Bible prophesies about Jesus

74 posts / 0 new
Last post
Armando Perez's picture
Bible prophesies about Jesus

An Adventist friend of mine sent me this in a message. I told him that as the New Testament was written well after the Old and the supposed date of Jesus death, everything in it could have been crafted to fit the so-called prophesies, but I would like to know what do you all think about it.

"There are hundreds of prophecies in the Old Testament that predict the birth and mission of Jesus. All were fulfilled in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, from where the Messiah would be born and the date of his birth, the beginning of his earthly ministry and his crucifixion to details such as that he would be crucified (and his feet and hands pierced) hundreds of years before the crucifixion was the execution mode in Israel, he would be betrayed by one of his friends for 30 pieces of silver and that lots would be thrown on his clothes."

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Alembé's picture
Hi Aperez,

Hi Aperez,

Until the christian god is proved to exist, I see no point in wasting my time wondering about anything in the bible.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Apaerez

@ Apaerez
Its absolute bollocks.The gospels were crafted to fit the Isiaih prophecies. Nowhere in the OT is the exact date of birth, death, manner of death and resurrection accurately portrayed.

7th day Adventists should also be very wary about spruiking prophecy as not ONE of their prophecies have arrived see:

Talk about one of the great failed cults that still have more money and influence than a grasp on reality. That is the Adventists.

arakish's picture
Although I am in a bad mood

Although I am in a bad mood today, but...

@The Great Disappointment

Perhaps Jesus did come back, look around, then thought, "Gads, these people have fucked everything up." Then left.


Cognostic's picture
From Bart Ehrman: "The

From Bart Ehrman: "The authors of the New Testament who portrayed Jesus as the messiah are the ones who quoted the Old Testament in order to prove it.... they were influenced by the Old Testament in what they decided to say about Jesus ... their views of Jesus affected how they read the Old Testament.



ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Prophecy tends to be a tricky

Prophecy tends to be a tricky subject because it requires extensive knowledge of history which most people, including me, do not possess. Its also a subject that is affected by how skeptical you decide to go with Scripture. For example, are you going to take a traditional approach where Isaiah was actually written by Isaiah and his scribes, in the location where the book describes, and at the time when it says it was written. Or are you going take less conventional approach, such that the books end up being written elsewhere, by someone else, and for another reasons.

I would also point out that if you don't hold somewhat traditional views of Scripture, there's really no point in looking at prophecy. That isn't to say you have to believe anything the Bible claims, you just don't cross the line into saying it was fraudulent. Its one thing to believe a man named Jesus actually existed, and spurred the Christian movement the way other religious movements are born; but its quiet another if you reject the existence of anyone resembling Jesus, and view the whole story as an afterthought.

So, my advice would be that before you go any deeper with your friend, check to see if you both at least agree on the basics.

Sheldon's picture
""There are hundreds of

""There are hundreds of prophecies in the Old Testament that predict the birth and mission of Jesus. All were fulfilled in the life of Jesus of Nazareth,"

Why would anyone find it compelling that a book makes claims, and then claims they were fulfilled? I could do that right now, anyone could?

I also don't see how predicting a future event accurately evidences anything supernatural? People accurately predict which lottery numbers will be drawn almost every day of the week, and nothing supernatural is required? They also seem to ignore religious prophesies that fail, and this happens all the time, that's obviously selection bias. This also sounds like argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to me, what else could it be but a deity meddling, so much for free will.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
"I also don't see how

"I also don't see how predicting a future event accurately evidences anything supernatural?"

In science, making predictions is what validates the theory from which the prediction is derived. Wouldn't it make sense that such predictions, if accurate, would also validate the "supernatural" source from which it is derived?

Sapporo's picture
Observations of nature can

Observations of nature can never validate supernatural claims.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Is there some philosophical

Is there some philosophical or metaphysical reason as to why it couldn't? The Christian God certainly appears to think otherwise. For example, in challenging the divinity of the false idols which Israel had adopt, He issues the challenge: "Tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods" (Isaiah 41:23, NIV).

Clearly, the logic behind prophecy and prediction, serves as a way to verify and authenticate a supernatural source.

Sapporo's picture
ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ: Is there

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ: Is there some philosophical or metaphysical reason as to why it couldn't?

You cannot use evidence from a lesser sphere to validate claims about a larger sphere. It only works the other way. Aside from that, there is the issue of the supernatural inherently being outside nature.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Right, but where are you

Right, but where are you getting that from? Because once again, in the Christian narrative, the "supernatural" is what produces the natural, and interacts with it. This might be a horrible example, but in music production you can have an audible wave (the natural) which plays an audible tone; then have an inaudible low frequency oscillation (the supernatural), which you cannot hear, but which can be made to interact with the wave you can hear. The result is that the audible wave now oscillates and vibrates, due to the influence of a sound which exists outside the audible range.

Sapporo's picture
You shouldn't make claims

You shouldn't make claims that are not falsifiable. If you do, someone else can also make the exact contrary claim without fear of contradiction.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Then, wouldn't that

Then, wouldn't that disqualify your claim of a supernatural realm that cannot interact with the natural? As opposed to the claim from Scripture in which there is interaction, and there is communication?

Sapporo's picture
As far as I'm concerned, the

As far as I'm concerned, the phenomenal world and the natural world are the same thing. It doesn't mean anything to say that the supernatural realm interacts with the natural. That is a wholly unfalsifiable claim.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Then there is no disagreement

Then there is no disagreement between us. I too view the supernatural and the natural to be the same thing, thus why I've often placed the word supernatural in quotation in all the above comments. However, generally speaking I have no issue with people dividing reality into subcategories, or spheres as you have done, so long as they aren't using those categories to then claim one is nonexistent or unfalsifiable.

David Killens's picture
There are no subcategories,

There are no subcategories, there is reality and there is fantasy (not real by any standard)

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
All categories are by their

All categories are by their very nature artificial; they don't exist except to create order out of chaos. People are free to create as many categories, based on however many criteria, as they want. My role as a rational thinking being, is to understand the different approaches to categorization that are out there, and engage with each one accordingly. You should do the same.

Sheldon's picture
If you could objectively

If you could objectively evidence that the predictions are derived from a supernatural source you wouldn't need the prophesy would you, as you can't the (op) assertion that "a claim came true" is not evidence of anything.You would have to objectively show the claim was made, and came true in a way that absolutely negates the possibility of random luck. Then I still don't see how you have anything beyond a set of circumstances you can't explain, again argumentum ad ignorantiam.

You could run proper clinical trials testing multiple claims for prophesies, but theists will just reject all the failures as they always have with some desperate rationalisation, such selection bias is impervious to proper testing. Like theists who label favourable outcomes "miracles" and unfavourable ones inexplicable.

CyberLN's picture
I think the writers of Star

I think the writers of Star Trek were far better at prophecy than the writers of the bible.

JimMagditch's picture
Sheldon, shall we apply the

Sheldon, shall we apply the same logic to your argument then? Why would anyone find your claims compelling? Any person can predict which numbers will be drawn: as this is random event. The word 'supernatural' also means unexplainable and outside our limited understanding based on our five senses. Sheldon, can you point to a single prophecy that has failed? Thanks!

Sheldon's picture
"Sheldon, shall we apply the

"Sheldon, shall we apply the same logic to your argument then?"

What logic and what argument, you will have to be more specific .
"Why would anyone find your claims compelling? "

Hard to say, until you explain which claims you are referring to, are you being cryptic on purpose?

"Any person can predict which numbers will be drawn: as this is random event. "

Well clearly anyone can't do this, but people do do it precisely against massive odds every day of the week, suggesting that guessing can be pretty accurate given enough tries. Thus religious apologists may simply be using selection bias and the sharp shooter fallacy to select the correct guesses and passing them off as "prophecy". Which is why I asked for the claim to be evidenced.
"The word 'supernatural' also means unexplainable and outside our limited understanding based on our five senses."

I fail to see your point, as this doesn't in any way evidence that anything supernatural exists. It also raises the rather obvious objection to all claims for supernatural events, that the claims are being made to explain soething you have just admitted can't be explained. How are we to distinguish between something we simply don't have an explanation for yet, and a so called supernatural event?

" Sheldon, can you point to a single prophecy that has failed? Thanks!"

Pretty big list here.

Well it''s not prophesy until you it can be properly evidenced, so you are again using a begging the question fallacy, by assuming there is such a thing as prophecy, without actually evidencing it. Also an argument form ignorance fallacy to reverse the burden of proof, as no one needs to disprove a claim that no one can demonstrate any argument for.

So first define exactly what you mean by prophesy, then demonstrate objective evidence it has occurred, then finally explain why this represents evidence for anything supernatural, since as I already pointed out and you concurred, people predict future events very accurately every day of the week, by picking the exact 6 numbers from a random selection and against massive odds. So again how are you distinguishing between a lucky guess being passed off as prophesy after the fact? And again, how does accurately predicting a future event evidence anything supernatural, as lacking a contrary explanation for something can't rationally be used to support any claim.

If you watch a magic show, and someone insists it was really magic. They carry the burden of proof, and can't rationally assert your inability to explain how the illusions was done as evidence for anything. This is the very definition of an argument from ignorance fallacy.

arakish's picture
JimM: "Sheldon, can you point

JimM: "Sheldon, can you point to a single prophecy that has failed? Thanks!"

Adding to what Sheldon said. If he had not already answered, this would be my answer.

Any AND all mind diarrhea and mental vomit spewed by any Religious Absolutist and claimed as "prophecy."

There has been not one "claimed prophecy" that has ever been proven to be "prophecy" except in the tiny, little schizophrenic self-deluded minds of Religious Absolutists.

JimM, please provide objective hard empirical evidence (OHEE) of any "claimed prophecy" actually being a "prophecy." Until you can provide this OHEE, anything you say is nothing more than mind diarrhea and mental vomit.


Sheldon's picture
"nothing more than mind

"nothing more than mind diarrhea and mental vomit.2

Thank you arakish, good post again. If only their vapid superstitious bilge was as innocuous, and transient as diarrhoea, or vomiting.

watchman's picture
@aperez241 ….

@aperez241 ….

Personally I've always found the so-called prophesies ideal territory for demonstrating the fabrications of Christianity ….

For instance your own post included the claim …....

"All were fulfilled in the life of Jesus of Nazareth,"....

But ….. Why Nazareth ?

The writer of Matthew started the deceit that the title 'Jesus the Nazarene' should in some manner relate to Nazareth, by quoting 'prophecy':

"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." – Matthew 2.23.

With this, Matthew closes his fable of Jesus's early years.
Yet Matthew is misquoting–

he would surely know that NOWHERE in Jewish prophetic literature is there any reference to a Nazarene.

What is 'foretold' (or at least mentioned several times) in Old Testament scripture is the appearance of a Nazarite.

Note1 this makes more sense than the possibility of Nazareth being a “typo” for stem or branch.
Don’t forget the Jews were expecting a real blood and fury messiah to save the nation … Samson was a Nazarite…not the perambulating hippy that Jesus is purported to be.

For example:

"For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines." – Judges 13.5.

Matthew slyly substitutes one word for another.

By replacing Nazarite ('he who vows to grow long hair and serve god') with a term (Nazarene) which appears to imply 'resident of' he is able to fabricate a hometown link for Jesus.

Ok not really a big deal , some scribe gets into a muddle trying to make up a prophesy to make his tale more palatable to the mainly Jewish audience he was expecting to be addressing. The very early Christians were initially mainly Jewish converts.

But then there is this …

The City of Nazareth looms large in the story of Jesus and his family. And yet what do we really know of this holy City.
Well, it is apparently big enough to have its own synagogue, for Jesus to preach in. And it is on or near a precipice. So it should be a fairly simple process to locate this metropolitan hub of first century Galilee.

Surely either a Greek or Roman geographer can help us with this?

But, No, not a word .No Roman or Greek speaks of this 1st century city.

Well what of Jewish writers.

Josephus In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (only 900 square miles in area).
During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province.
Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth … not at all.

So , it appears the only reference to this elusive city is in the Bible , thus let us now examine what the “Good Book” has to say…

Well there are the obvious references in the 4 Gospels.
But looking further we start to notice strange omissions.

The Old Testament ,in its entirety, has not one mention of Nazareth.

Further, the Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

Curious … perhaps if we go the source for the Old Testament we may do better …

Lets look to the Talmud.
The Talmud, despite naming 63 Galilean towns, says absolutely nothing about Nazareth, neither does early rabbinic literature.

Perhaps Nazareth is only significant to the new cult of Christianity ?

But no .

No lesser person than Saint Paul himself , prolific letter writer and enforcer to the early church.
In all his attributed works he refers to Jesus more than 220 times but Nazareth ?

Not once.

Ah well ,when all else fails we can always rely on science.
The archaeologists must surely be able to nail down this elusive city.

Nope .

Despite all archaeological efforts over a period of nearly 60 years there is NO evidence of any sort for a city ,town ,hamlet or village at Nazareth during the 1st century.

What evidence there is all dates to after the Bar Kochba revolt of AD 135 when Nazareth was finally re-settled after being deserted for approximately 700 years following the Assyrian invasion of 738 BCE.

So a (so far) non existent town , fits with a non existent prophesy.
(and please don’t pull the “Nazareth House 2009” card its already been debunked)


Now it isn't that one particular prophesy looks to have been fabricated...… the more you look the more you will find.....

My advice ? each time you come across one...… chase it down!...…. all the way back to its roots ….

read what it actually said.... not what you are told it says.

JimMagditch's picture
Hi Watchman, if I'm correct

Hi Watchman, if I'm correct in understanding you are stating the city of Nazareth never existed?

The city of Nazareth is mentioned numerous times in Scripture both OT and NT, and confirmed by history and archeology. Also known as En Nasira, Japhia, Mash-had, en-Nasirah, Nazerat, Nazareth of Galilee, Nazareth in Galilee, Yafti en Nasra. Very little is known about Nazareth from the ancient sources. Outside of the New Testament, Nazareth is never mentioned until the Byzantine period (4th c. AD). Archaeological excavations have confirmed that the city was only a small agricultural village during the Hellenistic and Roman periods.
A Byzantine church was built over the place where it is believed that the angel Gabriel announced the birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary. In 1966 the Roman Catholic Church began constructing a new basilica over these remains and today this church is the largest church building in the Middle East. The Greek Orthodox Church nearby is built over the town’s water source.

Jesus spent his boyhood years in Nazareth before beginning his ministry when he was about 30. After moving his home to Capernaum, Jesus returned to teach in the synagogue of Nazareth twice more, but was rejected both times. On one occasion the townspeople were so outraged at Jesus that they tried to throw him off a cliff to his death.

"So Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David (Luke 2:4 AMP)"

"And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee. (Matthew 21:11 AMP)"

arakish's picture
Hope you don't mind watchman.

Hope you don't mind watchman...

Saturday 15 September 2018 @ 0619hrs

JimM (your text appears thusly and blocked)

Hi Watchman, if I'm correct in understanding you are stating the city of Nazareth never existed?

Nope. You just do not know how to read. Read his post again. He is specifically comparing Nazarene (someone from Nazareth) with a Nazarite (a special order of god worshippers).

JimM, rest of post is moot.


Sheldon's picture
What objective evidence have

What objective evidence have you that any deity exists?

JimMagditch's picture
Hi Sheldon, simply look at

Hi Sheldon, simply look at the evidence without the presupposition bias "that there is no God" - if you can grasp and apply the scientific principle?

One has to consider many different issues and see whether they point toward or away from the existence of an intelligent designer. Consider some of the evidence that was adduced in my investigation:

[plagiarized material removed by moderator, read it here- Nyarlathotep]

arakish's picture
Oh Hell No! Another damned

Oh Hell No! Another damned William Lane Craig. How much of this post is plagiarized?


Let me check this damned post. If it is plagiarized, I'll be back...


Just as I thought.

94.5% plagiarized from here:

93.8% plagiarized from here:

93.3% plagiarized from here:

What is with you Religious Absolutists? Just because your Bible is completely plagiarized, you think you can freely plagiarized any other religious works?


Sheldon's picture
Atheism is neither biased not

Atheism is neither biased nor a presupposition, it is the default position any rational person must take until proper evidence is demonstrated that any deity exists. I have seen no evidence demonstrated for any diety, and so I do not believe any deity exists. The scientific principle can only deal with falsifiable claims for a start, and its fundamental basis is empirical objective evidence.

"As described by William Lane Craig, the argument is simple yet elegant: first, whatever begins to exist has a ­cause....second, the universe had a beginning....therefore, the universe has a cause. "

How many of those causes were not natural? While you're pondering that you might want to consider this is a first cause argument, it is not an argument for any deity, and Lane Craig just assumes this at the end of his woeful argument. Of course the universe didn't "begin" to exists in the same sense science applies the law of cause and effect, as time itself did not exist prior to the origin of the universe. Where we see things that begin to exist, this is in a temporal condition every single time, and the cause is a natural material one every single time. Now Lane Craig is just assuming something supernatural caused the universe based on having no contrary argument, this is called an argument from ignorance fallacy. This argument is woeful, and Lane Craig is a very poor philosopher. Lastly even if it did evidence a deity you'd be no closer to Jesus or Allah than you were to Zeus or Thor.

"One of the most striking discoveries of modern science has been that the laws and constants of physics unexpectedly conspire in an extraordinary way to make the universe habitable for life. For instance, physicist-philosopher Robin Collins has said, “gravity is fine-tuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion.”"

This tired old cliche again, it's pure assumption to call something (the universe) extraordinary when we have only one universe to observe, how many universes did you test this claim on exactly? Oh that's right you are making assertions based a test group of just one. This argument is again woeful, and even if anyone could validate the claim, they don't know that a different set of constants wouldn't have produced life, just that it wouldn't have produced life as we see it. Lastly of course this again doesn't remotely evidence a deity.

"Similar to the fine-tuning of physics, Earth’s position in the universe and its intricately choreographed geological and chemical processes work together with exquisite efficiency to create a safe place for humans to live. "

Sharp shooter fallacy, and again this doesn't remotely evidence a deity or anything supernatural. All you're doing is pointing to the universe and claiming "godidit" which isn't evidence. Humans like all living things evolved to perfectly match their environment, that environment wasn't created for us. Indeed but for random bad luck dinosaurs could be more convincingly argued to be the "purpose" of the universe, as in evolutionary terms they were more successful existing for hundreds of millions of years, compared to mere 150k since humans first evolved. Why a deity that is supposed to have created everything with us in mind waited until 150k years ago after 14+ billion years is hard to explain, almost as hard as why it sat silent for all of that time, only putting in an appearance allegedly 2 thousand years ago, in ancient Palestine of all places.

"“If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision, we could never have come into existence,” said Harvard-educated astrophysicist John A. O’Keefe of NASA. “It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”"

And it is my view that it was not, as he has presented no evidence, what he's done there is called a begging the question fallacy, where he assumes the thing he is arguing for in his argument by asserting the has been "made". He presents no evidence for this claim, just a belief he holds.

".” Biochemist Michael Behe has demonstrated exactly that through his description of “irreducibly complex” molecular machines."

No he hasn't.

"The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body’s one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made. Whenever we find a sequential arrangement that’s complex and corresponds to an independent pattern or function (books, computer code, DNA), this kind of information always implies an intelligent source."

No it doesn't. Also the head of the Human Genome project Francis Collins is a born again christian and has stated that the evidence from DNA alone establishes species evolution and common ancestry beyond any reasonable doubt. All you've again is make an unevidenced assertion about complexity, and then assumed it requires a deity.

"Many scientists are concluding that the laws of chemistry and physics cannot explain our experience of consciousness. Professor J. P. Moreland defined consciousness as our introspection, sensations, thoughts, emotions etc. that make us alive and aware. He said, “You can’t get something from nothing.” If the universe began with dead matter having no conscience, “how then, do you get something totally different—conscious, living, thinking, feeling creatures—from materials that don’t have that?”"

Many creationists more like, Please cite a single peer reviewed paper in a worthy scientific journal that evidences this claim. If you can't get something from nothing then what are you claiming created your deity, and what created that, and so and so on. Cue the usual special pleading arguments. The universe exists, and material physical phenomena exist, not what evidence can you demonstrate that anything beyond this exists? As again all you've done is point to something we don't fully understand and claim godidit, without presenting any evidence.

"In my opinion, the findings from cosmology and physics by themselves were sufficient to support the design hypotheses. All the other data simply built a more powerful case. But who or what is this master Designer? Each scientific principle contributes some clues to unmasking the Creator’s identity."

In my opinion you are biased, and leaping to unevidenced assumptions that favour your a priori beliefs. then at the end assuming it is your version of your chosen deity that magic'd everything into existence. This doesn't remotely represent objective evidence. You're also using a begging the question fallacy again by referring to a creator, there is no data presented here? All you've done is make a string of irrational unevidenced assumptions.

"Physics—suggests the Creator is intelligent and involved. Astronomy—shows the Creator is incredibly precise, implying care, concern and purpose. Biochemistry and Biological Information—demonstrate the Creator is... creative. Consciousness—shows the Creator’s rationality, which suggests omnipresence and the credibility of life after death."

Physics does no such thing, and again this is an unevidenced assertion. All you have to do is flip on any news channel to know the scientific world is not loudly trumpeting evidence for any deity.

"Creator is incredibly precise, implying care, concern and purpose."

That waited 14+ billion years to produce humans after a vastly long, wasteful, and barbarically cruel process of evolution. This claim is demonstrably false. disease, predation, natural disasters, nothing about the world we see implies precision if you are assuming it's all designed for humans. our environment is not precisely designed for us, quite the opposite is true, we have precisely evolved to suit it, as have all other living things.

"Creator that emerges from the scientific data is uncannily consistent with the description of the God whose identity is spelled out in the pages of the Bible."

What scientific data? Again all you have done is make broad unevidenced assertions. Not one shred of objective evidence has been demonstrated for the existence of any deity.

"As the apostle Paul wrote"

Well J K Rowling wrote about wizards and magic, do you believe they are real?

"The question of whether these qualities might also describe the deities of any other world religions became moot once you add the evidence that are discovered through the study of ancient history and archaeology."

What evidence? Again you have made an unevidenced assertion, a claim for evidence is not evidence.

"With Darwinism, my faith would have to swim upstream against the strong current of evidence flowing the other way."

then you don't have even a tenuous grasp of how the scientific process works, but again this is entirely moot as the scientific fact of species evolution could be falsified tomorrow and I would remain an atheist as no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity.

"I was merely permitting the torrent of facts to carry me to their most logical conclusion."

With all due respect I don't think you have even a basic grasp of what is and is not rational, your claims have used some of the most cliched logical fallacies religious apologists use, argumentum ad ingorantiam, and begging the question fallacy being the two most obvious.

Nothing in your posts remotely amounts to objective evidence for a deity. Most of it is pure assumption.


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.