Proof #7: Understanding Religious Delusion

December 13, 2007 at 6:31 am 21 comments

The story of Santa Claus, Joseph Smith, and Mohammad are not evidence against Jesus Christ. Our friend Marshall Brain is trying to use them as example of delusional, but the problem is, he’s using these examples incorrectly.

If someone believed in Santa Claus, then I can point to evidence that refutes the claim that Santa exists. For example, I could take the person to the North Pole. As for Joseph Smith’s claims, it is easy to see that his prophecies didn’t come true and it is also easy to see that there wasn’t a Jewish civilization in the United States at the time he said that there was. Verifiable, objective evidence can be called upon and shown to anyone who believes these stories.

I’m not touching the Mohammad story. Since it was only reported by one man, we must first trust that man to believe his story. I don’t know that I trust him, so I can say that I don’t believe his story based on that fact.

If people continued to believe stories about Santa or Joseph Smith even in the face of contradictory evidence, then I would consider them delusional. But the problem of comparing those stories to Christianity is that Christianity is based on verifiable historical facts–discussed at length in several books, such as Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, The Impossible Faith by J.P. Holding (excerpt here) and Evidence for Christianity by Josh McDowell.

Brain begins enumerating other “evidences” that follow from this line of reasons. First, he says that since there are one billion Christians in the world, that means that four billion people don’t believe in the story of Jesus. That assumes that all four billion people believe with certainty, which we all know isn’t the case. Most people aren’t even aware of the facts or arguments on either side of the equation. Many don’t care and never will. Some believe the history of the Bible but aren’t Christians. Brain would have you believe that all four billion are committed atheists like himself, but that isn’t true at all.

Then, Brain gives the so-called evidence that these four billion people know that us Christians don’t. These are the reasons he asserts why those four billion people know that Jesus’ story isn’t real:

  1. The miracles are supposed to “prove” that Jesus is God, but, predictably, these miracles left behind no tangible evidence for us to examine and scientifically verify today. They all involved faith healings and magic tricks.
  2. Jesus is resurrected, but, predictably, he does not appear to anyone today.
  3. Jesus ascended into heaven and answers our prayers, but, predictably, when we pray to him nothing happens. We can statistically analyse prayer and find that prayers are never answered.
  4. The book where Matthew, Mark, Luke and John make their attestations does exist, but, predictably, it is chock full of problems and contradictions.

Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony, in the form of the gospels, and the fact that no secular source denies Jesus’ miracles–even when they had the opportunity they explained the miracles as the work of the devil–should be enough to convince all but the toughest customer that Jesus performed miracles.

Premise 2. Jesus appeared to His disciples and later to Paul. These people told others and those others. Many of these people believed without seeing Jesus, but likely there was more evidence than just the eyewitnesses–e.g. the Empty Tomb. These people went to their own horrific deaths proclaiming that Jesus rose again. Why should we need any more evidence than that?

Premise 3. I’ve answered that here.

Premise 4. I’ve read these gospels and see no problems. Christians have read them for thousands of years and see no problems. What problems are you referring to?

To help us see the evidence, Brain then asks three questions:

Is there any evidence that Jesus existed? Yes. Aside from the four gospels, and the letters of Paul, we have some seventy secular references dating from around the same time. The most reliable include Josephus and Tacitus, the historians. The letters of Pliny the Younger are also highly esteemed by historians. There is one Talmudic reference as well, and it is, predictably, negative.

Is there any reason to believe that Jesus performed these miracles? If you trust the Bible, yes. If you realize that people went to their horrific deaths proclaiming these miracles, then yes.

Is there anything else to go on besides the New Testament? Brain says that there is nothing aside from the New Testament that even proves that Jesus existed, but that isn’t true at all. Josephus and Tacitus both mention Jesus and His disciples. Pliny the Younger mentions Jesus. In all, there are some seventy secular references to Christ.

Finally, Brain jumps on his hobby horse about Jesus not answering prayers. As an example, he asks us to pray for Jesus to cause a coin that we flip to land heads on every single flip. Of course, we wouldn’t expect the coin to land on heads each time, even after praying. Brain seems to miss the limitations that Jesus places on prayers, and he thinks that every answer that we offer is simply a rationalization rather than a carefully and prayerfully thought out reason.

