Atheistic Bias & It's Angry Troll Cousin

126 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dave Matson's picture



Atheism is just a side issue. The state is all about Kim worship in a supposedly communist context, an utopian issue . Since religion, especially western Christianity, would necessarily compete with this authoritative regime, naturally the state will be atheistic. Atheism is a consequence--NOT A PRODUCER--of this ideology.

Masterblaster21's picture


Try to remember the principle of Cause and Effect here regarding your dilemma:

It's very simple, Mr. Greensnake...there is really no such thing as a true Atheist state.

There is no "side issue", there is only the issue of human nature.

So, whether it is your friendly neighborhood communist Kim Jong IL, Un, or even Kook, there is no need to produce or "to be a producer" of an ideology, religion, or authoritative regime - in North Korea or anywhere else on this spinning Globe for that matter. These human dynamics and push toward self-governance have existed since Man's very Dawn; whether you believe those beginnings to have taken place in the Garden of Eden, or the first "reptilian crawl" in another sort of "genesis" involving some kind of ancient and primordial soup of singularity, from which you (or we) may very well have "popped" (or perhaps even "pooped") out of by accident lol.

Yes, Christianity would most certainly "compete" with the "god of Kim Jong...whoever", which is why it is a virtual death sentence to possess a King James Bible (or any English/Korean translation of the like I'm sure) in that particular Asian province, or "utopia" as you aptly and ironically point out.

But make no mistake, Atheism would never adequately address (and certainly would never remedy) these two diametrically opposed "states", if for no other reason than a "utopia" by its very definition is both an "imagined" and "perfect" place and/or STATE of existence. Something Mankind has never been able to achieve historically or politically, and will never be able to achieve on his own because of his very Nature.

Therefore, saying that "Atheism is a consequence and not a producer, of this (North Korea's Kim worship) ideology" is not only a bit of the tail wagging its little idealogical's practically a contradiction in terms. No, no, better still...maybe it would be most like the "greensnake" consuming its own tail? haha ;-) and don't forget about the "vacuum" some of you have disagreed with me on in earlier posts.

It's like saying that the bomb Kim Jong-crazyman could set off in blowing up his neighboring Southern counterpart, would be a "consequence" and "not a producer" of that State failing to conform to their (North Korea's) Communist Regime.

If that tragic hypothetical ever turned out to be the real case, then one might immediately inquire: "Did anyone happen to first ask the South Koreans' their opinion on the matter?" I highly doubt any of the Kim Jong dictators or their likely successors would extend that type of humanitarian courtesy, do you? Similarly, Atheisism would behave the same way in that much like Kim Jong-un now decrees, I think it would probably be HOSTILE AND NOT NEUTRAL to any other "competing" ideology or religion (not at all an indictment of atheists as individuals, just a product of human nature coupled with a deliberate absence of God concerning that type of political state, in my opinion).

Just as some of your members seem hostile to many Christians who would cross your path or challenge your beliefs, even now in such an innocuous setting as this Forum. Hence, my original "Atheistic bias and it's angry troll cousin" tagline. Some seem to have it (the troll) worse than others, and for some the infection seems to go all the way down to the bone.

But for many of you (and us, Humanity), it would take nothing short of a marrow transplant or perhaps Christ himself not just washing your feet, but shining your shoes and then paying YOU for Him doing so in the process (that was once my attitude too, by the way). Because for some reason many non-believers and atheists seem so threatened by Christ and his followers. Do you really need to fear Christians though, as we are often the one's being sent to our deaths around the World, not the one's killing others because they would disagree with us and our God (or "G-d" as some atheist "poets" on here like to toy with). And Christians are trying to follow the One (Jesus) who first made that ultimate sacrifice for All, including Atheists.

I shudder to think of what some of the extremists in your Group (as in any) could accomplish if you were to ever gain a foothold in place of even the most narcissistic and manical, yet solitary, leaders like the Kim Jong-uns, Hitlers, and Vladimir Putins of the World. One prominent atheist poster on this thread quipped earlier that he more or less couldn't wait until religion was completely gone and that Atheists would then become the proverbial "bug squashers..." lol. Another likened believers to "defectives" being produced by a factory that needed to be shut down.

