# Primordial Dichotomous Dipole Inference Theorem

79 posts / 0 new
Primordial Dichotomous Dipole Inference Theorem

UPDATED: image of LORI
https://ibb.co/090gbJ2

I have constructed a thought experiment demonstrating that "BELIEF"-in-and-of-itself is the root of any/all IGNORANCE/SUFFERING. If followed and understood, it will highlight the POI (point of entry) whence any/all human suffering (as to be found: due to "BELIEF"-based ignorance). This should be welcomed news for atheists that do not "BELIEVE" in any god/deity.

It challenges the philosophical assertion:

"All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing."

The Relative Intra-Inference Problem (TRIIP)
-------------------------------
Begin with nothingness.
Let any universe exist - if so willing, use the existing one. Designate it as 'that'.
Let any being 'I' exist in/of 'that'.

If:
'that' is absolutely *unknown*, and
if 'I' is also *unknown* unto/by itself (hence: I?)
it can *not* be inferred by 'I?'
So:
LAW of RELATIVE-RECIPROCAL INFERENCE (LORI): one can not infer an *unknown* from/by another *unknown*.

Two options:
1. 'I' becomes *known* to infer 'that', or (and thus)
2. 'that' becomes *known* to infer 'I' (ad infinitum) until both are fully *known* (whichever comes first).
LORI: if/when any *unknown* is assigned a characteristic(s), it can be used to (try to) infer the other (and vice versa).

Now:
Let the being 'I?' remain *unknown*.
Let 'that' remain *unknown* less a fixed arbitrary Primordial Dichotomous Dipole
(ie. yang/yin, good/evil, light/dark, right/wrong etc.)
and designate simply as (8) to highlight the two polarities.

'I?'8

Now TRY:
(8) as GOOD/EVIL using LORI:

definition needed: SATAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***WORD MEANING: SATAN***
The Hebrew root S-T-N (satan) renders thus:
shin: psychology/emotions/actions (in/as one conjunct expression)
tet: bind; enclosure (being bound to/by)
nun (final): indefinitely (ongoing state)

"Any/all expression(s) of being indefinitely BOUND (ie. to "believe" in/of something unreal and/or untrue)."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now TEST:
-Are there any *fixed* characteristics of either that can be used to infer the other? Of any/all god(s) or satan?
-What must certainly distinguish good (ie. god) from evil (ie. satan)? What is the POI (point of insertion)?
-*What would so-called satan *require* would that *any* "BELIEVER" "BELIEVE" that evil is good (without the need to define them)?
(The answer is in the question!!)

Now INJECT "belief" into 8:
8=("BELIEF"/"?")

and CONSCIOUSLY INFER:
-what is the *reciprocal* of BELIEF?
-what belief is to satan, (?) is to god...?
-is there anything that negates belief?
-what would be needed/required to somehow KNOW how to tell any/all what *not* to BELIEVE in case of satan?
(The answer is in the question!!)

8=BELIEF/KNOWLEDGE

back to LORI:
What BELIEF is to SATAN (required to confuse so-called evil/good).
KNOWLEDGE is to GOD (required to reconcile so-called evil/good).

back to our universe:
(I?)(KNOWLEDGE/BELIEF)

back to LORI and applying these to (I?):
I KNOW...?
I BELIEVE...?
(two Edenic trees and/or halves of yang/yin)

and CONSCIOUSLY INFER:
-what is the relationship between KNOWLEDGE and BELIEF?
-would ALL-KNOWING necessarily indicate any/all *not* to "BELIEVE"?
-does ANY of this beg for inferring a *real* GOD and/or SATAN (nope), or just KNOWLEDGE and (of) BELIEF-BASED IGNORANCE? (yup)

LIFE
^
I KNOW
I BELIEVE...........vv
^^(*what not to*)<<< *
v
SUFFERING/DEATH

and the one that defeats any/all "BELIEF"-based theology:

If so-called satan *requires* BELIEF, who are they who are so willing to BELIEVE?
------------------------------

Argumentation to support:

**************************************************************************
FIRST FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION ARGUMENT:
**************************************************************************
*
P1. "BELIEF" (ie. state of) certainly exists.
P2. "KNOWLEDGE" as (it pertains) to: any/all who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "BELIEVE" certainly exists by way of falsification (ie. trying).
C. "KNOWLEDGE" can certainly be distinct from (despite having been possibly attained by way of trying for their falsifiability) any/all "BELIEF(S)".
*
**************************************************************************

which challenges the (as I understand) currently-held philosophical position:

......"All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing."

as being ***ABSOLUTELY ABSURD***. The above thought experiment renders:

......"Any/all KNOWING is by way of indefinitely consciously trying BELIEF, but
......not any/all BELIEF is by way of indefinitely consciously trying to KNOW all.