Advertisements

Entry filed under: Religion.

Proof #6: Ponder God’s Plan Proof #8: Think About Near-Death Experiences

21 Comments

  • 1. God  |  December 28, 2007 at 8:43 pm

    HA you talk about others being delusional because they believe somthing in the face of contradictory evidence well look at christianity, christianity has the most contradictory evidence against it of any relidgion for example it has been scientificly proven numerous times in numerous ways the earth is far older that 6000 years old and the proven theory of evolution, your so absolved in your own relidgous delusion that you cant even see that you are just as bad as mormans or people who belive in santa, you easily dismiss santa clause and joseph smith because of “contradictory evidence” but you dont even consider the massive ammount of contradictory evidence against your own relidgion and sighting less than credible creationist books that you probably have not even read does not dismiss all the evidence that is already proven. so you pretty much proved another godisimaginary.com video correct.

    • 2. JDSTATS  |  May 6, 2009 at 1:20 pm

      The 6,000 years old that you mention is just one reading of the bible. Another reading is that to God 1000 years is like a day and a day like 1000 years. I’m not a young-earth creationists, but, let us pretend that the Bible clearly says the earth is 6000 years old, even then your proof is lacking.

      We have no history or any tangible proof that anything is older than that 6000 years. The theories used to age rocks all use an unverified idea of stasis, that is all of the processes are working at the same rate now as in the past. Plus, what have you given creationists to believe? You have scientists finding sugar molecule on a meteorite and proclaiming that this is strong evidence for abiogenesis. You have Piltdown man and Haeckel’s drawing, all fraudulent. Scientists are now stating theories as facts, hypotheses as proven statements, and interpreted data as irrefutable proof.

      Evolutionists have stated that they have examples or fossils of only one of every million species that have actually lived. So you are putting together a large jigsaw puzzle with the smallest fraction of the pieces. You don’t even have compelling evidence that there are as many pieces as you claim. This does not in any way prove evolution false, but it is highly unethical to label all those who state that you might not be putting the jigsaw puzzle together correctly, as idiots. It would be considered extremely unethical in any other branch of science to take the relatively scant data supporting a theory as all encompassing as evolution claims to be, and state it to be a fact such that any disbelievers will suffer the pain of being labelled a faith-crazed lunatic.

      Beyond that, the only reason TOE has been allowed to survive is not that it has been shown correct in all facits, but that no scientists are willing to drop any theory, unless they have a suitable replacement. As scientists will not accept creationism or ID as a replacement, it is likely they will never find a replacement that adequately explains life. Until then, they will attempt to gild the turd, because it is all they have.

      I love science, but I have never believed studying the past to be a scientific endeavor, as science is about testing, (see scientific method). All of the TOE scientists have shown this belief to be correct.

      I don’t truly know how God made everything as it is. God may have used a guided evolution, or worked his miracles in a completely different way. What I do know is that mankind’s arrogant belief that they fully understand how life came to be and that no God is necessary is the height of stupidity.

  • 3. jake  |  January 7, 2008 at 10:32 am

    Your refutation to premise 1 is problematic. For example, you indicate that the absence of hostile sources is proof positive that Christ performed miracles. An equally valid, though alternative explanation is that Christ didn’t perform miracles. Or, that Christ didn’t exist. If either of these were the case, we could expect no contemporary hostile sources to exist. Because you obviously know that these alternative explanations are legitimately valid, your argument falls under the logical fallacy of “argument from silence”.

    Furthermore, you know as well as I do that the authenticity of the gospel authors is highly disputed, even amongst Christian scholars. The fact that four gospels attest to miracles in the first person certainly is a type of evidence for the miracles, but if those four gospels are based off only one source (whether it be “Q” or Mark), or off oral traditions, it is incorrect to treat each as credible testimony.

    Your reply to number 2. You’re following circular logic: “I know that the resurrection is true because the Bible says that it is true. We know the Bible is true because Christ was resurrected”. Besides the gospels, there are no independent attestations to the resurrection, to an empty tomb, or to any of Christ’s miracles.

