Science Unspoken Axiom #1: Deities are nonsense

413 posts / 0 new
Last post
sourcecodewizard's picture
Fine. Yes we witness natural

Fine. Yes we witness natural processes occurring that generate life.

Then *STICK TO THE POINT* and tell me what would happen if we similarly witnessed a signal from ET like the one I described?

the signal itself is enough to conclude intelligent causation, right?

AccretedMinutiae's picture
@sourcecodewizard

@sourcecodewizard

Then *STICK TO THE POINT* and tell me what would happen if we similarly witnessed a signal from ET like the one I described?

I already addressed this in full. Basically agreed with you, but with a caveat stating that if we found naturally occurring reasons for the apparent "signal", we'd no longer expect there was any intelligence behind it. I honestly don't care if you don't like my answer + caveat. Not in the least.

sourcecodewizard's picture
you were the one talking

you were the one talking about "Being honest" so go ahead and be honest.

Since you are one of the few in here who demonstrate actual knowledge of the argument, you agree because you know that such a signal would be regarded by 99% of the world community as evidence. Anyone being honest knows that.

However, you also have a caveat stating that it is possible that we could find some naturally occurring phenomenon that adequately explains then we would no longer consider it evidence of ET because we would defer to the natural explanation, right?

Ok fine except for the fact that given an actual signal that generated a valid mpeg movie as described nobody would even be CONSIDERING any natural explanation. Of course it is possible that one could exist but it is also possible that someone could win the Lotto for 100 weeks in a row playing $1 each week. But if that actually occurred nobody would say it was just luck.

You can add your caveat all you want but the truth is that such a signal would be considered *overwhelming* EMPIRICAL HARD OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE of ET. The suggestion of natural causation would be mocked and ridiculed.

Be honest.

So then, again, how can a flickering light be proof and a working computer not be proof of intelligent causation?
Answer: Because people in science BELIEVE that a massive amount of knowledge that we do not have will eventually be acquired. And that is fine if you believe it. Let's just agree that it is a faith and not remotely based upon drawing conclusions from evidence. And let all sides agree to give the kids all the facts not just the ones that support their belief.

AccretedMinutiae's picture
@sourcecodewizard

@sourcecodewizard

but the truth is that such a signal would be considered *overwhelming* EMPIRICAL HARD OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE of ET.

You keep stating this as if it has happened. It hasn't. And yes, if the data were somehow encoded with the "header" information of a "file" that we could decipher, and someone realized the format of the data being transmitted, and the interpretation of that data ended up being some monumentally accurate model of something in the known universe, then yes - we would deduce that an intelligence transmitted the signal.

However - human DNA is still not like this. It doesn't represent some body of knowledge about some other aspect of reality. It represents a complex, but fundamental level of chemical functionality at work. The "information" (DNA) is intrinsic to, and only utilized by the system in which it appears. It isn't a "book" relaying information that can be shared by others and known to represent or relay some grand "truth." It is the necessary building-instruction of a single organism. The information isn't there to communicate to outsiders... it's there to inform the insiders (cells internal to the system) what they should be doing.

sourcecodewizard's picture
The part about DNA is not

The part about DNA is not relevant to the argument.

The fundamental point is that of intelligent causation, specifically of human beings.
The example of a SETI signal is a reconstruction of the watchmakers argument removing ambiguities regarding external information. In this case there is only a binary signal. That's it. Thus a flicker of light with an appropriate structure is sufficient to determine that it must necessarily been generated by intelligence without having any additional information.

Now use a scale balance with any sense of objectivity or even fairness and compare a flicker of light to working human brains. Same universe. Same time interval. If anyone wants to say that the we are here without any design, ok. Then they are obligated to make the same argument for the flicker of light. Except there is the contradiction because anyone who suggested natural causation would be mocked by the very same people saying computers self-assemble...without evidence to back it up.

Skeptical Kevin's picture
Anyone who thinks that PCs

Anyone who thinks that PCs assemble themselves can mock me all they want. I'll be busy scouring the ocean floor in search of a fuck to give.

AccretedMinutiae's picture
Now use a scale balance with

Now use a scale balance with any sense of objectivity or even fairness and compare a flicker of light to working human brains.

And my rejection of your premise stays EXACTLY the same switching from DNA to "working human brains." Nature assembles them, chemistry drives them... no God there.

Besides this you know yourself that human brains are unlike computers in many, many ways that make them less "assembled" so much as grown - again, through naturally occurring processes. In some areas brains are more powerful, and in other areas much less so. And this is because they are a BIOLOGICAL implementation built for processing more organic/nature-driven inputs. Just look at how many tens of thousands of years it took for humans to get to the point we are at now. This proves beyond any shadow of doubt that our brains don't come with a lot of built-in knowledge. And the knowledge they are built with is completely primitive. How to move your appendages to swim in water, how to recognize valuable nutritional elements in food, how to spatially orient yourself and keep track of your limbs... and most (if not all) of those elements of our built-in knowledge are involuntary - meaning we aren't even in control of them. Other living beings inside our body take care of those things for us. And here I'm talking about the trillions of individual living cells that make up the various systems of our bodies. When you think about how much what we consider our "self" actually does control, it is mind-bogglingly little. You control where to place your appendages, where to move to, how to respond to stimuli, what to put in your mouth (to an extent)... and honestly there's not much more. Meanwhile, separate living things inside your body are busy pumping blood, extracting nutrients, filtering waste, giving your brain feedback on external stimulus, crafting vital chemical components, fighting off unwanted invaders, growing and replacing components of various systems, giving you activity cues like making you tired, telling you when you need to take a crap or that your bladder is full, giving you warning when something enters your peripheral vision or makes a sound you weren't expecting, jumping your appendages away from harm without your needing to think about it, etc. etc. etc.

My point being... what you think we are, as humans, seems to me (based on your posts in this thread) to be a completely incorrect assessment. What we consider our "self" is nothing more than a single system in a larger whole. We are a combination of consciousness and memory, both supported by the brain, and neither of which manifest in any physical way. What we consider our "self" isn't even really a "life". The whole is - that is, body in total and all systems contained therein... but the part we would most often consider our "self" (that is, our consciousness and memories) is not "life." By itself it is almost nothing - just as the body is more or less useless without this governing brain activity "we" provide it. We're like the captain of a biological ship, containing trillions of individual passengers who hired us to keep the colony safe.

I don't see a god at work in that, nor is there an intelligence needed to get the ball rolling time and time again. I am conceived without an intervening intelligence (outside my parents', of course), I grow without intervening intelligence (outside of my own, of course), and I create new life without an intervening intelligence (again, except my own). I just don't see it. It's unnecessary. It's an addition to the reality we experience. And it is therefore no better than fiction until it can be demonstrated otherwise.

Calilasseia's picture
You might enjoy my little

You might enjoy my little exposition on some of what is already known above.

AccretedMinutiae's picture
@Calilasseia

@Calilasseia

That was some awesome info, so thank you. A bit of it I had already knew had been accomplished, but I didn't know that there were as many steps and observations along toward all the requisite "parts" coming together as relayed in your post.

Unfortunately I suspect that (as has been happening with evolution) if natural/spontaneous abiogenesis is discovered to be entirely possible, many theists will just begin asserting that God set up the universe such that life could arise on its own - and just relegate the creation account and genesis permanently to the "allegory" bin. "You don't think we take that LITERALLY, do you? Hahaha... silly atheists."

sourcecodewizard's picture
Of course we will and we

Of course we will and we should.
you will still have to show why the constants of nature are so finely tuned for any of this to function at all, then you will need to show why the big bang occurred to begin with.

It is called requiring evidence to back up claims of knowledge. Call atheism a belief system, hey I have no problem. Just please don't tell me it is based on evidence or remotely associated with science.

arakish's picture
@ sourcecodemigraine

@ sourcecodemigraine

you will still have to show why the constants of nature are so finely tuned for any of this to function at all, then you will need to show why the big bang occurred to begin with.

What constants of nature? What fine tuning? The Universal Expansion did occur. As for why, we are still working on it.

It is called requiring evidence to back up claims of knowledge. Call atheism a belief system, hey I have no problem. Just please don't tell me it is based on evidence or remotely associated with science.

Actually atheism is not based on evidence. Atheism is actually based on the lack of evidence. But I doubt you will ever figure that out.

rmfr

AccretedMinutiae's picture
@sourcecodewizard

@sourcecodewizard

Of course we will and we should.

This is entirely irrational. I am not claiming to know. You are. I don't even claim to know it isn't a god's work. All I can know is, based on the evidence I do have, injecting a god into the equation doesn't accomplish anything at all. It is an unnecessary leap. You can't detect a god at work in these things. Can't demonstrate it. Can't measure it. Can't see it. Can't evidence it. So why invoke it? Unnecessary.

Just please don't tell me it is based on evidence or remotely associated with science.

And this, right here, points out your entire misunderstanding. Atheism isn't "based on evidence" - it's based on the complete lack of evidence for the deity/deities being proposed. We do point to bodies of evidence, sure. But ONLY to expose the FACT that those bodies of evidence contain no verifiable trace of God. Hence, a lack of evidence for that particular claim that "god exists."

sourcecodewizard's picture
brains are evidence, YOU

brains are evidence, YOU people are the ones who need to show they self assembled since any rational person would logically conclude that computers do not build themselves. You guys like to twist it around, just like saying "God of Gaps"....no, "God of obvious design" YOU are the ones trying to glorify your lack of evidence or GAP in knowledge.

Can't measure it? Can't see it? WE ARE RIGHT HERE. We ARE EVIDENCE. Measure away. Is SETI making up a reason to explain such a signal? Can't see them so they must not exist. Except you all would dance around if we got that signal because it is a logical conclusion that such a signal must have been constructed. It is a total double standard. The evidence has always been there it's just that you guys repeat yourselves so much that there isn't any that you believe your own brainwashing.

AccretedMinutiae's picture
@sourcecodewizard

@sourcecodewizard

Can't measure it? Can't see it? WE ARE RIGHT HERE. We ARE EVIDENCE. Measure away. The evidence has always been there...

If you were rational, without bias, then you would realize that human beings existence is only evidence for the fact that what we deem "life" can exist in our universe, that life is capable of spawning other life, and that the matter and energy of the universe can be assembled into the living human form and all it entails. Anything else you want to put on top of that is nothing more than conjecture, and should rightly be treated as such until a sufficient demonstration proves the realities of whatever else you're attempting to ascribe to human origination.

Algebe's picture
@sourcecodewizard

@sourcecodewizard

And another one gone
And another one gone
Another one bites the dust

sourcecodewizard's picture
More celebration from the

More celebration from the "logic?" crowd, notice the pattern

Algebe's picture
@sourcecodewizard: notice the

@sourcecodewizard: notice the pattern

Perceiving patterns where none exist is a common failing of the superstitious.

The pattern I've observed here is that theists come lurching into the forum scattering non sequiturs and cliches and boasting about their logic and intelligence compared with stupid atheists. After a couple of days they fade away. You seem to have been resurrected. Congratulations.

sourcecodewizard's picture
more celebration minus any

more celebration minus any argument.
talk about patterns

sourcecodewizard's picture
oh and no boast about logic

oh and no boast about logic nor intelligence just sticking to facts and accuracy of an argument that is consistently met with social forces rather than logical ones because of all that messy truth stuff

Randomhero1982's picture
Ok, let's try and give the OP

Ok, let's try and give the OP due diligence...

Once it was verified that the signal had origins outside of our solar system, 99% of humans would regard this as solid evidence of alien intelligence outside our solar system. Now compare the two: 1) Flickering Light, 2) Planet filled with networked computers. EVIDENCE.

The signal would 100% be outside of the solar system, this wouldn't require verification and would be known by anyone with a grain of astronomical knowledge (this isn't a put down by the way at least not intended to be). The 'flickering' light you are describing could only be a Pulsar which is an incredibly fast rotating neutron star... the nearest of which is PSR J0108-1431 in Cetus, theres also one observable in M1 Crab nebula.

The flickering light would not come from a planet but the neutron star, the probability of finding a pulsar planet let alone one harbouring life (let alone advanced enough to have the technology you are asserting) would be astronomical!

But I would be interested in knowing the mechanics of how a life form could transfer information to a pulsar and have that information related via its beams of radiation, if you have that to hand I would be greatly interested.

Also, anyone who believes that science can explain the origin of life needs to get a science lesson or start producing some EVIDENCE. Notice the word is capitalized indicating it is important

Well let's investigate this, Science has told us about the vast majority of the physiology and biology of ourselves.
It has demonstrably taught us that we have evolved from a past common ancestor.

Being a good bayesian, we could satisfactorily postulate that of all realms of knowledge and human endeavour, science is by far the only reasonable way of getting to the answer.

Theology can offer nothing more then an unfalsifiable assertion, so I would suppose it's down to what is good enough for you!

Keep in mind that the only rational logical arguments theist have, like William lane Craig are underpinned by science!

Science fantasy combined with conjecture and wishful thinking have built this magical world of “what if land” where people actually believe that there is some factual, scientific basis to explain how life began when this is not even remotely based on EVIDENCE. It is a faith, pure and simple.

No, it very simple to understand and is entirely based on evidence, causality and the laws of nature and physics.

Let's simply take the premise that we can causal regress from humans to a primate ancestor via naturally occurring causal links.

Now we go our planets coming to be from an accretion disc and again, follow the natural causal links all the way to the big bang.

Even eminent apologists like Lane Craig would not dispute this.

We can then infer that it's entirely logical and possible that life appearing on earth was a natural process and entirely probable.

Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, too which I'm all ears.

To counter their lack of evidence, science has dubbed the phrase “God of Gaps” thereby 1) glorifying their lack of EVIDENCE and 2) drawing attention away from the EVIDENCE of a planet filled with self aware computers.

This is false, this was actually dubbed by theologians and philosophers.

Its argued by whom exactly was first, but Nietzsche in Part Two of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, mentions the God of the gaps fallacy.

But also 19th century evangelist Henry Drummond also did! He was intellectually honest enough to chastise Christian's who like to slot God into gaps of knowledge that science (at the time) could not answer.

Don't blame science if it uses your own tools against you.

To anyone using logic it is clear that our reality must have been designed

This is ironically fallacious.

In closing, I would propose that you have offered nothing of note logically to consider and of your assertions and would suggest you build a straight forward logically argument without the filler that demonstrate your personal ignorance on the subject (I.e. astronomy).

Build an argument with your legitimate premises and conclusion and perhaps you make more sense.

As it stands, most of your assertion are demonstrably false and the reason why perhaps you've been met with ridicule.

sourcecodewizard's picture
Guy, if SETI found a star

Guy, if SETI found a star flickering with a binary signal that encoded into an mpeg video as described in the OP nobody would be talking about neutron stars or pulsars. Everyone would call it evidence. Billions of dollars would be spent, it would be all over every news story and anyone even arguing that the mpeg video could have a natural cause would be ridiculed, mocked and labeled crackpots. That is what would happen.

Hence, we all would infer intelligence from a flickering light. Human brains are even more evidence. END

Very simple.

"Now we go our planets coming to be from an accretion disc and again, follow the natural causal links all the way to the big bang."
...
"We can then infer that it's entirely logical and possible that life appearing on earth was a natural process and entirely probable."

Missed a few details there don't you think? "Natural causal links?"
Where is any evidence showing how the first cell was formed from non living matter?
Do you have fossils?
Do we see them forming on the beach?
Have you built one in a lab?
How about a computer model?

The answer is that there is no evidence. It is a FAITH. And a illogical one because of the SETI argument that stands.

Yet again, we have a situation where you already KNOW how it went because of unspoken axiom 1. You have no EVIDENCE so instead you start by throwing poo then end up making word salads hoping logic will magically spring out of it the way your Universe magically sprang into existence.

Randomhero1982's picture
Well I think I'll now refer

Well I think I'll now refer to these statements as BOTG assertions... that would be bollock of the gaps.

Bloody hell, anyone could infer any old horse shit like you have and demand it be considered reasonable.

If you at least said SETI detected radiowaves, optical wavelengths or even gravitational waves with the help of LIGO from an exoplanet, pulsar planet etc... you'd have a cogent arguement for a hypothetical scenario.

Its very simple.

As for natural causal links, at least it is evidence, provable, testable and does not require the suspension of the laws of physics and nature.

Any leading apologist would likely concede humans evolved via series of natural causal links.

We are not special, we are like every other bloody creature on this planet.

Everything progressing from human civilisation to the big bang follows natural causal links with no magical bearded wizard intervening, all the way to the big bang.

If you can prove otherwise, that there is a signal event that contradicts the laws of nature and physics, then have at it... that is your burden of proof... all most sensible people do is see the mountain of evidence, the zero evidence to contrary and then being good baysiens, understand the probabilities.

And if you can meet the burden of proof, I'm sure there will be a Nobel prize waiting for you!
Hell, if you even managed to demonstrate one un-natural causal link, you'd have some serious spot light on you... but typically with all theists, you have bugger all to support your nonsensical claims.

Sure, the SETI arguement stands if you have zero knowledge of astronomy, cosmology or physics and are irretrievably arrogant and moronic.

And please, demonstrate the word salad I made, if you cant understand the very basic criticisms I made, then that is due to your personal ignorance and incredulity, not mine.

Did I say the universe just sprang into existence? No. This is a straw man fallacy, but I expect no different.

sourcecodewizard's picture
Sure, the SETI arguement

Sure, the SETI arguement stands if you have zero knowledge of astronomy, cosmology or physics and are irretrievably arrogant and moronic.

Demonstration of your word salad you asked for, nice and concise.

People believe in ET. A signal from them would be considered evidence of their existence. How hard is that for you to comprehend?

Randomhero1982's picture
You arguement was bollocks

You arguement was bollocks and you demonstrated that you don't even know what SETI actually looks for.

So my point is valid.

sourcecodewizard's picture
Go ahead, spell it out don't

Go ahead, spell it out don't be shy.

what does SETI actually look for?

sourcecodewizard's picture
Also the argument extends to

Also the argument extends to any wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum including light.

The point in focus is that intelligent causation can be inferred from the structure of a binary signal.

Say you disagree and you show that SETI is a waste of time and money.
Say you agree then you have to explain how a flickering light can be definitive evidence of intelligence but not working computers originating in the exact same universe over the exact same time duration.

But the real point is that you are not using logic to arrive at a conclusion. You are evasively skirting the main point because you already KNOW that deities are nonsense so you only need to find the right argument to prove it. You begin with "look at all those silly religious people" and end with no real argument because you don't have one thereby proving that you are just like all the religious sheepoles you people constantly mock while you "logically" go along with "smart science crowd" without actually thinking for yourself about the facts involved. Typically the brainwashing starts young and reaches a state of hopeless indoctrination at a certain age. Symptoms include social intimidation often followed by pseudoscience tightly integrated with actual science that never addresses the main point but totally obfuscates just like this right here. Notice it really goes nowhere except that I mix in important words now and then like neutron star and gravity waves. Please tell me you "believe in" the utter nonsensical fantasy of the multiverse so that I can complete my profile.

sourcecodewizard's picture
sry if I rambled. But I have

sry if I rambled. But I have to add this little cute footnote to show I can play this game too.

Randomhero1982's picture
Also the argument extends to

Also the argument extends to any wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum including light.

And the fallacies just keep onnnnn coming.
Moving the goalposts huh, ok.

The point in focus is that intelligent causation can be inferred from the structure of a binary signal.

Possiblely, but I'd note I never said it could not.
I simply said you would not get a life form made signal from a star.
And that has nothing to do with an axiom, that's a fact... life cannot survive on a pulsar or 'flickering light' as you eloquently put it.

Say you disagree and you show that SETI is a waste of time and money.

Straw man, well done, another fallacy.
I never said it was a waste and I truly hope they find life... preferably a race that can get me the fuck away from theistic retards.

Say you agree then you have to explain how a flickering light can be definitive evidence of intelligence but not working computers originating in the exact same universe over the exact same time duration.

Shifting the burden of proof!
That is your bloody job pal, and I tell you what... find me one pier review paper to support the notion and I'll give it credence.

Any flickering light found are pulsars, which are incredibly dense, incredibly fast rotating neutron stars.

But the real point is that you are not using logic to arrive at a conclusion.

Yeah, because you are doing soooooo well with it! Keep going!!!!
Form a cogent logical argument with the premises and conclusion to lead you to a deductive answer.

you already KNOW that deities are nonsense so you only need to find the right argument to prove it.

Ask anyone, ask anyone here... hell check all my posts! I've openly admitted I'm as atheist as it gets, I only call myself it because I'm labelled it.
But I openly tell anyone who asks that the God hypothesis is bollocks.
I've never denied it and happy to stick by it.

I've never skirted it, look at all my posts here and you'll see all I'm doing is pointing out the completely false scientific claims you are making.

Ironic that my long held opinion that theists that come on here have no substance... you only have logical arguments (none of which are deductive) and ironically rely on science.
Not one has ever demonstrated any evidence or even tried to meet the burden of proof.

So anyways rather then talking more bollocks and skirting the real issues... how about you form the cogent deductive logical arguements, demonstrate the mechanics of how intelligent signals can come from pulsars (flickering lights) and meet a tiny slice of the burden of proof.

Randomhero1982's picture
Sorry for the length post

Sorry for the length post above and any grammatical errors (on my phone and I simply cannot be bothered to re-edit mistakes lol)folks and I'm sorry I've been sensible and rational for once...

.... I feel dirty :(

Grinseed's picture
Hi Wiz, interesting post.

Hi Wiz, interesting post.

I was drawn to your claim that "people actually believe that there is some factual scientific basis to explain how life began when this is not even remotely based on EVIDENCE" (your bold).

No doubt there are such misinformed people. I have a few friends who still beleive, without any evidence at all, that extra-terrestrials live amongst us and control our world. Lizards apparently. They're strange but harmless...my friends, not the lizards.

Anyway, you went on to make the claim that our knowledge and perception of reality is unable to be proven completely, but nevertheless you insist the use of logic is sufficient to show 'our' reality MUST (my bold) have been created by an unproven, still unsubstantiated, supernatural deity.

How can you be so certain about the existence of this god if our perceptions are in question to begin with? Granted, the scientific method is subject to this uncertainty, but it does strive to account for it and to correct it, which is the heart of the method.

Despite all that, you then suggest that no amount of logic at all, applied to any amount of practical working knowledge involving biochemistry, could ever support any hypotheses concerning abiogenesis.
If logic is sufficient to point to the supernatural why is not sufficient to point to a concept like abiogenesis?

All the books and journals and articles I have read concerning the possibility of abiogenesis involves informed predictions based on actual physical results of repeatable experiments with biochemistry and physics. In every instance no claim has ever been made that abiogenesis is a fact. Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis, supported by a wealth of research and a reasonable application of logic.

What evidence, substantial, predictive or otherwise, do we have for a the existence of a god? None, other than assumptions and assessments and wistful hopes based our rather uncertain senses and imaginations.

You also state,"the fact that our world is designed is more certain that the existence of our parents".

I had the good fortune to live with both my parents until they died. I knew them very well. Good, real, solid, dependable people. Sadly my father, a simple cabinet maker, never lived to see a desktop computer. I know he would have loved them. You seem a little obessed with them.
You mentioned you work with 'logical beings' called computers and yet you seem to have trouble referring to people as human beings.
You refer instead to "working computers that replicate and self-heal using nanotechnology". You later mention science attempting to draw attention away from "a planet filled with self aware computers".

It's really ok to just say "human beings" or "humans". It does look rather awkward for someone justifying "the existence of evil by an omnipotent benevolent creator" via Christian principles to constantly refer to human beings as 'computers'. Interestingly when you do refer to 'people' its to accuse them of being stupid for 'beleiving' science' or for 'typically' being "ignorant people with low moral standards". Very telling.

You mention you work with computers and how this affects your use of english. I think it might be affecting more than that. You should consider having a break for a little while from those flickering screens and mix with, you know, people. They aren't as 'smart' as a god or a computer, but they aren't all of low morals or intelligence either. Many are fantastic.

And regarding those three 'principles':

You seem pretty certain everyone will think the hate, torture, oppression, deceit, lies and pain of terrible lives will be worth it because your god will make it better. Gee I hope so, but I doubt it. I have felt the degree of bitterness of others, families basically who will never forget the random, mindless cruelty inflicted on their loved ones via misadventure and sickness. Unless of course this god performs memory wipes as a condition of entry to paradise or where ever the after-party is being held.

The second principle is pure waffle signifiying nothing but might make a great Hallmark card quote or something.

This reality is not the proving ground, old son. This is it. No rehearsals, no re-takes, no editing, and the end is absolutely THE END.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.