hut is helping you after burning down your mansion.
 
That's nonsense. Atheism is a philosophical position. It is the disbelief in God, which is itself a question of philosophical import. There are also many philosophies which can be described as Atheistic amongst which would be Marxism, Epicureanism, Nihilism, the philosophy of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche's philosophy, et cetera.

Well, if atheism is a "philosophical position," it's not a strong one, because it doesn't require justification in the same way that theism does. It begins to require justification when the philosopher argues that it is required within their framework, as Marx does, but that's not typical.

Besides, atheism doesn't imply a certain philosophy, that's the point. So, sure, the philosophy of Marxist communism was very destructive. But that is no more an indictment of other atheist philosophies than Hilter being a Catholic is an indictment of Shaivism.
 
Well, if atheism is a "philosophical position," it's not a strong one, because it doesn't require justification in the same way that theism does. It begins to require justification when the philosopher argues that it is required within their framework, as Marx does, but that's not typical.

The only sense that atheism wouldn't require justification would be in the case of ignorance or simply disbelief without philosophical backing. That is to say, "Oh, I just don't have any beliefs in any divinities". Rather than: "I do not believe that God exists".

It certainly requires less justification in that sense as all theism is a positive belief.

When someone claims to be an Atheist, it is implied that they believe that God does not exist. This is itself a positive belief and requires a justification for its belief. "I don't know" would satisfy an answer, but that would be a sort of personal agnosticism.

Besides, atheism doesn't imply a certain philosophy, that's the point. So, sure, the philosophy of Marxist communism was very destructive. But that is no more an indictment of other atheist philosophies than Hilter being a Catholic is an indictment of Shaivism.

Oh, I quite agree. But it is useful to bring up when religion is claimed as the greatest evil in the world. If we judge religion as the basis for evil by the action of states which are held to be religious (like the claim for Hitler was affirming), then we must look at Communist countries as Atheist and factor in Atheism as a great evil.
 
The only sense that atheism wouldn't require justification would be in the case of ignorance or simply disbelief without philosophical backing. That is to say, "Oh, I just don't have any beliefs in any divinities". Rather than: "I do not believe that God exists".

At what point does disbelief in something require justification? Is it when that thing becomes exceptionally popular? I can't think of another reason that you would require justification for disbelief in God, as opposed to disbelief in leprechauns. Unless you think that all disbelief requires justification?

I always thought it was easier to construct a philosophy by justifying what you believe in, rather than everything that you disbelieve in.

When someone claims to be an Atheist, it is implied that they believe that God does not exist. This is itself a positive belief and requires a justification for its belief. "I don't know" would satisfy an answer, but that would be a sort of personal agnosticism.

Well, my point was that the most common personal atheism tends to be a sort of open-minded "I don't know for sure, but I don't believe right now" atheist/agnostic hybrid. Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive, of course. State atheism and Marxism are exceptional in that they require atheism in some way.

Oh, I quite agree. But it is useful to bring up when religion is claimed as the greatest evil in the world. If we judge religion as the basis for evil by the action of states which are held to be religious (like the claim for Hitler was affirming), then we must look at Communist countries as Atheist and factor in Atheism as a great evil.

OK, sure, if your point is just that we can't say "some religious states have been evil, so religion is evil," then I agree.
 
At what point does disbelief in something require justification? Is it when that thing becomes exceptionally popular? I can't think of another reason that you would require justification for disbelief in God, as opposed to disbelief in leprechauns. Unless you think that all disbelief requires justification?

Let's say something like this: A savage lives in the middle of New Guinea with no conception whatsoever of any sort of God (this is unlikely as savages are superstitious as a rule and have plenty of spiritual beliefs, but let's go with it). In that case, his disbelief is merely a case of ignorance. The thought has not dawned upon him. He is an atheist in the sense that he holds to no belief in any divinities, but he's not affirming the statement, "there is no God" either. Likewise, just stating a fact (I don't believe in the divine) is not itself an argument. However, once one does have the conception of the divine, it ought to be based on something to refute or affirm it.

And yes, all positive disbelief requires justifications. In the case of leprechauns: John doesn't believe in them because they violate natural law and there is no evidence of their existence. Likewise with X, Y, and Z.

Contrary example: John never heard of leprechauns, thus he doesn't disbelieve in their existence or anything of the sort.

I always thought it was easier to construct a philosophy by justifying what you believe in, rather than everything that you disbelieve in.