    In addition, the statement that the apostles went to their “own horrific deaths proclaiming that Jesus rose again” is an outright deception of the historical record. There are only three references to deaths of the apostles in the Bible. One refers to Judas, who killed himself, and the other to James, who was killed by Herod (it doesn’t say anything about why James was killed, or what he exclaimed at his death). Although Christ implies the death of Simon Peter in the book of John, this event is not recorded. Any other martyrdom story about other apostles is derived from either Gnostic or Apocryphal gospels, which are rejected by Christianity, or from communal traditions typically not accepted as fact. I hate to refer you to an atheist website for this, but I think it gives the subject excellent treatment:

    http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/06/how-did-the-apostles-die.html

    Regarding evidence for Christ: again, you’re being deceptive. We have absolutely zero contemporary secular sources for the existence of Christ himself, let alone for any of the apostles or miracles. In addition, when you state “from around the same time”, what you really mean is only as early as about 60 years after the death of Christ. These hardly count as contemporary. Josephus, for example, is writing around the year 93. Tacitus’ references to Christ are from the second century and are possibly based in part on Josephus (both of them, for example, make the exact same mistake on Pilate’s government title).

    Speaking of Josephus, he only mentions Christ twice. The most famous reference, the so-called “Testimonium Flavianum”, is regarded as a probable forgery. See, for example, Bart Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus”. Wikipedia has an excellent article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus. Even if the Testimonium Flavianum is not a forgery, it is not a first-hand account of Christ and makes no claim to be one. His knowledge of Christ would just be second-hand information, as he himself could not attest to it, nor does he claim to know anyone with first-hand knowledge of Christ or any of the apostles.

    Also, the Talmudic references to Christ are dated possibly to between 70 and 200 A.D., but more than likely from between 200-500 A.D. These are hardly contemporary. Moreover, there are several possible references to Christ, not “one” as you claim. In addition, the facts stated in the Talmud dispute the Biblical account. Christ being hanged and not crucified is one example.

    Everything I’ve stated above can easily be verified through Christian apologetic sources, so don’t take my word for it.

    Finally, just for the record: I hate to say it, but Lee Strobel’s books are regarded as a joke as far as apologetics go. He does nothing to examine legitimate evidence for any of his books’ subjects. Far better apologetics can be found elsewhere. For a very detailed critique of Strobel’s works, see http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/strobel.html (among others).

    • 4. JDSTATS  |  May 6, 2009 at 2:19 pm

      That is all well and good to say that there is no conclusive proof in existence 2000 years later, and that all of the proof can be readily denied, but you are also forgetting to mention that there is very little proof of any man’s existence that survives for 2000 years. The fact, that you convienently forget to mention, is if all this secular proof existed for the life of any other man in history, his existence would not be questioned by you or any historian. It is only because Jesus’ existence is inconvenient to your faith (athiesm) that you refute these references. I’ve read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and do not see enough similarity to say that they are written by the same person. While there are a few that contend your point, they make up a very small minority. The proofs of his miraculees is more than we would reasonably expect to have survived for 2000 years, and I sincerely doubt that there are any historians who are not impressed with the accuracy of the bible on all historic points, not to mention the precision in which the bible has been kept. Nonetheless, if you want conclusive proof to have survived for 2000 years, it is doubtful you will find your answer in any religion.

      I guess that is the beauty of athiesm, since you claim to believe in nothing, your beliefs cannot be refuted. Kind of the “I know everything, but refuse to answer any questions” type of faith. Seems easy to me to poke fun at another religion, all the while hiding behind a belief in nothing. But in order to believe in nothing, you have to accept that you will never have any of the whys of life. Beyond that, you have to have a faith that random processes (known to cause disorder) formed the complexity and beauty that we see all around us. This seems to require as much “insane” faith as any other religion known to man.

  • 5. jake  |  January 8, 2008 at 5:04 am

    I realized that I misspoke: which books comprise the Apocrypha is not universal across Christianity, and therefore. it was incorrect of me to imply that the Apocrypha were rejected by all of Christianity. The Catholic church (as well as a number of other groups, most typically the Orthodox sects) still includes several gospels in their New Testament that are not found in the Protestant Bible (the same goes for some OT books). I meant to say that these are rejected by Protestants, which greatly diminishes their reliability as sources. At the very least, it seems inappropriate for a Protestant author to cite them as evidence for martyrdom of the apostles when the remainder of the information in these gospels is rejected.

  • 6. jake  |  January 8, 2008 at 5:21 am

    Wow. Where is my head? Sorry for filling up your comments section. This is what I get for staying up all night. 🙂

    The books commonly referred to as the apocrypha are Old Testament books rejected by Protestantism but accepted by Catholics and various Orthodox groups. Various other sources, like the Gnostic gospels or the Acts of Phillip, are generally universally rejected and remain apocryphal to all faiths. Nevertheless, some traditions about the deaths of the apostles come from such rejected works.

    Consequently (and what I really meant to say), I think it inappropriate for a Protestant author to cite works that are rejected by some or all Christian faiths, as the veracity of such works is questionable at best.

    Goodness! Here’s to hoping I don’t find any more errors in this post!

  • 7. God  |  January 12, 2008 at 4:41 am

    well, dispite your excellent classification of my arguments and your unnessesary summary of bible crap you did not invalidate either of them nor did you invalidate any of the scientific facts i stated, you may say that they had nothing to do with the argument but they are facts and scientific discoveries such as them have pretty much flattened christianity and many other religions but no matter how much scientific proof that the bible is completely incorrect is proven to creationist/christians they will continue to belive because they are stuck in a bubble of delusion (including you, no matter how much you think you arent) as explained by this video

    http://godisimaginary.com/video7.htm

    • 8. JDSTATS  |  May 6, 2009 at 2:58 pm

      I find your name to be humorous, “God”. The bible clearly states that many will deny God and place themselves up as Gods. Good job in confirming the Bible.

      Otherwise, you have a grave misunderstanding of science. Science starts with the assumption that God will not be considered. Logically, you cannot used what is found with that starting assumption to disprove that starting assumption. It would be like saying that I am only going to consider white widgets. While I might learn alot about widgets from this research, I could not use my research of white widgets to make the claim that only white widgets exist.

      Beyond that, science has never proven anything. Ask any good scientist, and they will tell you the same.

      Nonetheless, there does exist in logic the proof by contradiction. That is, if your starting assumptions lead to a contradiction, then your starting assumptions are wrong. An example, the law of biogenesis states that life can only come from life, but in order to have a naturalistic explanation for the first life, this law must not be true. Therefore, you must either acknowledge the possibility that even scientific laws can be considered to be untrue in science, or that one of your starting assumptions about science is wrong. What other starting assumption, other than the idea that god will not be considered, would it be? Or if we can so flippantly disregard a LAW in science, how much easier would it be to disregard a theory?

      You pretend to have knowledge, as many religious people do, but your knowledge comes from your limited human mind and is bound to have errors. Your criticisms of Christianity only expose the limits of your own understanding.

  • 9. Cory Tucholski  |  January 16, 2008 at 7:19 am

    I’ve answered Jake’s comments here, here, and here.

  • 10. Samuel Skinner  |  February 1, 2008 at 6:56 am

    Um.. these only work if you believe in the bible as the infalliable word of god in the first place.

    Many other peole have also performed miracles- why do you think the romans even had that term? The only reason they had such a word was because many people claimed to work miracles! The rest of these “magicians” didn’t succeed in getting their life transcribed however.

  • 11. dmonkyking  |  April 9, 2008 at 4:33 am

    Good article Cory. I see you’re not getting much positive feedback so you must be doing something right. Keep up the faith and defending the infallible word of God. By reading some of the comments made, only jake is the one offering a good argument with actual thought involved, which you shot right back at him. Just remember, the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Corinthians 1:18). Keep up the good work my brother. Also, as Paul said in Romans 1:20:

    “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

  • 12. Luke  |  June 13, 2008 at 7:40 am

    dmonkyking said:
    Good article Cory. I see you’re not getting much positive feedback so you must be doing something right. Keep up the faith and defending the infallible word of God.
    –Marshal Brain isn’t getting positive feedback from Christians, so I guess he’s doing something right by your standards, too. And the Bible is FAR from “infallible.” I’d consider it the complete opposite of infallible.

    —Quote from http://kenrickparish.com/jsignalness/synoptics/ on the similarities.
    “Have you noticed that the content in Mark, Matthew, and Luke is very similar?
    And we don’t simply mean that they’re all about Jesus. The gospel accounts of Mark, Matthew, and Luke are said to be “synoptic,” a word that means “with same vision.” Together, these three gospel accounts are called the “synoptic gospels.” These three books tell many of the same stories, often in the same words. This tells us that these three evangelists shared the same sources or borrowed from one another in some way.”

    It later notes how the Gospels (and all other myths and legends in the world) come to be:
    *Oral Tradition Theories: The Gospel was transmitted through oral tradition and eventually written down. These theories are no longer prevalent because the texts are too similar to have been transmitted orally.
    *Interdependent Theories: Later gospel accounts are based on the text of one or more earlier accounts. These theories are widely held today.
    *Proto-Gospel Theories: The gospels are based on original written source that no longer exists, such as an Aramaic gospel account or a collection of the sayings of Jesus.
    *Fragmentary Theories: The gospels were composed of fragments from a variety of different sources such as collections of miracle stories, parables, and reports of the crucifixion.

    A prevalent theory today is that Matthew and Luke each had a copy of Mark, which was written earlier. This is a variation of the “Interdependent theories.”
    –This narrows the “multiple” account sources down.

    –As far as the Tacitus annals, there’s only one mention of “Christus,” which even the Christian site I copied this from mentions that some people either agree and disagree that it’s a direct reference to Jesus himself. Here is the quote from Tacitus:
    “Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”
    –Now, if that IS indeed Jesus, then he wasn’t put to death for what the Gospels tell us, but for being falsely accused of starting a fire.. not for blasphemously saying he was the “son of God.” If that’s saying that Jesus did in fact exist, then it’s contradicting the Bible as far as his reason for being executed goes. Jake has already addressed Josephus, so I’ll spare you that.

    If people continued to believe stories about Santa or Joseph Smith even in the face of contradictory evidence, then I would consider them delusional.
    —Not only are there numerous contradictions within the Bible itself, but there’s more evidence against it with astronomy, geography, science and the archaeological historical record. Sounds eerily alike to the contradictory evidence against Joseph Smith to me.

    Is there any evidence that Jesus existed? Yes. Aside from the four gospels, and the letters of Paul, we have some seventy secular references dating from around the same time. The most reliable include Josephus and Tacitus, the historians. The letters of Pliny the Younger are also highly esteemed by historians. There is one Talmudic reference as well, and it is, predictably, negative.
    –Jesus existing or not, the only thing that matters at this point is if the miracles, death and resurrection, and being the son of God are true. From an unbiased point of view, the Gospel accounts of Jesus is incredibly unlikely and fictional. It’s all just myths and legends to deify an ordinary man for whatever agenda the authors who are responsible had.

    Is there any reason to believe that Jesus performed these miracles? If you trust the Bible, yes. If you realize that people went to their horrific deaths proclaiming these miracles, then yes.
    —If you don’t trust the Bible or the authors of the accounts, then no. If you realize that a good and loving God would let his disciples die horrible deaths to “preach” his supposed son’s message who also died a horrible death, then hell no.

  • 13. Anti Devil  |  July 1, 2008 at 3:59 pm

    hello=D fellow non believers..science is limited and fialed to prove everything..
    u cant smell jesus touch jesus hear jesus see jesus taste jesus means he doesnt exist? have u smell see taste hear or touch ur brain before,dearest non blievers? then can i say ur brain doesnt exist?

  • 14. White  |  July 2, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    Good point Luke. Why would Peter and John die such horrible deaths, if they DIDN’T believe in Jesus? If Jesus is God, Peter and John knows. If Jesus is not God, Peter and John knows too, having followed Jesus throughout. Jesus must be God for Peter and John to have remained faithful in Him even in such horrible deaths. Men will die for what they believe (terrorists), but men will NOT die for what they do not believe.

  • 15. Luke  |  July 7, 2008 at 1:58 pm

    Anti Devil Says:
    u cant smell jesus touch jesus hear jesus see jesus taste jesus means he doesnt exist? have u smell see taste hear or touch ur brain before,dearest non blievers? then can i say ur brain doesnt exist?
    –Even if Jesus existed, he’s dead now. So you can’t hear, see, or taste him anymore. And even if he did exist, there’s no proof that his supposed “miracles” even occurred outside of a few ancient writings.
    –Wanna see your brain? Get a cat-scan, or an X-ray. Wanna see someone else’s brain? Cut the top of their head off.. lick and take a whiff of their brain to taste and smell it.

    White Says:
    Good point Luke. Why would Peter and John die such horrible deaths, if they DIDN’T believe in Jesus?
    —First of all, they died horrible deaths, according to the Bible at least, because other people brutally murdered them in whatever way they saw fit. Christians were brutally persecuted and killed for over 300 years because of their beliefs, and Peter and John were no exception. Does that make their beliefs true? Nope.
    –But the reason why Christian worship stopped being persecuted, was because Emperor Constantine legalized Christian worship in 313 AD, and then Constantine’s son and heir to the throne made it mandatory. Why was it so hard to accept this “new” religion if over 500 people witnessed a supposed resurrection? Why would God let his believers be persecuted and brutally tortured and murdered for so long?

    If Jesus is God, Peter and John knows. If Jesus is not God, Peter and John knows too, having followed Jesus throughout. Jesus must be God for Peter and John to have remained faithful in Him even in such horrible deaths. Men will die for what they believe (terrorists), but men will NOT die for what they do not believe.
    –Yes, people will die for what they believe, but beliefs do not make anything true. But you are wrong due to the fact that people die for what they do not believe. In the old testament, people were killed for NOT believing in God. What better way to keep followers than control through fear and promise of death?

  • 16. Anti-Devil  |  July 8, 2008 at 6:54 pm

    Luke..perhaps u are right…but u may not be right in a sense u sound like u don believe in a god..
    Where do you think everything came from?
    What is the point in living?
    How do you decide how to live?
    What hope can you find?
    how this universe comes about?
    You created it?
    and also what i am saying is..the things u cant smell touch see or feel or taste..doesnt mean they don exist..just like love..u can smell touch see feel or taste..use science to prove Love?

  • 17. Anti-Devil  |  July 8, 2008 at 6:56 pm

    hmm..does your parents love u? luke? can u prove that your parents love u..or still love u..if they were to go on a LONG LONG holiday..can u prove that your parents love u?

  • 18. Luke  |  July 9, 2008 at 1:11 pm

    Where do you think everything came from?
    —Fusion in stars expelled through supernovas. If you mean before the Big Bang, then who knows? If it’s God, then where did God come from? If he always existed, as I know you’ll say he did, then why can’t the conditions to cause big Bangs and hydrogen atoms have always existed?

    What is the point in living?
    —What was the point in God creating the Universe, Earth, then finally humans in the first place before Eve even at the fruit? (One more thing to think about: Does God know the future? If he does, then he would know that as soon as he created Eve, and even the magical tree of knowledge of good and evil, then he would have known Eve was going to eat it. Ponder that one.)

    How do you decide how to live?
    —However you, me, or anyone else sees fit.

    What hope can you find?
    —This is a very abstract question. I find hope in buying lottery tickets so I have a chance at winning money. What’s your point here?

    how this universe comes about?
    —Who knows? Scientists and Atheists aren’t so naive as to say “God did it” when we don’t understand something. That’s what got us in this mess we call religion in the first place.

    You created it?
    —Sure, why not. You just have to have faith that I did. Wanna worship me now?

    and also what i am saying is..the things u cant smell touch see or feel or taste..doesnt mean they don exist..just like love..u can smell touch see feel or taste..use science to prove Love?
    —“Love” is merely a word used to describe an emotion. Can you see, smell, touch, taste, or feel the word “Antidisestablishmentarianism?” (Wow, that word is actually in the spell checker, ROFL)

  • 19. Luke  |  July 9, 2008 at 1:13 pm

    Anti-Devil Says:
    hmm..does your parents love u? luke? can u prove that your parents love u..or still love u..if they were to go on a LONG LONG holiday..can u prove that your parents love u?
    –Who cares? What does this have to do with anything at all? Even if they didn’t, that’s for me to deal with.

  • 20. Anti-Devil  |  July 15, 2008 at 4:42 pm

    Maybe your mother didnt love u at all,u cant be 100 percent sure she loves u.u have no evidence

  • 21. Anti-Devil  |  July 28, 2008 at 11:38 am

    hehe


What's New

Browse by Proof

Click on any of the links below to see the proof of the same number from GodIsImaginary.com. If the link leads you back to this page, it means that that proof hasn't been tackled yet on this page. Please check back often, as I will be updating this site as often as I can!

Copyright

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons United States License.

%d bloggers like this: