Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun May 31, 2020 2:37 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 184 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next
III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God" 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7109
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1094
Thanked: 2110 times in 1687 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Flann wrote:
It strikes me as a pleasant if absurd fantasy, that the Marx brothers are eternally enacting such as the following scene


They are not eternally enacting the scene. At least in the sense that I understand the word eternal. The word eternal means that the predicate extends infinitely across the dimension of time, or that time itself is unending. It is a reference to time, not a specific reference to a point within time. Their scene exists on the timeline, in the past. That doesn't mean it is eternally existing. It exists, very much real, on the past landscape of time.

You're trying to wrap your head around this concept by misapplying terms, but it just won't work like that. What other way is there to understand it, I know. You need to envision it without words, the abstract concepts themselves. The analogy to a landscape helps. But even then, the only real way to understand it is by running math that neither of us are equipped to run.

Quote:
How an evolving multiverse could not have a beginning is surely a problem.


Why? Why would it be a problem for a multiverse, but not what you conceive as a god?

Quote:
In the final analysis Carrier is simply putting his faith in theories such as multiverse theory and eternalism.


Faith, but not faith alone. Faith, with a bit of method in the mix. Faith alone leads us to all sorts of fantastical conclusions. Faith with a bit of reasoning narrows that down. First, the conclusion we have faith in should not be anything more than the minimum to explain what we see(You should have faith in an infinite number of gods, or a family of them, or a lineage). Second and related, the conclusion we have faith in should lead to the least number of ad hoc assumptions.

Quote:
explain how anything could have come from nothing.


Flann, what makes you think it's impossible for our universe to come from nothing? Avoid this: Fallacious incredulity, and give me a logical or otherwise well supported reason. If something truly did come from nothing, there is no more way for us to conceptualize that than to conceptualize infinity. There are things in our universe that defy conceptualization, because we are puny humans. Wave/particle duality in quantum mechanics, for example. Superposition and spooky action at a distance. What's inside black holes. Eternalist time, the equivalence of matter and energy. We've come to realize, despite our incredulity, that these things are true.

If we believe that something did come from nothing, then it's simply a brute fact that must be taken on faith. If you argue that it needs explanation, then your brute fact does as well. Why is there god and not no god? Beware the endless list of fallacious appeals. Why did god exist for an eternity before creating the universe? Beware the endless list of fallacious appeals. Our brute facts must simply be believed, if we have any ground to stand on to move forward. Every time your mind balks at something coming from nothing(or the alterntive brute fact of eternalism), instead try to explain your own brute facts. What was going through god's omniscient mind for an eternity before he created the universe? Or was he as thoughtless as a buddhist monk?

Quote:
Hi Dexter, Carrier thinks his explanation is better. I'm saying it's not.It's absurd and entirely faith based.


Calling something absurd is textbook argument from incredulity. Calling his explanation faith based is hypocritical. Isn't yours faith based?


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Sun Aug 31, 2014 9:41 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4493
Location: NC
Thanks: 1948
Thanked: 2012 times in 1507 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Flann 5 wrote:
Carrier seems to me to be trying to accommodate two conflicting ideas here in relation to time. He wants to say our experience of passing time is real and fiction at one and the same time,ironically. Eternalists; as far as I can tell, reject as illusion the reality of the passing of time,and our experienced perception of it as illusion. Carrier wants to include it but it's useful fiction.
For the eternalist, Napoleon Bonaparte, Groucho Marx and Sigmund Freud exist since past,present and future exists static and unmoving. They are both dead and alive somewhere on that eternal time plain.


The idea of all time as fixed (the road is a useful metaphor) is not Carrier's by the way. He's talking about point of view here. From our point of view, time is something real and experienced like the frames of a comic strip. From a POV fixed outside our experience, all points in time are fixed.

Carrier: "From an imaginary point of view outside of everything (the way things would look to a transcendent God, for example), the entire multiverse looks like a giant interconnected forest. . . "

This is all kind of related to Einstein's relativity, isn't it? Time is relative to the observer. This appears to be a paradox, but is explained by the fact that Time passes differently for different observers, depending on the observers' motion. The prime example is that of the two hypothetical twin sisters: One of them stays at home, on Earth. The other journeys into space in an ultra-fast rocket, nearly as fast as the speed of light, before returning home to find that her stay-at-home sibling is much older than she.

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/Twins


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
Flann 5
Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:18 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 704 times in 604 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
I understand that time is relative.
In fact the whole business of trying to understand time is difficult, and philosophers have different theories and understandings of it.
Whether that the Marx brothers are permanently making their movies, is implied by Carrier's version of time I'm not sure.It is a theory that is challenged and whether it's proponents can demonstrate it's veracity is the question.
My main point is that his opting for it, and the mutiverse seems more for philosophical reasons than any inherent proof that either of these beliefs are demonstrably true.
Can it be shown that chaos theory, or more precisely his simple fundamental chaos can produce laws such as we find in our universe and a multiverse. He believes it can.

Is it actually proven that all complex things must come from simple things? It's a definitional truism to say that complex things are made of simpler components. The God delusion book is complex physically and linguistically but simpler than it's author Dawkins and the printers who printed it.It did not evolve itself or it's ideas.
The eternalist view, philosophically removes the universe from nothing problem and the mutiverse hypothesis alleviates the fine tuning problem.I think that's why he prefers them.
Interbane suggests a universe from nothing is not a problem. Good luck with that.
Carrier's ideas are fraught with serious problems. He tries to downgrade theism as if he has something better. What God is and does depends on what God we are talking about.The Christian God is trinitarian while essentially one. As far as time is concerned we are told that one day is as a thousand years to him and a thousand years as a day.God is a purposeful being and our universe has innumerable indicators of purpose.
Matter and energy are purposeless.
Carrier's brute fact is inanimate,mindless, purposeless energy and matter. For Christian theists God is a necessary,personal and eternally self existent being, who can be known by humans.
I don't think Carrier has made a good case for his beliefs at all, or that it is a better explanation of reality.



Last edited by Flann 5 on Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.



The following user would like to thank Flann 5 for this post:
geo
Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:20 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7109
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1094
Thanked: 2110 times in 1687 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Flann wrote:
Interbane suggests a universe from nothing is not a problem. Good luck with that.


I need no luck Flann. I see no problem. If accepted as a brute fact, this is far less troublesome than thinking a god existed for an eternity with nothing but his own thoughts to occupy himself. Again, if you think there is a problem with it, let's hear it in detail. Your quote above is a veiled argument from incredulity.

Quote:
God is a purposeful being and our universe has innumerable indicators of purpose.


List one of these innumerable indicators. I have yet to see one that passes the tests of method - mainly logic.

Quote:
I don't think Carrier has made a good case for his beliefs at all, or that it is a better explanation of reality.


That's a given. The vast majority of men, after being set in their worldview, will find no combination of words in existence that could change their mind, even if they were wrong. It's the nature of man to entrench himself(I have an excellent analogy to explain this if you wish). This understanding is part of the reason why Carrier's view(and my own as well) are more probably true. With this understanding, I change my beliefs when proper method shows me to be wrong. In a sense, my worldview is nothing but an algorithm. I follow what proper method shows to be true. This is what I mean when I always say that my worldview is built from "the ground up". The conclusion that arises from adherence to method is metaphysical naturalism. It truly is a more robust and reasonable worldview than any other I've come to understand. If you were to show me to be wrong about metaphysical naturalism, using the listed methods, I would change my beliefs.

Quote:
My main point is that his opting for it, and the mutiverse seems more for philosophical reasons than any inherent proof that either of these beliefs are demonstrably true.


Philosophical reasons? Such as logic? I think Carrier effectively dismantled arguments against the eternalist view of time. At least, at the time he wrote the book. As geo said, this theory of time isn't held by Carrier alone. It's held by many intelligent mathematicians and cosmologists.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
Flann 5
Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:26 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5648
Thanks: 1337
Thanked: 929 times in 798 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Where is the past on a snapshot of an eternal timeline?



Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:38 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7109
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1094
Thanked: 2110 times in 1687 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Quote:
Where is the past on a snapshot of an eternal timeline?


Behind the point in time I write this. ???


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:48 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5648
Thanks: 1337
Thanked: 929 times in 798 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
Where is the past on a snapshot of an eternal timeline?


Behind the point in time I write this. ???



At what point in time did you think of your response within a eternal universe?



Last edited by ant on Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:53 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 704 times in 604 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Interbane wrote:
What was going through god's omniscient mind for an eternity before he created the universe? Or was he as thoughtless as a buddhist monk?

Hi Interbane,
Any God capable of creating the universe with it's macro and micro complexity and diversity,could not be mentally bankrupt, or bored for that matter.He is the one being,capable of being eternally present and fully aware of all events such as ours would be.
It has been said that God was thinking mathematically when he made the universe with it's laws,such is the amazing mathematical describability of it with mind blowing accuracy and precision the rule. Carrier reckons a fundamental simple chaos could produce or mimic this. He's kidding,right?

Besides,though I know it's not logically possible to explain, the Christian godhead consists of three persons and is relational.

You explain things in terms of natural mechanisms, and neo Darwinism which is not all it's cracked up to be.
Nature reveals wonderful and complex varieties of life with what looks like purposeful working and design.
Anyone who points to problems with neo Darwinism identified by paleontologist,biologists or other experts in this area are simply accused of "quote mining". It's not one big happy family, though there is the sacred cow itself,which must not be slaughtered.
I'll probably move on to his determinism part now.



Last edited by Flann 5 on Sun Aug 31, 2014 4:58 pm, edited 4 times in total.



Sun Aug 31, 2014 4:23 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7109
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1094
Thanked: 2110 times in 1687 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
ant wrote:
At what point in time did you think of your response within a eternal universe?


At a point a few seconds before typing the response. Is there are point to this veiled gotcha? We use the same sort of relative reference in infinite spatial dimensions.

Flann wrote:
Any God capable of creating the universe with it's macro and micro complexity and diversity,could not be mentally bankrupt, or bored for that matter.He is the one being,capable of being eternally present and fully aware of all events such as ours would be.


There are two ad hoc assumptions here Flann, but you didn't answer my question. If he existed as the sole entity, prior to his creating something from nothing, what thoughts could he possibly have? What is the power he possesses that allows him to create something from nothing? Does this power not elicit the same incredulity as the act itself? If not, why not? Why would he not have made the universe eternal, so that he did not have to endure an infinite amount of time alone with his own thoughts? Why did he not create the universe the instant it occurred to him? Or if it occurred to him "eternally", why did he wait? Why make it appear as if the universe started 13 billion years ago? Is he deceitful?

There is far more incredulity here than thinking something came from nothing. The idea of a god is simply nonsensical.

Quote:
It has been said that God was thinking mathematically when he made the universe with it's laws,such is the amazing mathematical describability of it with mind blowing accuracy and precision the rule.


It has been said? Sure, but it's still an ad hoc assumption.

Quote:
Carrier reckons a fundamental simple chaos could produce or mimic this. He's kidding,right?


No, he's not kidding. This is another veiled argument from incredulity, a type of fallacy.

Quote:
Nature reveals wonderful and complex varieties of life with what looks like purposeful working and design.


Again, purposeful in what sense? The apparent purpose of nature, where phenotypes fit the niche? Yes, that appears purposeful. But we know that it is a product of an algorithm.

Quote:
though there is the sacred cow itself,which must not be slaughtered.