It is.

Well, my point was that the most common personal atheism tends to be a sort of open-minded "I don't know for sure, but I don't believe right now" atheist/agnostic hybrid. Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive, of course. State atheism and Marxism are exceptional in that they require atheism in some way.

I do not know if that is really the most common form of atheism. Most atheists seem to have a fairly strong sense that God doesn't exist. But yes, a preference for disbelief without rational justification of it is is something people put forth. It's unfortunate, as that shows intellectual laziness.

OK, sure, if your point is just that we can't say "some religious states have been evil, so religion is evil," then I agree.

Yeah. I wanted to make tha tpoint. I find the argument historically invalid despite its ludicrous popularity. I find myself needing to refute it to point out how historically nonsensical it is.
 
Stalin removed some supression in order to rally the Russian peasants behind the Soviet war effort. Your claim that he helped the church, however, is equivalent to saying an arsonist who builds you a hut is helping you after burning down your mansion.
I agree with this. However it is hard to blame Marxism or Atheism for accesses of one tyrant. Stalin was a monster who would commit same crimes regardless if he was a christian Tsar of Russia, or atheistic fascist. Stalin was a dictator who even killed atheistic members of ruling communist party, and in thousands. Ideology was the least concern of Stalin, his ultimate power and cult of his person was. We've met similar psychopathic and antisocial murderers thorough history of man kind, and they come from all religious backgrounds, or lack of one, and all races. As I said I wouldn't blame Marxism or Atheism for his crimes. Leninism more likely, surely Stalinism. :wink:
 
I agree with this. However it is hard to blame Marxism or Atheism for accesses of one tyrant. Stalin was a monster who would commit same crimes regardless if he was a christian Tsar of Russia, or atheistic fascist. Stalin was a dictator who even killed atheistic members of ruling communist party, and in thousands. Ideology was the least concern of Stalin, his ultimate power and cult of his person was. We've met similar psychopathic and antisocial murderers thorough history of man kind, and they come from all religious backgrounds, or lack of one, and all races. As I said I wouldn't blame Marxism or Atheism for his crimes. Leninism more likely, surely Stalinism. :wink:

Well the problem is this: Whereas Stalin was the worst communist leader in Russia, he wasn't the only bad guy. Every Communist leader up till maybe Gorbachev did some horrific things, and their Eastern European allies were often as blood thirsty or worse. The ideology driving the USSR and its satellite states were one premised on Atheism in theory, and in practice on totalitarian oppression.

This is not to say that Nikita Kruschev was as bad as Stalin. Obviously, he wasn't. Still, he was a pretty damn bad guy.

Now if you go to the Far East, you get even worse. Mao made Stalin look like a lightweight. He probably killed in excess of 100 million Chiense citizens. The Chinese government to this day is one of the most oppressive on the planet, with the Falun Gung having two million "disappearances" and "reeducations" just last decade. Then, of course, you have North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam...

Where Communism has come, totlitarianism and death has followed. Is it -because- it is Atheist? Not necessarily. But if we are to blame "religion" for everything, let's talk about what Atheists have done in this last century alone.
 
At what point does disbelief in something require justification? Is it when that thing becomes exceptionally popular? I can't think of another reason that you would require justification for disbelief in God, as opposed to disbelief in leprechauns. Unless you think that all disbelief requires justification?

There are instances of disbelief that require huge justification. Most of the people on this planed had to believe in science and laws of physics. From lack of education, interest, or understanding we have to relay on scientists for explanation of inner-working of the world. Almost all people have to take electromagnetism, nuclear forces or how cellphone works on leap of faith. It is not uncommon to meet folks, even in western world, who will deny many scientific principle, even the once proven beyond doubt.
It's not exactly same thing as not believing in something that doesn't exist, which is positive, it's more like false negative. Nevertheless some disbelieves need to be justified.


To my understanding theists are in easier position, because of human nature. Most people on this planet are spiritual people, and evolution (explained by natural selection) might have engraved believe in supernatural in our gens. Generally speaking it is easier to believe that not to believe for human beings. It is therefore, sort of, a normal thing for theists to ask for proof of gods' nonexistence from atheists. It is so natural for them to know (believe) the god, to feel the presence of god, to feel existence of something bigger then themselves, to see the signs spirits give them in everyday life situations, and it feels so unnaturally wrong to hear that some might not believe the way they do. The faith comes so natural to them that they don't bother to prove to themselves that god exists, though they demand otherwise from nonbelievers. For them the feeling of god, spirits, supernatural is good enough proof. But at the end of a day, it's just a feeling.
 
Last edited:
Well the problem is this: Whereas Stalin was the worst communist leader in Russia, he wasn't the only bad guy. Every Communist leader up till maybe Gorbachev did some horrific things, and their Eastern European allies were often as blood thirsty or worse. The ideology driving the USSR and its satellite states were one premised on Atheism in theory, and in practice on totalitarian oppression.

This is not to say that Nikita Kruschev was as bad as Stalin. Obviously, he wasn't. Still, he was a pretty damn bad guy.

Now if you go to the Far East, you get even worse. Mao made Stalin look like a lightweight. He probably killed in excess of 100 million Chiense citizens. The Chinese government to this day is one of the most oppressive on the planet, with the Falun Gung having two million "disappearances" and "reeducations" just last decade. Then, of course, you have North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam...
I wouldn't say that they are much worse that other dictators and hegemons from the past, like Chingis Khan, Alexander the Great, Julius Cesar or Conquistadors, or should we mention crusaders. They all burned and killed whole cities, just because people didn't want to surrender to their will, and mostly for the money and fame. I would like to mention that atheism wasn't popular even heard back than, and they belonged some religions. The only reason they have killed thousands not millions is because of 10 times lesser population density and their inefficient weapons.
Yes, the communist leaders, that you mentioned, didn't have any religious affiliations and officially atheists (at least when on high positions, it was different at birth or adolescence), but it doesn't mean they were not spiritual or superstitious people. I'm pretty sure many of them were.
Spirituality is a base for religious believes.


Where Communism has come, totlitarianism and death has followed. Is it -because- it is Atheist? Not necessarily. But if we are to blame "religion" for everything, let's talk about what Atheists have done in this last century alone.
As I elaborated above I don't blame religions or religious people for sins of our ancestors, just because they happened to believe or belong to religions, and I think most atheists take the same stand too. We just throw this in face of religious people, from time to time, as a reminder that they are not any better than us.
Unfortunately theists are educated (brainwashed) by their religious dogmas that only religion can teach people morality. That without religion world and people will be without ethics and destined for apocalypse. Atheists are looked upon, from all religions, as immoral, evil and scary monsters. Off course this couldn't be farther from the truth, and I hope you can come to this conclusion, when interacting with few of us on Eupedia. :grin:



PS. By no means I was defending communism or rather these attempts at it.
 
Let's say something like this: A savage lives in the middle of New Guinea with no conception whatsoever of any sort of God (this is unlikely as savages are superstitious as a rule and have plenty of spiritual beliefs, but let's go with it). In that case, his disbelief is merely a case of ignorance. The thought has not dawned upon him. He is an atheist in the sense that he holds to no belief in any divinities, but he's not affirming the statement, "there is no God" either. Likewise, just stating a fact (I don't believe in the divine) is not itself an argument. However, once one does have the conception of the divine, it ought to be based on something to refute or affirm it.

Actually, I think we're closer than it may appear here regarding what requires justification. Saying "there is no God" requires justification. Making an argument against theism requires an actual argument. I'm mainly saying that it's not typical, or at least not default, to have atheism be required in a philosophical framework, so few need to make an argument to justify personal atheism. I'm not so much thinking of a New Guinean who has never heard of God here. I'm more thinking of someone like a Czech, who doesn't live in a society structured around religion, doesn't attend church, and really doesn't think about it that much, but would answer "no" to "Do you believe in God?" And to "Why not?" they answer "I don't know, why should I?"

And yes, all positive disbelief requires justifications. In the case of leprechauns: John doesn't believe in them because they violate natural law and there is no evidence of their existence. Likewise with X, Y, and Z.

To me, that's more like arguing against leprechauns than affirming a personal disbelief, though. I mean, it's a bit more than saying "I don't believe in leprechauns" to say, "Leprechauns violate natural law, and there's no evidence for leprechauns." The first fits into both a philosophical framework that allows for leprechauns but doesn't incorporate them at the moment. The second only fits into a philosophical framework that doesn't allow for them.

Of course, a lot of philosophical frameworks cut out any possibility for leprechauns alongside a lot of other things at the same time. Those are frameworks like "I only believe what I know has evidence." But as LeBrok points out, that's not typical for people, as people tend to default to believing in, or at least allowing for, the supernatural. Maybe it's a typical framework for a lot of Western atheists... but it's not necessary for atheism as a whole.

I do not know if that is really the most common form of atheism. Most atheists seem to have a fairly strong sense that God doesn't exist.

I think that's a typical experience if you've mostly been around American and Internet atheists. A lot of these sorts of people are out to defend themselves (living in a very religious place) or are out to have an argument. I wonder how far it extends elsewhere, though.
 
There are instances of disbelief that require huge justification. Most of the people on this planed had to believe in science and laws of physics. From lack of education, interest, or understanding we have to relay on scientists for explanation of inner-working of the world. Almost all people have to take electromagnetism, nuclear forces or how cellphone works on leap of faith. It is not uncommon to meet folks, even in western world, who will deny many scientific principle, even the once proven beyond doubt.
It's not exactly same thing as not believing in something that doesn't exist, which is positive, it's more like false negative. Nevertheless some disbelieves need to be justified.

I think we're thinking of two different types of people here. For the atheist case, I'm thinking about people who don't believe in God but their philosophical framework doesn't depend on that (doesn't require justification). The comparable case here would be someone who doesn't believe in science but it doesn't really matter to them. That's not a very normal case in the Western world... but you can see how a tribal African might fit that description. They operate without considering that science might work, they don't think about it too often, and they do fine. That's a bit different than someone who argues against the principles of science.
 
Actually, I think we're closer than it may appear here regarding what requires justification. Saying "there is no God" requires justification. Making an argument against theism requires an actual argument. I'm mainly saying that it's not typical, or at least not default, to have atheism be required in a philosophical framework, so few need to make an argument to justify personal atheism. I'm not so much thinking of a New Guinean who has never heard of God here. I'm more thinking of someone like a Czech, who doesn't live in a society structured around religion, doesn't attend church, and really doesn't think about it that much, but would answer "no" to "Do you believe in God?" And to "Why not?" they answer "I don't know, why should I?"

The Czech in that instance would be something of an intellectual dullard if he has ignored a major intellectual point in human history for so long he has not conceived of an answer one way or another. That being said, he may simply be unreligious and uninterested, in which case it doesn't dawn upon him to have this belief.

I understand what you mean in the sort of "just a lack of belief", though. A lack of belief without the affirmation, necessarily, that God is non-existent. This is merely a state of being which is not affirming or denying anything, while yet not believing in what others affirm. This is not something one must justify in and of itself as no argument is being made.

To me, that's more like arguing against leprechauns than affirming a personal disbelief, though. I mean, it's a bit more than saying "I don't believe in leprechauns" to say, "Leprechauns violate natural law, and there's no evidence for leprechauns." The first fits into both a philosophical framework that allows for leprechauns but doesn't incorporate them at the moment. The second only fits into a philosophical framework that doesn't allow for them.

Okay. I see what you mean here. The case of the "Leprechaun agnostic without belief" and the case of the Czech above mirror one another.

Of course, a lot of philosophical frameworks cut out any possibility for leprechauns alongside a lot of other things at the same time. Those are frameworks like "I only believe what I know has evidence." But as LeBrok points out, that's not typical for people, as people tend to default to believing in, or at least allowing for, the supernatural. Maybe it's a typical framework for a lot of Western atheists... but it's not necessary for atheism as a whole.

Okay. Fair enough: There are cases of merely disinterested non-believers, or ignorant non-believers, or other instances where there is no strong affirmation of non-existence of these things.

I think that's a typical experience if you've mostly been around American and Internet atheists. A lot of these sorts of people are out to defend themselves (living in a very religious place) or are out to have an argument. I wonder how far it extends elsewhere, though.

I definitely wasn't thinking of the standard non-believer in a normal sense who isn't affirming anything, yes.

I'm thinking of deliberately Atheistic people like, say, David Hume or Nietzsche (quite different figures, though).
 
I think we're thinking of two different types of people here. For the atheist case, I'm thinking about people who don't believe in God but their philosophical framework doesn't depend on that (doesn't require justification). The comparable case here would be someone who doesn't believe in science but it doesn't really matter to them. That's not a very normal case in the Western world... but you can see how a tribal African might fit that description. They operate without considering that science might work, they don't think about it too often, and they do fine. That's a bit different than someone who argues against the principles of science.

Philosophically, the starting position should be "nothing", clean slate, and if I understood right, it is yours too. From that point whatever is claimed to exist should be proven. The proof lies on claimant's shoulders. It happens that atheists/sceptics are always in this starting/primary position, therefore don't need to prove anything.


However in life, it all depends on people's original position. To change sides form believer to atheistic position one will need justification for such profound change. In this case, one needs to put arguments against one's believes, to prove that god or gods don't exist. Actually in practice, one is losing the faith when one is not being able to prove god's existence. Other words, one is not being able to support his/her original position as theist. In practice proving that gods don't exist equals lack of proofs the gods exist.
 
Philosophically, the starting position should be "nothing", clean slate, and if I understood right, it is yours too. From that point whatever is claimed to exist should be proven. The proof lies on claimant's shoulders. It happens that atheists/sceptics are always in this starting/primary position, therefore don't need to prove anything.

Only if they claim ignorance. If they claim, "God does not exist" they must present a philosophical or empirical justification for that belief. Moreover, there are plenty of standard philosophical positions that argue for God's existence, such that they have to contend with those if they wish to adequately deny God.

If they say "I do not believe in God" then this is not an argument and thus need not be backed.

The proof that God exists must, of course, be first put forth by the theist in question.
 
Only if they claim ignorance. If they claim, "God does not exist" they must present a philosophical or empirical justification for that belief. Moreover, there are plenty of standard philosophical positions that argue for God's existence, such that they have to contend with those if they wish to adequately deny God.

If they say "I do not believe in God" then this is not an argument and thus need not be backed.

The proof that God exists must, of course, be first put forth by the theist in question.


The primary/starting position is a very unique one. We are born in this state, with no knowledge of the world. You can call it ignorance, but it doesn't change the fact that this is the primary position. Primary position is also lacking beliefs, and in this regard is atheistic. Where "I don't believe in God" or "God doesn't exist" is one and same.
From this moment on we are exploring the environment and build sets of proofs for all its elements. Things like floor, mother, toys are easy to declare real, first hand empiricism. Things like beliefs in supernatural are beyond exploration skills of kids and are only learned from parents mouth, and surprisingly without any need of proof. That's how "knowledge" of gods starts, and heck, most theists have blind faith, consolidated by inborn feeling of spirituality, and only few goes beyond that looking for empirical proofs.

In short, we all start at primary/ignorant position, and we don't need any philosophical or empirical justification for this natural state of human mind. So, everything we learn, it better be justified empirically, otherwise we learn skewed "reality". I guess we all know what, long line of our ancestors, believed in, what became nothing more than amusement of ancient history. But somehow, we disregard millenia of lessens, and think that what we believe now is true.
 
The primary/starting position is a very unique one. We are born in this state, with no knowledge of the world. You can call it ignorance, but it doesn't change the fact that this is the primary position. Primary position is also lacking beliefs, and in this regard is atheistic. Where "I don't believe in God" or "God doesn't exist" is one and same.

This primary position of ignorance would not combine the two positions at all. "God doesn't exist" is either true or false as an objective fact. "I don't believe in God" is an affirmation of belief.


From this moment on we are exploring the environment and build sets of proofs for all its elements. Things like floor, mother, toys are easy to declare real, first hand empiricism. Things like beliefs in supernatural are beyond exploration skills of kids and are only learned from parents mouth, and surprisingly without any need of proof. That's how "knowledge" of gods starts, and heck, most theists have blind faith, consolidated by inborn feeling of spirituality, and only few goes beyond that looking for empirical proofs.

Well empirical proofs are pretty poor for God, as God is better treated as a philosophical problem and deduced (or refuted) from pure reason. You're giving a plausible genealogy of how people come to believe in God in a normal sense, so I won't contest that, but I don't see its relevance.
 
This primary position of ignorance would not combine the two positions at all. "God doesn't exist" is either true or false as an objective fact. "I don't believe in God" is an affirmation of belief.
It's true but...
For atheists the consequences of both statements are identical. Other words "There is no proof that god exists, therefore it is impsible for me to believe in it".


Well empirical proofs are pretty poor for God, as God is better treated as a philosophical problem and deduced (or refuted) from pure reason. You're giving a plausible genealogy of how people come to believe in God in a normal sense, so I won't contest that, but I don't see its relevance.

That's exactly my point.
Isn't the understanding of real life processes more important than philosophical positions?
 
[Mod: Thread split from "Offtopic : Was Hitler a Christian ?"]
 

This thread has been viewed 11654 times.

Back
Top