Yours (Atheism) could also become a most dangerous and insipid idealogy and form of religious zealousness...not because you don't believe and say you have no God, but because you do believe and your god could so easily masquerade as a harmless and intellectual man of reason, a pantheon of lofty deeds and higher angels, gleefully absent of traditional religion or conventional institution. These angels who do not even portend to exist in reality like that of the Judeo-Christian protectors of Humanity. Protecting mankind from evil and the most power-hungry of dictators and ruthless of tyrants.

But the angels of atheism would only innocently and incoherently exist in your minds, perhaps by sheer force of "evolution" or some other mechanistic form of necessary "survival" and noble "self-determinism", or so you would have US (Christians and other religious peoples) "believe". Or, that is until these better "angels" would finally sprout wings and armed with military force and political power, learn to fly. For it is then and only then that you might finally discover your own inclinations and understand your true malevolent human nature, but unfortunately for the rest of us (non-atheists), and for many in places like South Korea, it would sadly be all too late.

So all I can only say in summation is beware my atheist friends what you wish for, and "Sssssssss", Mr. Greensnake, "SSSSSSSSS!!!"

PS I tried to further edit and clean up this post a bit, because of my earlier and clumsy attempt at hyperbole. Sorry it's still such a rant...but I was also trying to have some fun with you guys. Again, sorry if I failed in that regard :-(
Please let me know if you would like me to "delete" it with a simple 'yes' or 'no' vote and I will oblige either way. Thanks

Sir Random's picture
"It's very simple, Mr.

"It's very simple, Mr. Greensnake...there is really no such thing as a true Atheist state."

Contradicting yourself now, as you just said DPRK was an atheist state. Now you've doubled back and said such a thing cannot exist. Did you take your meds this morning?

"But make no mistake, Atheism would never adequately address (and certainly would never remedy) these two diametrically opposed "states", if for no other reason than a "utopia" by its very definition is both an "imagined" and "perfect" place and/or STATE of existence. "

Atheism does not mean pursuit of a Utopia.

It JUST means not believing in any god(s).

"it's practically a contradiction in terms. "

As I've said, atheism is just not believeing in god(s). Therefore, to say that someone telling you atheism does not produce dictatorships like DPRK is a "contradiction" is erroneous.

"I shudder to think of what your Group could accomplish if you were to ever gain a foothold in place of even the most narcissistic and manical, yet solitary, leaders like the Kim Jong-uns, Hitlers, and Vladimir Putins of the World."

Why? If its because you don't want religion dissapearing, that's something which is inevitable, no matter how it happens.

"Yours (Atheism) is a most dangerous and insipid idealogy and form of religious zealousness..."

Atheism is the exact opposite of religion. To give it religious traits and characterize it as a religion is erroneous in all aspects.

""Sssssssss", Mr. Greensnake, "SSSSSSSSS!!!""

Unnessesary antagonizing.

Summary of post: Fear spouting and religious hatefulness. Congrats, MB, you have provided a perfect example for WHY religion needs to be gone.

And, as for your assertion that we are all hostile twords every theist we meet, my best friend(whom I've known for 5 years now) is a Christian. So you can fuck off with that bull crap.

Masterblaster21's picture


I'm not contradicting, and through some prodding and hyperbole, was merely trying to illustrate that true Atheism can never exist, because of human nature. There will always be "gods", Tieler, whether you choose to name them or not. And there is no way for you to get people to stop practicing this belief without locking them up or worse.

Don't you guys see a difference between some poor schmuck owning a Bible, and ISIS (or ISIL) actively chopping off the heads of any "infidels" who do not subscribe to their Koran?

N Korea is officially an Atheist state, yes, but it was my contention that that dynamic plays out much differently in reality than you would explain, or in attempting to endorse universal (global) Atheism as a political system.

Please relax my "debatable" brother...I indeed haven't had my meds yet but will go grab a cup of coffee if you don't mind :-)

mykcob4's picture
You are either uninformed or

You are either uninformed or just purposely stupid.
It isn't illegal to be a christian in N.Korea. You can have a bible or torah or Quran for that matter. Thousands of missionaries go to N.Korea every day. They open missions which are also legal. What is illegal is to subvert Kim in any way. Missionaries get arrested in N.Korea for proselytizing in public, for passing out propaganda, for promoting a political agenda. There is one particular mission that gets away with anything it wants because it has chosen to profess that Kim was chosen by god. Therefore it is allowed to do just about anything it wants. It happens to be the N.Korean Baptist Mission originating in the USA1 It's leader Kim Park Moon is a former member of the Moonies (no relation).
There are Buddhists, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Sikhs, Mormons, Hindus, all with missions in N.Korea. They pay a huge financial amount to operate there, but they are there in force.
There are only 4 sanctioned churches, however, but anyone is allowed to attend them.

I doubt very much masterblaster that you know anything that you are talking about on ANY subject. On this you are wayy far off the facts.

N.Korea is most likely the harshest regime against any religion other than glorifying the Kim god leader, but it is a far cry from forcing atheism on its people. What it forces is a devout belief that it's leader is chosen by god and is a living god. That isn't atheism, it's religion.

Dave Matson's picture
Masterblaster 21,

Masterblaster 21,

Such sound and fury, signifying nothing! There is not much point in my trying to focus on your weak points since the whole cloth is pretty much rotten. Thus, I'll simply note what is obvious to many people. There is a clear difference between: (1) atheism as a secondary policy of the Kim regime; (2) atheism as a driving force for the horrors of the Kim regime. In the case of the Soviet Union, atheism was an obvious secondary choice because the religious establishment supported and justified the czar. People died by the millions under Stalin NOT because of his atheist policy but for three main reasons: (A) dogmatism ruined the Soviet agriculture so that many millions starved to death; (B) millions died because they were associated with the old power structure; (C) Stalin's paranoia, which focused on his fellow communists.

Compare that to millions of people butchered in the name of Jesus! We do get a little tired of that dirty lie, the old Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot routine.

algebe's picture
North Korea is a deep pit of

North Korea is a deep pit of lies and deception. They're also supposed to be a democratic, socialist workers' paradise, but they're really a hereditary absolute monarchy with the current leader and his predecessors worshipped as deities. The punishment for heresy is death by anti-aircraft shell (or sometimes being eaten by dogs or burning alive).

mykcob4's picture
@ the general thread

@ the general thread participants.
Masterblaster21 continues to say what WE atheists believe and think. He is dead wrong. He thinks evolution is a theory when it well established that it is a scientific fact. He is mixing up 'Origin of Species' with evolution. A common mistake made by evangelicals. He posits that atheist believes that if religion were eradicated a world utopia would arise. There is nothing farther than the truth. I am sure there are as many ideas about what would happen as there are atheists in the world, there is not a common collective thought.
He says that if religion would go away that a vacuum would occur and tyranny would replace it. If suddenly religion just disappeared, of course a vacuum would occur, and yes, tyranny would replace it. However, it would only be replacing one type of tyranny with another.
So we are left with Masterblaster21's general rant, demanding atheists use logic and apply it. He thinks that would lead atheists to belief in a christian god, and not just any christian god but HIS christian god. What he doesn't understand is that atheists have already applied logic and came up with an entirely different and logical answer. That being that there is no god, his or anyone else's.

Masterblaster21's picture
@greensnake, @mykcob4,

@greensnake, @mykcob4, @tieler, and @the general thread participants

Obviously, the rhetoric I've employed could use some curtailing here. I apologize to the members. And what can I say, I am just "busting balls" and getting some much deserved pushback lol.

But I want to learn and understand something:

What is the major problem atheists have with a belief in God, that some of you would actually want it or "Him" eradicated from the Planet?

I mean, I know it's obvious why a group like ISIS or ISIL have to go, but why Christianity?

Also, as an American I thought our Constitutional Framers did well by including the First Amendment, so why would an atheist want to go against the type of Liberty that allows you the same freedom to NOT practice religion. And to espouse YOUR beliefs or lack thereof?

Finally, in that sense it seems kind of hypocritical and anti-American to be anti-religion, doesn't it?

Anyway, serious question and no blustering this time on my part just for effect. I do appreciate the people here on Atheist Republic and exchanges thus far, and regret offending or alienating anyone who has taken the time.

This may sound strange, but I do consider all who have engaged here as "friends" and not foes, especially because of our differences and not in spite of them.

Sir Random's picture
"anti-American to be anti

"anti-American to be anti-religion, doesn't it?"

Myk, tear this blaggard apart please.

mykcob4's picture

Again you assume something that just isn't true. You assume that atheists want to eradicate christianity. No, that isn't the case. I want to end religious encroachment on me, on the public, on the government. You can believe anything you want, just don't push that shit on me, or in our schools.
You mentioned the Constitution. I don't think any believer in god actually respects the Constitution. Your religious right is an individual right and that is ALL it is.
The USA is a SECULAR nation as illustrated in the Treaty of Tripoli.
There is a reason that "god" is NEVER mentioned in the Constitution. There is a reason that the Declaration of Independence (which ISN'T the CONSTITUTION OR LAW) refers to "their creator" and not a god.
Furthermore, religion isn't patriotism. I am so fucking sick of chritians hijacking patriotism as if you have to be a christian to be a patriotic American.
This nation was NOT founded of judeo-christian tenets. It was founded on the idealism put forth by Thomas Paine (atheist), and John Locke (atheist).
Here's a list of books by Thomas Paine and John Locke that this nation was founded on:
The founders of this nation subscribed to secular rule instead of divine rule. They rejected the christian tenet that kings are anointed by god. Therefore proving that this nation was NOT founded on religion, but rather freedom from religious rule. The first amendment on allows an individuals right of religion and that is the extent of that right.

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Did you get that part? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

" It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion."

If you were an atheist such as I, you would realize that this right under the first amendment is continually trampled on by christians against atheist. Every single day and everywhere I go, my right to not have a religion or believe in a god is violated. Atheist are treated as if we don't have rights as if the constitution doesn't matter.
If you wonder about anger, that is where it comes from. When christians start respecting the constitution, start respecting the individual rights of others, THEN and only then can they call themselves patriots. They don't now and they aren't now.

algebe's picture
"I mean, I know it's obvious

"I mean, I know it's obvious why a group like ISIS or ISIL have to go, but why Christianity?"

ISIS/ISIL/DAESH is just a footnote, a blip on the graph of religious damage to the world. Christianity has a 2,000 year history of atrocity on a global scale. We are still dealing with the after-effects of the Crusades, for example. Although thankfully weaker now, it still has political, economic, and social tentacles in many countries and remains a huge barrier to human progress. The churches have helped to prop up totalitarian regimes, obstructed stem cell research, and contributed directly to the AIDS epidemic in Africa. And then there is all the utter evil caused by priestly child molestors, money-grabbing evangelists, and utopian suicide cults (remember Jim Jones?).

Dave Matson's picture


Having read the works of many atheists, and having corresponded with others, I believe that the great majority of American atheists firmly stand behind our Constitution and firmly believe in religious freedom. Nobody is going to drive Christianity off the stage with a bayonet if I have anything to say about it. Having said that, I want to make it very clear that religion must participate on a level playing field without taxpayer support. Its symbols do not belong on government property, currency, or as a proselytizing aid or presence in public schools. In short, government must be neutral on religious matters. In the past religion has lived off of a silver platter at taxpayer expense and that became the "normal" for a lot of people. Leveling the playing field has caused these people to cry "persecution!" Getting booted off of their former silver platter may hurt, but it is hardly persecution! It is the way things should have been.

I defend your Constitutional right to believe as you see fit, but I will criticize the errors in religious thinking precisely because it has been the tool of much persecution.

See my thread "Science Gives God The Boot!" (08/07/2016 18:47) for my chief reason (of several powerful reasons) for rejecting the God idea.

Masterblaster21's picture
@Algebe @CyberLN @Greensnake

@Algebe @CyberLN @Greensnake @mykcob4 @Nyarlathotep @ThePragmatic @Tieler

In response to your proof of transitional lifeforms and fossil records:

"Australopithecines" - walked upright from time to time, and scientific interpretations of their posture vary greatly. Apes today walk upright at times as well.

"Ardipithecus" or "Ardi" - thought to be transitional because of the "proximal foot phalanx", but this bone occurs in non-transitional apes as well. Also, very small brain which was only 20% that of human brain size.

Because Evolutions have not provided any record of intermediates between the ape, "Australopithecines" and the fully human Homo erectus, the current family tree becomes imaginary.

Likewise, the tail and limbs of the "Rodhocetus" whale are also imagined, which Dr. Phillip Gingerich (paleontologist and educator) has admitted, and said:

"I speculated that it might have had a fluke… I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail. … Since then we have found the forelimbs, the hands, the front arms of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn’t have the kind of arms that can be spread out like flippers are on a whale.”

"ARCHAEOPTERYX" - is a bird often cited as the greatest transitional fossil found. The evidence for this conclusion is the supposed reptilian features of (1) teeth, (2) wing claws, and (3) a long tail. But all these features can be explained in avian terms.

(1) The teeth are not theropod-like and quite a few extinct birds had teeth. The modern-day chicken still develops teeth early on in life; perhaps teeth in birds are an avian trait that has been lost. In fact, why would teeth make certain birds transitional? Some fish have teeth, some don’t. Some amphibians have teeth, some don’t. Some reptiles have teeth, some don’t. Some mammals have teeth, some don’t. Some birds have teeth, some don’t.

(2) Hoatzins, swans, ibis, ostriches, emus, and other extinct and living birds have wing claws. It is useless to classify wing claws as a transitional feature when modern birds like swans have them.

(3) As Carl Werner aptly put it, the tail in Archaeopteryx is 4-5 inches long and covered with feathers while the tail of a theropod is 4-5 feet long and covered in scales.

Archaeopteryx was most likely a perching bird. It had a birdlike brain, flying feathers and elliptical wings just like modern birds, and its claws were those of a perching bird. Its upper and lower jaws (maxilla and mandible respectively) moved just like other birds, and it had at least two of the five air sacs present in birds — meaning it had an avian lung.

Archaeopteryx is best described as a mosaic bird.

Thank you and enjoy.

CyberLN's picture
The site to which you have

The site to which you have linked is creationist. I am unable to find the writer's name so therefore am unable to see if s/he has any trustworthy credentials. That other articles are cited in the article really doesn't verify what is written. I can finish this post with all sorts of references, couldn't I? Would they help convince you that I'm right?

Masterblaster21's picture


So I am getting that you are more interested in "who" is doing the talking instead of "what" is being discussed. Fair enough for now.

What about the Paleontologist and educator Dr. Philip Gingerich cited in the article, his impressive credentials, along with his thoughts on the important transitional whale fossil known as "Rodhocetus"?

Any thoughts or rebuttal on that, or on him for that matter?

Can you please send me something on "Rodhocetus", and I'll be sure to review?

Thanks, MB

CyberLN's picture
I do not accept your redirect

I do not accept your redirect. You've not provided the name of the author of the article to which you linked. Is that because you are unable to find it? I suspect that's the case. My guess, therefore, is that you linked to it not because it was of substance, rather you did so because you simply liked what it said. I'm just a bit too skeptical by nature for that, mb.

Masterblaster21's picture


Very well, here is a well accredited paleontologist and non-creationist source, Dr. Philip Gingerich, who will help educate you concerning the transitional whale fossil, "Rodhocetus".

I'll await your reply, thank you.

CyberLN's picture
Are you conceding that the

Are you conceding that the original article you posted isn't worth the electrons used to share it?

Masterblaster21's picture


Sure, concession I sent you a new non-creationist link, and accredited paleontologist source by the name of Dr. Philip Gingerich. Have a look if you are truly interested.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Masterblaster21 - Because

Masterblaster21 - Because Evolutions have not provided any record of intermediates between the ape, "Australopithecines" and the fully human Homo erectus, the current family tree becomes imaginary.

Classic god of the gaps. Won't believe it until every single ancestor is found (which is impossible); and then would claim it was a conspiracy.

Masterblaster21's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

I've been a bit truculent at times on this site, so I'll ignore the (most likely deserved) jab.

However, I thought that one of the main points of "transitional" fossil evidence was to essentially fill in those gaps?

So far, I am not looking for every single ancestor, but only ONE. Just one, my friend :-)

Sir Random's picture
"So far, I am not looking for

"So far, I am not looking for every single ancestor, but only ONE. Just one, my friend :-)".

And that is the issue. Religious people never bother to see if there is anything else after they " See" their god. Hence extreme closed mindedness.

And an ancestor is a progenator, not a creator.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Masterblaster21 - However, I

Masterblaster21 - However, I thought that one of the main points of "transitional" fossil evidence was to essentially fill in those gaps?

Not at all. Everyone (everyone with half a brain) knows that is impossible. I supposed we shouldn't be surprised you have set up your world view where your opponents must meet an impossible requirement. Perhaps some self reflection is in order?

Masterblaster21 - So far, I am not looking for every single ancestor, but only ONE. Just one, my friend :-)

5 seconds of searching on google should have brought you to this page. It seems you aren't really looking very hard.

algebe's picture

"In response to your proof of transitional lifeforms and fossil records:"

I don't recall anyone here offering "proof" of transitional lifeforms. There's no proof in evolution, only evidence. The evidence overwhelmingly points to a gradual evolution from apes to hominids, but others interpret the same evidence as indicating creation by a sky fairy or benevolent aliens. Take your pick.

I don't want to write a long essay. I'm not a paleontologist. But I will ask two questions.

First, if homo sapiens was created abruptly by an intelligent designer, why are we so similar to the other apes? Presumably a designer could have made us in any shape or form. An extra arm or backward facing eye would have been very helpful. But the truth is, we look like modified, updated apes with bolt-on enhancements under the hood (cranium). We are not a completely new model designed from scratch. We are like every version of Windows. A compromise mish-mash of earlier code cobbled together in a way that sort of works most of the time, but is still full of bugs dating back to Version 1.0.

Second, why are all of our earliest ancestral remains found only in Africa? Is it a coincidence that gorillas and chimpanzees are also found only in Africa? Evolution from apes explains this. But why would an intelligent designer create the masterpiece that is homo sapiens and then dump us in the middle of a savannah swarming with hyenas, cheetahs, and other predatory species?

Masterblaster21's picture


You asked:

"First, if homo sapiens was created abruptly by an intelligent designer, why are we so similar to the other apes?"

Well, I don't believe that only "homo sapiens" were created by an Intelligent Designer, but all life on Earth. So, naturally I would expect to see similarities everywhere. So, apes do look like us, but birds also have two eyes and one brain, and fish have teeth, most creatures have reproductive organs, etc.

After all, we all share the same environment, which I believe is a part of Creation as well.

Also, you admit that Windows was created...but this Grand Design that we live in, is what - an accident? Sorry, does not compute lol ;-)

"Second, why are all of our earliest ancestral remains found only in Africa?"

Don't know, but if that is true then perhaps that is where the original "Garden of Eden" existed.

"Is it a coincidence that gorillas and chimpanzees are also found only in Africa?"

Probably not a coincidence, but is it also necessarily a compelling argument against Creationism?

(Third) "But why would an intelligent designer create the masterpiece that is homo sapiens and then dump us in the middle of the savannah swarming with hyenas, cheetahs, and other predatory species?"

Homo sapiens, lacking the powerful jaws of a hyena, speed of a cheetah, and predatory attributes of many species in the savannah has a most formidable and unsurpassed advantage over these other creatures - his intelligence. So, an "Intelligent Designer" who wishes to protect his masterpiece in allowing him to emerge as the apex predator by virtue of this trait, is sounding pretty good to me!

Thanks for the questions!

CyberLN's picture
You actually think human

You actually think human beings are a masterpiece? Wow! Given all the poor design 'choices', your intelligent designer is pretty bad at its job.

Masterblaster21's picture


"Masterpiece" was just the description which I reiterated in answering @Algebe's direct question to me, as it was his origination... really no need to "pounce". Also, I sent you a new link on the transitional whale fossil, "Rodhocetus".

algebe's picture
I used the word "masterpiece"

I used the word "masterpiece" ironically. There is no master. And we are not the culmination of anything.

algebe's picture
"Also, you admit that Windows

"Also, you admit that Windows was created...but this Grand Design that we live in, is what - an accident? Sorry, does not compute lol ;-)"

LOL to you, too. You actually equate your supposed intelligent designer with Microsoft? Every species in the world is full of design errors, fatal flaws, compromises, and vestigial bugs buried deep in their software. Is that evidence of intelligence?


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.