Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Battlefield God

Religion Creationism Questionnaire

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 EvilTree

EvilTree

    my silence is my pervading call

  • Islander
  • 623 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 03:38 AM

http://www.philosoph...n/god_game1.cgi

Interesting questionnaire sort of thing about God and your belief about God.
Loyalty, Vigilance, Excellence
-Motto of Imperial Space Marines


"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Self control is chef element in self respect. Self respect is chief element in courage."
-Thucydides

#2 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 04:13 AM

As soon as it gave me the question about evolution, I knew it had to be a Creationist web-page designed to set up a mind-trap that would appear (to its creators, at least) to discredit evolution and prove the webmasters' religion to be at least as well-founded, by "showing" flaws in evolutionists' thinking. After all, in a questionnaire about belief in God, evolution is irrelevant, like a question about cars on a questionnaire about what ingredients you put in your chilli. It only matters to those religious people who think of evolution as their enemy. Another hint was that "health meter" and the "danger" warnings; that kind of supercillious judgementalism is a classic example of religion at work. (I'm certain they plan to have anyone who doesn't already agree with them eventually get zatted by a thunderbolt or some such thing; the thought of us hethens suffering entertains people like this.)

Sure enough, I got to this thing...

Quote

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice:

Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution.

Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.
(Another sign of the origins and intention of this site was that, when I got to the point I quote here, both of the options they gave me began with "gotcha" phrases.)

The arrogance of religion knoweth no bounds. Your only two options are essentially the same thing: We caught you making no sense, so you're messed up in the head... now wait for the following pages where we tell you what you should think instead.

The problem is that they're claiming that evolution isn't proven, which it is. It's also an observed fact, which puts it above and beyond proof or disproof (which only ideas and explanations about observations are subject to). They have to pretend these facts aren't the case in order to guide your test to the end results they want. Another thing they do to create the desired outcome is equate all partially-proven cases as "less than absolutely proven", completely ignoring that some cases (like one for evolution) are much stronger than others (like the one for the existence of God, which is impossible to make) and thus one could be above a believability threshold and the other below it.

With neither of the two options these lofty sages afforded me being the right one, I stopped there and backed up to post... but I guess I could have hit the one about holding proof of God to a higher standard. Why? Because evolution comes to me from people whose intention was to discern the facts, and who sometimes even had to reluctantly admit conclusions they didn't like for religious reasons, while the idea of God comes to me from liars and hypocrites who prey on the vulnerable, start viscious conflicts of all kinds, and are out to dominate the world. So the evidence or argument would have to overcome the credibility problem of the people delivering it. Maybe I'll try hitting that option later and see what the next little stunt that have planned for me will be...

#3 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 04:21 AM

The anti-evolution is one that's near and dear to my heart.

For a wide, shallov overview:

http://home.earthlin...guide/list.html

This also links and provides more concrete references.... very good resource. :). The whole subject of the anti-evolution arguments would also be an EXCELLENT ETU topic
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#4 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 04:25 AM

It was fun, although I wouldn't take it too seriously.  Some of the questions are a bit iffy in terms of the conclusions derived from them.

1 hit and 3 bullets bitten.  :)

:devil:
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#5 Bossy

Bossy

    Chaos Personified

  • Islander
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 04:35 AM

Delvo, I do  not believe that this is a Creationist web page. I went through the whole thing, and there is no  mention of Creationism. Rather, it is a philosophy page of some sort, from what I gather. You can also get this response:

Quote

You don't think that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth and that there is no evidence which falsifies it. Of course, many creationists claim that the evidential case for evolution is by no means conclusive. But in doing so, they go against scientific orthodoxy. So you've got to make a choice:

Bite the bullet and say there is evidence that evolution is not true, despite what the scientists say.

Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.

This site seems to want to analyze how well thought out your beliefs are, no matter what you believe.

Edited by Bossy, 10 May 2003 - 04:35 AM.


#6 Bossy

Bossy

    Chaos Personified

  • Islander
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 04:37 AM

Uncle Sid, on May 9 2003, 09:12 PM, said:

It was fun, although I wouldn't take it too seriously.  Some of the questions are a bit iffy in terms of the conclusions derived from them.

1 hit and 3 bullets bitten.  :)

:devil:
Also, some of the questions are very ambiguous. Depending on how you are interpretting exactly what the statement says, the answer could be either true or false.

#7 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 04:43 AM

Bossy, on May 9 2003, 07:22 PM, said:

This site seems to want to analyze how well thought out your beliefs are, no matter what you believe.
The problem is this statement:

Quote

Bite the bullet and say there is evidence that evolution is not true, despite what the scientists say.

This isn't some ambigous phrasing, or uncertain grey area. From a strictly scientific perspective, it's just incorrect. No doubt, the harder science types could provide a better refutation than I can, but any grad-level Biology textbook would do.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#8 Bossy

Bossy

    Chaos Personified

  • Islander
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 04:53 AM

Javert Rovinski, on May 9 2003, 09:30 PM, said:

Bossy, on May 9 2003, 07:22 PM, said:

This site seems to want to analyze how well thought out your beliefs are, no matter what you believe.
The problem is this statement:

Quote

Bite the bullet and say there is evidence that evolution is not true, despite what the scientists say.

This isn't some ambigous phrasing, or uncertain grey area. From a strictly scientific perspective, it's just incorrect. No doubt, the harder science types could provide a better refutation than I can, but any grad-level Biology textbook would do.
Perhaps, I shouldn't say how well thought out, but rather how consistantly thought out. I went through this a couple of times answering the questions in different manners, just to see what the response was. Here is an example of the analysis at the end of the test.

Quote

Unfortunately, you have not won an award! However, you have been granted an honourable discharge!

The number of direct hits that you took as you progressed through this activity suggest that your beliefs about God are not entirely consistent.


You have also bitten a number of bullets. This occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable.


At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits and bitten bullets. Have a careful look at them before you attempt active service again! Thanks for taking part!

I said before that the site wanted to see how well thought out your answers are. More accurately, I should have said that the purpose is to see how consistant you thoughts are. There seems to be no judgement one way or the other as to whether or not your beliefs are correct. It seems that the judgement is only whether or not your answer is consistant with your previous answer.

That being said, I think that their judgement is too narrow to be of any use whatsoever.

#9 silverwind

silverwind

    Not the only one

  • Islander
  • 3,032 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 05:25 AM

Quote

Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.


A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

*shrugs*  Y'know, its not so much that I may have my beliefs be "internally consistent and well thought out".  Maybe I can just smell a verbal trap when I see one.  :sarcasm: ;)

And I personally feel no shame for requiring a different level of proof about the existance of God than for evolution.  I mean, at least there *is* existing proof for evolution. :p
Proud ally and supporter of Euro-snobs and international flakes.

Signs your coworker may be able to manipulate time:  "Is this the first time you've called here before?"

Signs your coworker needs to work on their vocabularly:  A:  "It opens up in Notepad and it's just jibberish."  B:  "So you can't understand it?"

#10 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,147 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 05:40 AM

Quote

You have reached the end!

Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.

You took 1 direct hit and you have bitten zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.37 hits and bites 1.09 bullets. 105677 people have so far undertaken this activity.

Click the link below for further analysis of your performance and to see if you've won an award.


Quote

Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting no bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.

The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analysis of your direct hit. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, this did not occur which means that despite the direct hit you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

Click here if you want to review the criteria by which hits and bullets are determined.

How did you do compared to other people?

105677 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered 1 direct hit and bit zero bullets.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.37 hits and bites 1.09 bullets.
46.90% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
7.57% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.

Quote

The God of Philosophy

What can we know about God?

If you enjoy thinking about the kinds of issues that have been dealt with in this activity, then you'll probably enjoy Roy Jackson's book, The God of Philosophy.

Published by TPM, it covers all the major questions dealt with in the philosophy of religion. Do we need God to explain the origins of the universe? Can there be morality without a divine source of goodness? How can God exist when there is so much evil and suffering in the world?

Quote

Analysis of your Direct Hit

Click here if you want to see a complete listing of the questions that you answered.

Direct Hit 1

You answered "False" to Question 7 and "True" to Question 17.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!

Quote

Battleground God Questions
God exists.

If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality.

Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything.

Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the word as is possible.

Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything.

Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.

It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, even in the absence of any external evidence for the truth of these convictions.

Any being that it is right to call God must know everything that there is to know.

Torturing innocent people is morally wrong.

If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.

People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose.

If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful.

People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose.

If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful.

It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.

As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.

The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.

If God exists she could create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.

It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, even if there is no external evidence that God exists.

For whatever it's worth, my results and the questions I answered.

I think Bossy is right. I took that last question differently then they intened, or I wouldn't have taken the hit.

Edited by Kosh, 10 May 2003 - 05:48 AM.

Can't Touch This!!

#11 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 06:16 AM

I loved it.

I think it's more interested in inconsistency than in promoting creationism v. evolution.

Maybe it helps that I did well.

I have NO problem admitting that, inconsistent or not, my belief that one is justified in believing in God based on a strong inner faith does not extend to justifying the crimes of rapists who do what they do because they really thought God was trying to tell them to do it.:p

Anyway, one bullet, one direct hit and one near miss:

Quote

You've just bitten a bullet!

You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.

There is no logical inconsistency in your answers. But by denying that the absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of things, you are required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre. For example, do you really want to claim that it is not rationally justified to believe that intelligent aliens do not live on Mars?
Click here to continue.

You've just taken a direct hit!

Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

You've just had a near miss!

You claim that it is justifiable to believe in God based only on inner-convictions. But earlier you stated that the serial rapist, Peter Sutcliffe, was not justified in believing, purely on the basis of inner-convictions, that he correctly discerned God's intentions in his raping and murdering of prostitutes. In order to reconcile these claims you need to show what makes the same form of justification acceptable in one circumstance and unacceptable in another. Perhaps you can do this. But until you can show where the difference lies, you are in danger of taking a direct hit!
Click here to continue.

Overall results:

Quote

Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.
The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.

Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

How did you do compared to other people?
105687 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered 1 direct hit and bit 1 bullet.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.37 hits and bites 1.09 bullets.
46.90% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
7.57% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.

Interesting and fun test.:)

Lil
Posted Image

#12 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 06:26 AM

It seems that the creationist angle isn't their thing, yeah. :).

My results:

Quote

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice:

That's because of the way you phrased the questions. And, as always, more extraordinary complains require greater proof.

Quote

Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.
You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.37 hits and bites 1.09 bullet. 105692 people have so far undertaken this activity.
Click the link below for further analysis of your performance and to see if you've won an award


Quote

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.
A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

Honestly, that was just a matter of phrasing. But s'all good....
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#13 RommieSG

RommieSG

    Heir to the Empire

  • Islander
  • 17,188 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 06:36 AM

Quote

Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.


A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

Meh, figured I'd give it a shot. ;)

Rommie :cylon:
Posted Image

#14 Ilphi

Ilphi
  • Islander
  • 4,071 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 02:42 PM

I liked it too. I agree that it was nice to see how it picked apart inconsistencies.

#15 Anastashia

Anastashia

    Tyrant Matriarch and Pegan Too!

  • Islander
  • 11,777 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 08:40 PM

Interesting.

I do agree it is solely looking for what they think are inconsitancies in people's thought processes. What I think they've missed is the concept of free will. People choose to do what they do because they can, regardless of what their thoughts on the issue might be.

I found a lot of the runaround hits, misses, and bullets text to be too convoluted to even bother reading.

I always hated philosophy class in college, going around in foggy circles just never did it for me, so I'm not surprised.

Ani
The Science Fiction Examiner

In the quiet of Midden a young child grows.
Does the salvation of his people grow with him?
"Everything we do now is for the child"

"I made a mistake,
just follow along,
isn't that what tyranny is all about?"
Sheila M---my Praise Band Director

For as long as I shall live
I will testify to love
I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough
Testify to Love

Posted Image


#16 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 09:03 PM

Good point about Free Will, Ani.

I personally adored philosophy classes.  So I love this stuff.  If it makes a person think it has value imo.:)
Posted Image

#17 Morrhigan

Morrhigan
  • Islander
  • 1,546 posts

Posted 10 May 2003 - 11:12 PM

Interesting. I took no direct hits, and bit two bullets, earning myself a TPM Medal of Distinction (the 2nd highest award). The bullet-biting explanation cracked me up: "you are required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre." Well, yeah. That's me, all right. :lol:
Posted Image

#18 Ro-Astarte

Ro-Astarte

    goddess of love and blowing things up

  • Islander
  • 3,842 posts

Posted 11 May 2003 - 08:57 PM

I was surprised, to find that my answers netted me this:

Quote

Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting no bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.

The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analysis of your direct hit. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, this did not occur which means that despite the direct hit you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

The direct hit I suffered was on the last question, about the "justifiability" of an belief in god in the absence of proof.

I really would say it is understandable, but given the question, I thought this was an acceptable statement.

So, I'm willing to take the hit, and still feel I'm being consistent with my beliefs. :)

Ro

#19 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 12 May 2003 - 10:30 AM

WHen i first saw this a while back, i sent a detailed email to the webmaster, explaining that being contradictory wasn't actually an issue for most people, because when you get right down to it, most people are contradictory as heck.

So i took my hits where people tell me i'm being contradictory with a smile, because it's all true, even the lies.

#20 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 12 May 2003 - 06:44 PM

Ow, ow, ow! My head hurts! This is why I rarely discuss religion.

This is where my mind boggled:

Quote

The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true.

Er...the last time I looked, overwhelming evidence IS proof .  :eek:  :eek:

I took a direct hit on the last question. I personally am an agnostic, but I think that if you have a firm conviction that God exists, by all means believe in her..ah..him. Whatever floats your boat.

Rhea leaves the thread in search of Advil

Edited by Rhea, 12 May 2003 - 06:47 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Religion, Creationism, Questionnaire

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users