I know you find comfort in this belief, but the conclusion(the theory of evolution) was arrived at by following method. If method shows the sacred cow to be false, then it will be rejected. If there is a sacred cow in the room, it is method. Or rather, the belief that we should outsource the acquisition of knowledge to method, in order to minimize our biases and avoid fallacies.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Sun Aug 31, 2014 5:37 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5648
Thanks: 1337
Thanked: 929 times in 798 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Isnt it an ad hoc assumption that the theory of evolution itself has the power to make predictions like any good scientific theory is supposed to?

(No, I am not saying it is therefor false)

Ps.
No rhetorical or grammatical tautologies, please.



Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:09 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7109
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1094
Thanked: 2110 times in 1687 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
http://answersinscience.org/evo_science.html


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Sun Aug 31, 2014 8:13 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5648
Thanks: 1337
Thanked: 929 times in 798 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Quote:
What was going through god's omniscient mind for an eternity before he created the universe? Or was he as thoughtless as a buddhist monk?


This is a form of a mind projection fallacy:

Quote:
A second form of the fallacy, as described by Jaynes,[1] is when someone assumes that their own lack of knowledge about a phenomenon (which is a fact about their state of mind) as meaning that the phenomenon is not or cannot be understood (a fact about reality). (See also Map and territory.) - wiki



The following user would like to thank ant for this post:
Flann 5
Sun Aug 31, 2014 8:14 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5648
Thanks: 1337
Thanked: 929 times in 798 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Interbane wrote:
http://answersinscience.org/evo_science.html



This is not what I was questioning.
Ive seen this before.

The question actually is if rewinding the evolutionary clock to zero again would result in evolution as we know and it to be now.

Youre link is an answer for someone who denies aspects of evolution already determined by evidence.

Control your knees please.



Sun Aug 31, 2014 8:23 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4493
Location: NC
Thanks: 1948
Thanked: 2012 times in 1507 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Flann 5 wrote:
Can it be shown that chaos theory, or more precisely his simple fundamental chaos can produce laws such as we find in our universe and a multiverse. He believes it can.


Based on the first three sections, I would argue that Carrier's thesis is very confused and suffers from a lack of focus. On one hand, he argues that a worldview should be based on empirical evidence. On the other hand, he's taking us into very speculative areas of science that are far from proven. The further we go into these speculative areas, the less any of this really matters to either side. Sure, Carrier makes a very valid point that "Goddidit" doesn't answer any questions, but only causes more complications. Is he going to keep saying this for the next three or four hundred pages? A naturalistic worldview is never going to hinge on one multiverse theory or another. Or whether time is infinite or finite. This point by point comparison of science versus religion grows very tiresome. As far as arguing that a materialistic worlview is more rational, and more based on evidence, he's already made his argument a thousand times over.

String theory and quantum physics and the existence of free will are all very interesting scientific/philosophical pursuits. But but by continually comparing the cutting edge of science with the God "thesis", Carrier is getting lost in the very gray areas that mires people like Deepak Chopra.

Should a worldview be based on empirical evidence? I don't think the answer is as cut-and-dried as Carrier wants it to be. Of course human values can be expressed without citing scientific data. Carrier suffers from the same Mr. Gradgrind School of Hard Facts excrement that prompts Robin Williams to tell his students to rip out pages in their poetry books. Who is Carrier trying to convince in this book? His approach makes no sense.

"Its not the Bible you're not gonna go to hell for this." LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpeLSMKNFO4


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
Flann 5, Interbane
Sun Aug 31, 2014 8:26 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7109
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1094
Thanked: 2110 times in 1687 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Quote:
Control your knees please.


Huh?

Quote:
The question actually is if rewinding the evolutionary clock to zero again would result in evolution as we know and it to be now.


The evolutionary algorithm would be the same. The path could have been different. I'm still not sure what you're asking, sorry.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Sun Aug 31, 2014 8:31 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 184 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Book Discussion Leaders

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank