A question for theists...

244 posts / 0 new
Last post
ROYISM 's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

You said: Objective facts are established by sufficient objective evidence.

Agreed. In the case of Islamic morals the objective evidence is the presence of a ruling in Quran and prophetic tradition.

You said: “a global scientific consensus indicates that something is underpinned by sufficient objective evidence.

That’s a loose argument. How global is global? Do you mean 100% of the scientific community? Or is it 95% or 80%... or what?

You said: “A scientific theory is a broad explanation of a naturally occurring phenomenon, and when accepted represents the pinnacle of scientific thought.”

That’s an explanation of science, and there is no dispute there. But you can’t say that all objective things must fit into that definition. Somethings work differently and yet be objective. Like the rules of chess for example.

You said: Creationism is simply superstitious nonsense. For which no objective evidence can be demonstrated at all. The arguments for it are woeful and fallacious. Like the risible argument from design you used above.

Instead of making assertions, tell me how my explanation of ID is wrong.

Sheldon's picture
The koran contains no

The koran contains no objective evidence its "moral" codes are divine diktat, you're being absurd. You even recognise that it's most revered prophet's behaviour of paedophilia is immoral in a contemporary context.

If there were any evidence falsifying evolution it would render this discussion moot. Unlike creationists science doesn't deny facts.

I swear if you call chess rules objective again I'll harm a puppy. They made up ffs, they can and have hanged over time.

Evolution is an objective scientific fact, the theory is the explanation that contains the evidence. Same as all other scientific theories. That's what the word means, so when creatards claim it's just a theory they're making cunts of themselves. It's almost too stupid for comment.

You said: Creationism is simply superstitious nonsense. For which no objective evidence can be demonstrated at all. The arguments for it are woeful and fallacious. Like the risible argument from design you used above.

Instead of making assertions, tell me how my explanation of ID is wrong.

Can you not read? It's a superstitious belief that at its core makes unfalsifiable assertions for supernatural causation, for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated. I've already pointed out the logical flaws including argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. You ignored them completely.

Sheldon's picture
ROYISM "Even if I believed

ROYISM "Even if I believed in Gods I'd have a hard time believing in a flying horse.”

Actually, from a belief point of view both are equally weighted."

Equally unevidenced superstitious fiction more like.

Weighted ffs.

Cognostic's picture
@Sheldon: Muhammad had a

@Sheldon: Muhammad had a flying horse with really stretchy legs. If the horse could see anything at all in the distance, it could reach out it's legs and touch it. The horses wings were on its' thighs and not on its back. It is both male and female, male or female, depending on the story you read. Islam has as many contradictions in its bullshit as does Christianity. So , the story of Muhammad's horse must be true. It's simply told by different people from different perspectives.... And HORSESHIT doesn't really stink!

ROYISM 's picture
@Cognistic

@Cognistic

You said: Muhammad had a flying horse with really stretchy legs. If the horse could see anything at all in the distance, it could reach out it's legs and touch it. The horses wings were on its' thighs and not on its back. It is both male and female, male or female, depending on the story you read. Islam has as many contradictions in its bullshit as does Christianity. So , the story of Muhammad's horse must be true. It's simply told by different people from different perspectives.... And HORSESHIT doesn't really stink!

First of all, if you had any inkling about hadith related to this incident, it’s not even a horse. It’s an animal called Buraq. Secondly, even if you have contradictory traditions in hadith literature, it is resolved using an interpretive system called ‘sanad’ analysis. This is a way of analyzing the chain of narrators to assess the strength of transmission. The stronger transmission trumps the weaker ones.

Sheldon's picture
It's an archaic superstitious

It's an archaic superstitious fantasy, about a flying horse, and there is zero objective evidence for any of it.

Its complete nonsense....

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
And here we have it folks the

And here we have it folks the islamic version of Bible hermeneutics.....how anyone in the 21st century can follow either error riddled collection of fantasy stories, and pronounce them real on the basis of who said what to who round a camel dung fire is beyond my limited grasp.

cranky47's picture
Old man;---and we haven't

Old man;---and we haven't even touched on how much of the Quran was lifted from the Torah.

As it turns out I have lived in a Muslim country (Malaysia) and have actually read the Quran (as background for a couple of papers at university)

Spent a lot of time in a local Kampong. Was always treated with great kindness, respect and hospitality. I did my utmost to be good guest, including wearing traditional sarong and baju and learning some Malay (Sadly, that 50 years ago, so i've forgotten most of my Malay)

The Islam I encountered was very tolerant .