And this defeats any/all "belief"-based theism which regards BELIEF>KNOWLEDGE (backwards).

**************************************************************************
PRIMORDIAL DICHOTOMOUS DIPOLE ARGUMENT:
**************************************************************************
*
P1. "BELIEF"-based ignorance(s) certainly exist would that any/all "BELIEVERS" "BELIEVE" (manifestly) what *is*, is not, and/or what *is not*, is (ie. CONFUSION).

P2. "KNOWLEDGE" as (it pertains) to: who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "BELIEVE" certainly exists by way of falsification (ie. trying).

P3. "ALL-KNOWING" (ie. state of) must certainly be absent any/all "BELIEF"-based IGNORANCE(s) (ie. all-*not*-to-"BELIEVE"-in).

C. "BELIEF"(-based ignorance) and 'KNOWLEDGE' are certainly ANTITHETICALLY DICHOTOMOUS wherein:

the latter can be indefinitely pursued/acquired (ie. "AC"KNOWLEDGE"D") by (way of definitely trying) the former indefinitely until rendered obsolete and/or absolutely IMPOTENT.
*
**************************************************************************

CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF IGNORANCE ARGUMENT (CKOIA)

P1. Knowledge (ie. 'knowing') is certainly made attainable and/or practical by way of use of the (con)science(s).
P2. Knowing (how) to consciously falsify (ie. try/test) belief(s) for ignorance (ie. to consciously 'know' *if not* to believe) certainly exists and is definitely a (kind of) knowledge-in-and-of-itself.
P3. Any/all 'belief'-based ignorance(s) exist(s) in, as, of and/or by way of belief-in-and-of-itself.
C1. All-knowing is definitely approached by indefinitely trying to consciously falsify any/all "belief(s)" indefinitely (ad infinitum).

note:
BELIEF-in-and-of-itself would certainly be required
to CONFUSE the poles of any dichotomous dipole,
(including good/evil, should they exist).

and viz.:
If (there is a/any all-knowing) GOD(s) and/or deities, they would certainly KNOW of BELIEF-in-and-of-itself to be:
i. fundamentally required, would that UNKNOWING BELIEVERS BELIEVE 'BELIEF' is an immutable VIRTUE (ie. "good" if present/"evil" if absent in self ***AND/OR OTHERS***).
ii. fundamentally required, would that BELIEVERS BELIEVE EVIL is GOOD (equivalent: so-called satan is god).
iii. fundamentally NULLIFIED in/by any/all ALL-KNOWING 'state' by having falsified any/all "BELIEF(S)"

.**************************************************************************

So this can all be summarized in a single statement:

*************************************************************************************
"All-KNOWING is by way of (indefinitely) consciously TRYING BELIEF, but
not all BELIEF is by way of (indefinitely) TRYING to consciously KNOW all."
*************************************************************************************
This is the pragmatically practical (ie. non-belief-based) TRUTH/WAY/LIFE:

TRUTH: falsification/negation of any/all BELIEF-BASED IGNORANCE
WAY: trying consciously
LIFE: turning "belief"-based IGNORANCE into KNOWLEDGE (indefinitely)

which defeats the philosophical assertion:

"All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing."

And can be used either as a political framework/platform and/or establishes a workable global model (if adopted) definitely trending indefinitely towards PEACE rather than WAR.

I am A Gnostic Agnostic
What I know I know
What I do not know I do not know
I know to TRY, to TEST, to FALSIFY any/all BELIEF
I do not know how so many are so willing to BELIEVE.

(tree of living)
TRUTH/WAY/LIFE
^
I KNOW
I BELIEVE...........vv
^^(*what not to*)<<< *
v
SUFFERING/DEATH
(tree of good/evil)

## 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.

Let me fix that for you:

Primordial Dichotomous Dipole Inference T̶h̶e̶o̶r̶e̶m̶ Conjecture

And I'm being extremely generous by labeling it a conjecture, IMO.

^shill

EDIT: If it is conjecture, consciously TRY it. I would appreciate other eyes undermining to find any/all flaws. So would other atheists who want an end to the "BELIEVER" vs. "UNBELIEVER" conflict. This is my contribution. What is yours?

A Gnostic Agnostic - ^shill

just curious : whom are you accusing me of shilling for?

Not a whom - behavioral/characteristic:

Goats climb mountains: deal with content/argument and try to find flaws towards refining (ie. Abel; making better)
Sheep tend to flock: deal with ad hominem rhetoric trying to undermine people directly (ie. idol worship)
Pigs whine and squeal while dwelling in their own refuse, likely projecting themselves onto others (ie. Kain; making worse).

I will leave the designation to you (time always bears it out).

@a gnostic agnostic
So by your own words, you are a goat, sheep, and a pig.

Re: OP

Awwww, fuckity fuck... Simply looked at the title and determined I am WAAAAAAAAY to stupid and intellectually challenged to even ATTEMPT to read anything else beyond it. However, it DID bring to mind a fun song I learned as a kid.

Everybody! All together now! Sing it!...

https://youtu.be/zFHBfFAmcbc

Heresy! Repent Brother Tin! Hear and Listen! The One True Wheels on the Bus declares, "the Horn on the Bus goes Honk, Honk, Honk". "Beep, beep, beep" is for infidel, hell bound losers and roadrunners! No wonder the world is in the shit its in today.

@Grinseed Re: "..."the Horn on the Bus goes Honk, Honk, Honk". "Beep, beep, beep" is for infidel, hell bound losers and roadrunners!"

I hate to disagree with you, Brother Grin, but "Beep, beep, beep" is now the proper horn sound. It was determined at an undetermined time at an undetermined place by an undetermined group of crybaby snotty-nosed snowflakes that "Honk, honk, honk" is politically incorrect terminology now because it is a derogatory slander that is offensive to geese. Have some common decency, man! Don't be insulting to geese!

Tin-Man "I hate to disagree with you, Brother Grin, but "Beep, beep, beep" is now the proper horn sound."

I can concur, as this fact is evidenced in the rhyme, the wheels on the bus, and has been a mainstay with 6 grandchildren. The horn on the bus goes beep beep beep....I can see them making the sign with their little hands now, bless.

Honk honk honk indeed, dear me no, Tin-Man has nailed this one.

Typical nursery rhyme heretics. You probably start with putting your left foot in too in error of the Holy Hokey Pokey too!
And fuck the geese who are demon spawned un-ducks.

@Agnostic gnostic;

There seems to be a misunderstanding. IE that it's OK to replace 'preach' at with 'lecture ' . It ai'n't

I have the perhaps unworthy thought that you have not actually ever been taught critical thinking or logic. Your post is very undisciplined and hard to follow .Sorry to say that I gave up before the half way mark.

Perhaps try reducing the size of each post by about 80% ,or more.

@cranky47: "Your post is very undisciplined and hard to follow."
A very polite way of telling you that it is so frigging vague no one could make any sense out of it.. Your last post could pass for the inane ramblings of an alcoholic in the last hours of a sleepless three day binge.

The end of 'believer/nonbeliever conflict" is not going to be resolved or eradicated by obtuse wordy logic. Christian apologists have been trying to prove their god for nearly 2,000 with that awful love child of Greek logic and Jewish theology and failed.

Belief and non-belief, in the religious sense, is not a choice, informed or ignorant.

Most people alive today believe in all sorts of woo woo because they are scared shitless and have no resources to overcome the nastier aspects of this life they never chose to join.
Even if you were absolutely right and copies of this were translated into every language and published online and airdropped across the globe, whatever you wrote is not likely to help push mankind to a new epoch of peace and harmony. I rather think it more likely to prompt a couple of new wars, if it had any effect at all. We are a sentient species, but we are not entirely logical, we can be supremely and emotionally illogical (ask Spock). Spiritual faith, belief is largely an emotional response and cant simply be denied as some precise point of argument.

I appreciate your effort, must have taken a good deal of time and revision, even if I didn't follow it all, and I did read it, twice, and looked up dictionary meanings to some words and that's as much effort I want to give it because, like Tin I ain't got the academic qualifications and I simply don't see logic being a satisfactory answer to basic problems of lusty life. I'll leave the logical critiques to those here with better credentials.
Besides I am happy with "All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing." as far as I understand it,

As far as the Edenic trees go, I've always said the snake and Eve chose the wrong bloody tree. If they had taken the fruit of the Tree of Life we'd all be immortal and would have had time to work out what was good and evil later. Silly buggers.

Gnostic Agnostic, you wrote, “I have constructed a thought experiment demonstrating that "BELIEF"-in-and-of-itself is the root of any/all IGNORANCE/SUFFERING. If followed and understood, it will highlight the POI (point of entry) whence any/all human suffering (as to be found: due to "BELIEF"-based ignorance).”

Really? Any/all suffering? That sure sounds like complete bupkus to me.

What about folks who are suffering from painful medical conditions? What about folks who are suffering from the loss of a loved one? What about folks who are suffering from starvation? What is it that they all *believe* that causes them this suffering?

"It is my firm belief that it a mistake to hold firm beliefs." - Malaclypse the Younger from the Principia Discordia.

**RE: @Agnostic gnostic;

There seems to be a misunderstanding. IE that it's OK to replace 'preach' at with 'lecture ' . It ai'n't

I have the perhaps unworthy thought that you have not actually ever been taught critical thinking or logic. Your post is very undisciplined and hard to follow .Sorry to say that I gave up before the half way mark.

Perhaps try reducing the size of each post by about 80% ,or more.
__________________________________________

You are describing yourself here, not me. But I will make it easy for you (and others):

What yang is to KNOWLEDGE,
yin is to IGNORANCE (rooted in) BELIEF
(tree of the knowledge of good and evil). Therefor:

All eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are BELIEVERS, but not
all BELIEVERS are eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. <-*tried/tested/true

Trying ignorance for/with knowledge ad infinitum is *the key*:
knowledge is absence of "belief"-based ignorance,
"belief"-based ignorance is absence of knowledge.

They are the Primordial Dichotomous (Antithetical)
Dipole and technically an "uncaused" 'singularity'
that simply exists in-and-of-itself. In Kaballah, it is
referred to as DA'AT (KNOWLEDGE) and is a
hidden sephira. I studied masonry/kaballah to
understand how these masons see creation. I
know it is one and the same.

KNOWLEDGE is the *inverse* of "BELIEF"-based IGNORANCE, and
IGNORANCE rooted in BELIEF is the *inverse* of KNOWLEDGE, therefor:

TRYING(for truth)/TESTING(way: conscience)/FALSIFYING "BELIEF"-based IGNORANCE(S) (ie. uncertainties) with KNOWLEDGE
tends towards eradication of any/all "BELIEF"-based ignorance(s), which tends indefinitely towards PEACE. It is an equilateral triangle: TRY, TEST, FALSIFY. Ad infinitum all that *can* be left is whatever *is* true. That is why I keep saying: don't "believe" me, if anything I say is 'true', it will prove itself.

Questions:

Would an all-knowing god not *know* that satan *requires* belief-in-and-of-itself that a believer would believe satan is god?
If so, why would such a god use the same "currency" (ie. belief) as satan? Especially as an "all-knower"?
If satan requires *belief-in-and-of-itself*, what would happen if everyone stopped BELIEVING (ie. eating from the tree)?

I know I am <-* First Fundamental KNOWLEDGE (Tree of living)
I believe/think I am <-* First Fundamental IGNORANCE (Tree of suffering/death)

"All BELIEF is IGNORANCE, but not all IGNORANCE is BELIEF"

renders:

"All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing."

ABSOLUTELY ABSURD! All knowing is belief??? Once you know something to a certainty, you need *not* believe in it anymore. Beliefs are either falsified or tried indefinitely. That which is falsified, serves towards knowledge.

Belief had might as well mean "don't fucking know...". That there is a degree(s) of uncertainty is a fixed characteristic of "belief" and is most certainly distinct (ie. opposite) of knowledge which has 0 degrees of uncertainty. Once it is attained to, it is just there.

____________________________________________________

**RE: Really? Any/all suffering? That sure sounds like complete bupkus to me.

What about folks who are suffering from painful medical conditions? What about folks who are suffering from the loss of a loved one? What about folks who are suffering from starvation? What is it that they all *believe* that causes them this suffering?

____________________________________________________

They might otherwise be taken care of if humanity wasn't spending trillions on war, war and more war.

The model is a fixed framework that tries, tests and *falsifies* any/all "belief"-based anything as ever becoming a part of the 'state'. Either the truth speaks for itself, or it is falsified. Look:

TRUTH while GRADUATING any/all IGNORANCE into KNOWLEDGE (ad infinitum)...
to acKNOWledge, to TRY, to **FALSIFY** any/all "BELIEF(S)" leaving only
(willing) (+)
**I am** (neutral)
(willing) (-)
NOT, to BELIEVE
KNOWING ANY/ALL BELIEF IS IGNORANCE

Such a 'state' framework would be superior to any/all "belief"-based states that exist. AR recently became a political movement, but I see absolutely no consideration being given to an actual 'state'... just, whateverness. Not going to work. Need a state.

TLDR
Word salad much?

Yes, need a state!

ONE OF US!!!! ONE OF US!!!! ONE OF US!!!! ONE OF US!!!! ONE OF US!!!! ONE OF US!!!! ONE OF US!!!! ONE OF US!!!! ONE OF US!!!! ONE OF US!!!!

MUST JOIN, ECHO CHAMBER, ONE ENTITY!!!!

WE ARE THE BORG!

Fucking hell....

fucking word salad shooters

Pew pew pew ... pew pew

Pew pew pew ... pew pew

Two bits for anyone that can honestly say they read all that.

NewSkeptic - Two bits for anyone that can honestly say they read all that.

Should give 1 bit to anyone who bothered to try.

@NewSkeptic: READ IT? I thought it was something like the Bible Code and you had to figure it out to understand it. Are you telling me, "I have been wasting my time?" God Dammit!

@NewSkeptic Re: "Two bits for anyone that can honestly say they read all that."

How much is two bits worth? It will determine whether or not I am willing to lie in order to collect the winnings.

@Tin-Man

Two bits just ain't worth what it once was, just a shiny new George Washington quarter. (you in other countries will have to do the currency translation).

That is not nearly enough to 1) actually read that drivel or 2) come up with a convincing lie. I am, after all, somewhat of a cheap mfer. Also, the Nickel slot you recently installed may not be large enough and its hardly worth getting the welding torch and shears out again.

Gnostic Agnostic, “I have constructed a thought experiment demonstrating that "BELIEF"-in-and-of-itself is the root of any/all IGNORANCE/SUFFERING. If followed and understood, it will highlight the POI (point of entry) whence any/all human suffering (as to be found: due to "BELIEF"-based ignorance).”

Don't non-human animals suffer then? Are you positing that all their suffering is derived entirely from religious beliefs?

Religion can, and has caused unnecessary suffering, it also has no basis in objective reality, so why make up absurd hyperbole like the OP?

UPDATED MODEL:

TRUTH of the WAY of the LIVING.

TRUTH(3) by WAY(2) of NEGATION(1):
(1) willingly TRYING to ***NEGATE***
(2) by WAY of CONSCIENCE inquiry
(3) any/all "BELIEF"-based "TRUTH(S)"
into knowingly KNOWN ***FALSITY***:

TRUTH(3) by WAY(2) of NEGATION(1)
leaves only TRUTH-in-and-of-itself (ad infinitum).

Try SATAN (by way of)
CONSCIOUSLY inquiring:

Would an ALL-KNOWING god(s) (should any exist) KNOWINGLY KNOW:

SATAN *requires* "BELIEF"-in-and-of-itself (would that) any/all BELIEVERS "BELIEVE":
i. "BELIEF" is in-and-of-itself a VIRTUE(?), and
ii. EVIL is GOOD(?), and
iii. SATAN is GOD(?)?

Seek, and ye SHALL find: the ANSWER is INSIDE the QUESTION/INQUIRY (TO KNOW).

Try via LORI:
What SATAN is to BELIEF
then GOD is to KNOW...

Test:
...what? towards what ends does KNOWLEDGE serve?

Truth:
(2 of 2) to KNOWINGLY KNOW any/all *NOT* to "BELIEVE" due to "BELIEF"-based IGNORANCE(S).

Try:
If "BELIEF"-in-and-of-itself exists,
does "KNOWLEDGE"-in-and-of-itself exist (ie. a "knowledge singularity")?

Test:
TRUTH by WAY of NEGATION.

Truth:
(1/2) TRUTH of the WAY of the LIVING is:

(1/2) TRUTH of the WAY of the LIVING is
(2 of 2) to KNOWINGLY KNOW any/all *NOT* to "BELIEVE".

"Any/all KNOWING is by way of indefinitely consciously trying BELIEF, but
not any/all BELIEF is by way of indefinitely trying to consciously KNOW all.

challenges so-standing:

"All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing."
_____________________________________________________________________

IMPLICATIONS:

(1) Atheism can argue against *all* "BELIEF"-based IDEOLOGY (inc. THEOLOGY) as being IGNORANT.
(2) It can advance:

What "BELIEF" is to (in) AUTHORITY ***begetting*** any/all "BELIEF"-based IGNORANCE(S),
TRUTH (ie. by Way of Negation) is to (as) AUTHORITY ***negating*** any/all "BELIEF"-based IGNORANCE(S).

TRUTH over/as AUTHORITY (ie. by way of negation)
rather than
AUTHORITY over/as TRUTH (ie. "belief"-based ideologies)

and designate Judaism/Christian/Islam as *necessarily ignorant* of this knowledge-in-and-of-itself, which really is a/the Primordial "singularity" that becomes two: knowledge/ignorance wherein the former serves to negate the latter. If you elaborate that out, it is the Truth of the Way of the Living which is *not* a MAN: it takes "belief" to "believe" that. It can be a known model that necessarily tends towards peace by alleviating any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s) which cause suffering/death.

I am a Gnostic Agnostic.
What I know I know
What I do not know I do not know
I know the truth of the way of the living is in knowing any/all *not* to "believe",
I do not know how even atheists attack the hand that feeds their cause,
but I know of the hand this: I am bound to know 'from whence any/all human suffering'
and I know it exists for there being a LACK of something else which would alleviate any/all of it.

What is that lack? Can we use LORI to infer it?

What lack is to human suffering,
no human suffering is to gain...?

...to gain what? Recall LORI: impossible to infer an unknown from an unknown.
How does one solve the problem of not knowing whence any/all human suffering?
(the answer is embedded in the question):

NOT KNOWING THE PROBLEM:
SOLUTION CAN NOT BE INFERRED
IF THE PROBLEM IS UNKNOWN.

This ignorance itself. One can not infer a solution lest the problem is unknown.
Unknown to itself, in the case of "belief"-based theologies and ideologies.

Just a reminder those who whine:
"but what about all the suffering of..."

You are just admitting you do not even understand the problem.

The problem is "BELIEF".

What happens when a problem (ie. "BELIEF") "BELIEVES" *itself* to be a solution?

Know the problem before inferring the solution. Else: ignorance.

@A Gnostic Agnostic: I AM NEARLY CONVINCED. MOST CERTAINLY "BELIEF" IS A PROBLEM FOR SOMEONE.

Think I've decoded it...

BOLLOCKS(3) by WAY(2) of NEGATION(1):
(1) willingly TRYING to ***HARP ON***
(2) by WAY of WASTING FUCKING TIME by inquiry
(3) any/all "OPINION"-based "BOLLOCK(S)"
into knowingly KNOWN ***FUCK-WITTERY***:

*snorkle, glumpph, grinkle...ah afuckit BWAAAAAHAGHAHA HA.....*cough splutter Hork*

Nice one cyril.

## Pages

Donating = Loving

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.