I have always been awarer that Muslim extremists, whether the Wahhabi of Saudi Arabia, or the tragic suicide bombers have taken a very skewed focus from the Quran, but more so, from the hadith. Eg a deliberate misunderstanding of the word 'jihad', which means 'struggle' . Usually taken to refer to the struggle of daily life, although it includes violent struggle

Thought for today " A thousand monks, a thousand religions" (Buddhist saying)

Sheldon's picture
So having failed to answer

So having failed to answer the thread OP, and offered up paedophilia and revenge murder as part of his objective morality. ROYISM is now touting creationism over the s scientific fact of evolution.

Bat shit crazy.....he is out of his gourd.

ROYISM 's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

You can either engage my arguments or simply making sweeping assertions. If you do the former i may perhaps be able to see your rationale, and also correct myself if need be. Otherwise, I will only have to consider it as your arguments as lacking the logical legs to stand on.

Sheldon's picture
You have no rationale, only

You have no rationale, only blind adherence to superstition. Your arguments have been addressed, they're woeful irrational nonsense. Your denial of the scientific fact of evolution says it all. The pretence to have have an objective moral belief that then tries to justify paedophilia and murder for revenge, have left that argument manifestly destroyed.

Only one rational argument is necessary in response to your delusional woo woo that believes in flying horses, and that is that you can demonstrate no objective evidence for any of it. What's more you have rehashed some of the worst fallacies apologists trot out on here. Like your use of the assumption of design, because of complexity, which is not only an appeal to ignorance fallacy. It is directly refuted by the known scientific fact of evolution.

Try addressing that.

ROYISM 's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon
You said: “Like your use of the assumption of design, because of complexity, which is not only an appeal to ignorance fallacy.”

Don’t you realize that you are just making assertions. I have laid out my argument. Can’t you tackle that?

You said: “It is directly refuted by the known scientific fact of evolution.”

That’s the appeal to authority fallacy. If debates can be this easy, then what’s the purpose of presenting arguments. My arguments may be as you say illogical. But until you explain how I shall consider it unrefuted.

Sheldon's picture
I'm not "just making

I'm not "just making assertions" at all. It's YOU who is just making assertions, unless you can demonstrate some objective evidence for your bare assertion that complexity "proves" design

I notice you don't even acknowledge let alone address your use of argumentum ad ignorantiam, quelle surprise.

ROYISM "That’s the appeal to authority fallacy."

Nope, looking up and learn what it means. I'll give you the beginners guide, it's a bare appeal to authority, scientific facts as I said are based on a weight of objective evidence, they are the very antithesis of a "bare appeal" to authority. Unlike you quoting your superstion's archaic book of unevidenced myths.

I've already explained why your assumption of design is fallacious, reread the post and look up and learn what argumentum ad ignorantiam means, I can't dumb it down anymore than the fact that you cannot demonstrate any objective evidences for any design in nature, only a subjective assumption based on a known logical fallacy, that is directly contradicted by a known scientific fact that is based on all the objective evidence, namely that the theory of evolution shows objectively that complex living things can and have evolved, and all the scientific evidence over 160 years supports this, therefore it's not remotely an appeal to authority fallacy.

Dear oh dear...

Calilasseia's picture
Oh dear, someone has peddled

Oh dear, someone has peddled the "assumptions" canard about evolution. When I return from my errands, it'll be time to unleash the ordnance, especially with respect to the regurgitation of the bullshit "irreducible complexity" canard ... watch this space ...

Nyarlathotep's picture
ROYISM - So, I am not

ROYISM - So, I am not putting forward ID as a scientific proof for god, rather it’s a logical proof.

Will you be posting this proof?

ROYISM 's picture
@Nyarl

@Nyarl

I have posited the logic of ID. I am sure you are very familiar my arguments already, we have discussed this in great detail before, haven't we?

Nyarlathotep's picture
ROYISM - ...we have

ROYISM - ...we have discussed this in great detail before, haven't we?

Right, but now you're saying you have a proof. Let's see it!

Unless of course; if you don't actually have it.
----------------------------------------

ROYISM - I have posited the logic of ID.

That means you postulated it. Anyone can do that. Next time just postulate: "god exists"; and save yourself a couple of steps.

Sheldon's picture
ROYISM doesn't understand

ROYISM doesn't understand what objective means, or evidence, or morality, nor "proof", and a great deal more besides. He's as good an example of how blind faith and indoctrination destroy reason as you could ever hope to meet.

I mean, if he thinks 50 year old men having sex with nine year old children isn't rape, and that it's even an objectively moral act, just wow!

Nyarlathotep's picture
Also has the weirdest notion

Also has the weirdest notion of justice I have ever heard. Oh and don't forget this "gem":
----------------------------------------

ROYISM - ...mixing of genes from two parents does not produce new genes... don't look at it like two colors mixing and producing a third new color. That's not how genes work. If the father is black and the mother is white, the baby is not brown! The baby is either black or white...

Sheldon's picture
ROYISM -" ...mixing of genes

ROYISM -" ...mixing of genes from two parents does not produce new genes... don't look at it like two colors mixing and producing a third new color. That's not how genes work. If the father is black and the mother is white, the baby is not brown! The baby is either black or white..."

Well there you go, again this says it all really. ROYISM is insanely delusional, as of course are all Muslims, and of course all religious apologists.

Calilasseia's picture
Right, it's time to take a

Right, it's time to take a look at the latest pile of bollocks that has passed my way ... sitting comfortably, everyone? Incoming ...

However, the proof of God is based on a simple logic that’s glaring at you at every instance of your existence. All around you, in nature and yourself, this proof is large writ. Look at the complexity in design of plants and animals and you will immediately realize that there is a great creator behind them all.

If you're peddling the fatuous "watchmaker" apologetics here, then that's been demolished wholesale by vast swathes of observational data. Not least, the fact that watchmaking itself exhibits all the characteristics of having had an evolutionary history. Indeed, in that post, I've exposed both the vacuity and the hypocrisy inherent in "design" apologetics on a grand scale.

This is such a powerful logic

Bullshit. It's blind assertion writ large, just like everything else associated with supernaturalism. Indeed. I've never met a supernaturalist who either [1] understands what is required in order to turn the "design" assertion into something other than the product of his rectal passage, and [2] understands the gigantic internal contradiction inherent in "design" apologetics. I don't expect you to be in a position to understand this either, though you could always provide evidence to the contrary if you think you're up to the challenge.

However, evolution wants us to make many leaps of faith in order to circumvent this powerful logic

Bullshit. This creationist lie has been destroyed so many times, it only persists because supernaturalists keep wheeling the resulting zombie about on castors, waving its arms about as a pretence that it's still alive.

At the end of all the complicated explanation, the emergence of the first living cell is still an unfathomable conundrum.

Oh look, it's that tiresome and predictable canard, the conflation of evolution with abiogenesis. Except that this is is a canard, for several reasons. One, evolution concerns itself with what happens once replicating entities exist, and leaves the question of the origin of those replicating entities to a separate discipline. Evolution is a theory originating within biology, whilst the origin of life is a theory arising from a different scientific discipline, namely organic chemistry. Moreover, the reason that organic chemistry is the discipline responsible for origin of life theories, is quite simple - life is chemistry writ large. Millions of chemical reactions are taking place in your body right now, and if some of those reactions stop, you die. As a corollary of this elementary observation, it makes eminent sense to look to chemistry to provide insights into the origin of life, or at least, it does to anyone not addled by adherence to a pre-scientific mythology full of absurdities and nonsense.

Two, as a corollary of this canard conflating two entirely different processes, it fails as an attack on evolution because, lo and behold, scientists have demonstrated in spades that evolutionary processes work on entities other than biological entities. I have a nice paper in my collection, documenting the application of evolutionary algorithms to spacecraft antenna design, and the 'evolved' antenna was flown on a real spacecraft to test if it worked. Which, wait for it, it did. Indeed, evolutionary algorithms are being pressed into service to "design" a wide range of entities, including computer motherboards. The diligent will not find it difficult to locate relevant scientific papers covering such developments.

As for your assertion that the emergence of the first living cell is "an unfathomable conundrum", well this is bullshit too, and I've provided a fairly comprehensive overview of much of the recent work in the field here. Indeed, one of the realisations that quickly dawns upon anyone who actually reads the relevant scientific literature, instead of relying upon apologetics, is that every time a chemical reaction has been postulated to be implicated in the origin of life, laboratory test of that reaction demonstrates that said reaction works. It produces the results postulated to be produced by the scientists in question. Moreover, while examining postulated reactions for their viability as origin-of-life reactions, scientists in the field have been on occasion, pleasantly surprised to find new reactions that they did not previously suspect as being implicated in the origin of life, but which provide elegant and simple solutions to parts of the pathway. Some recent papers by John Sutherland constitute a nice example of this.

Oh, and the state of the art in abiogenesis research has now moved on to model protocells and their behaviour. I'll try and find some illustrative papers to bring here in this vein.

Design is an observable fact in nature.

Poppycock. The biosphere is littered with examples of features in living organisms that are absurd from the standpoint of the "design" assertion, but which make eminent sense in the light of evolution. For example, from the world of entomology, which I've spent some time studying, there exist species of Carabid beetles whose wings are fully functional, but which will never use them for flight. Why? Because the elytra of these species (the wing coverings that beetles possess, which are actually a modification of the first pair of wings) are fused shut. Now any genuine "designer" wouldn't produce a crock such as this. If the beetles didn't need wings, they would simply be deleted, with no trace of their having been present. Why include an entirely surplus anatomical feature in an organism not needing it?

Once again, you don't know what it takes to turn the "design" assertion into something other than the product of your rectal passage.

specified complexity

Oh dear, not Dembski's garbage. Which even Dembski himself has now abandoned.

i.e. an arrangement of primitive parts in a highly specific order for accomplishing a task.

Which has been demonstrated time and again in the scientific literature, to arise via testable natural processes, without any magic intervention.

This can also be called information. Information requires planning and foresight… in other words intelligence.

Oh dear, you really are out of your depth here, aren't you? I destroyed creationist canards about "information" comprehensively in this previous post. You obviously never encountered any of the proper, rigorous work on information by people such as Turing or Kolmogorov. Oh, and that post includes citations for 11 papers covering the evolvability of the genetic code, just in case you want to post inane canards about that topic as well.

And the assumption is that it’s owing to common descent.

BZZZZT! ERROR!

Common descent is NOT an "assumption", it's a demonstrable fact. There are three routes via which this has been established, namely:

[1] Examining the patterns that emerge when organisms inherit characteristics via descent with modification, including the use of genetic audit trails in modern work;

[2] Developing testable, robust phylogenies;

[3] Formal tests of universal common descent.

Indeed, if your assertion above, with the implication that common descent never happened, was something other than the product of your rectal passage, then modern phylogenetic data would not even exist, which on its own destroys your assertion. But, better than that, Douglas Theobald provided, in a seminal paper submitted to Nature, a formal test of universal common ancestry, by comparing the goodness of fit of different models, a single-ancestry model and various multiple-ancestry models. The results of that test, as I cover in detail in this exposition of that paper, demonstrate that UCA is the best fit to the observational data by a massive margin - a better fit by a factor of ten to the power of two thousand, eight hundred and sixty, to be precise. So before you start dismissing common ancestry, you might want to learn something about the work that has been done on this subject.

When facts contradict the assumption, the theory makes adjustments to keep the assumptions intact.

Bare faced lie. This is a practice we leave to supernaturalists and their apologetics.

What actually happens in scientific work is that [1] any known assumptions are honestly stated up front, and [2] work is then undertaken, either to validate those assumptions or remove them altogether. I know it's difficult for someone who thinks apologetics is something other than made up shit to understand this, but this is what happens in actual scientific work.

For example, the similarity between the human eye and the octopus eye, violates the common descent assumption, because the two are separated by a long way in the evolution tree. And so, the theory brings in another assumption, which is convergence.

Bollocks. Convergence is an observed fact. Or have you not noticed how different vertebrate groups that acquired wings, had a habit of acquiring similar structures? The data says it happened. Suck on it. Oh, and as for the evolution of the eye, you do realise that eyes have appeared independently forty different times in different lineages?

Do stop lying about science.

What I am driving at is that the theory is built on a set of unfalsifiable assumptions.

Bare faced lie. Oh wait, Douglas Theobald provided a 100,000 word dissertation containing explicit statements of what it would take to falsify evolutionary theory. Go and fucking read it.

Oh, and if you make the mistake of trying to peddle the "irreducible complexity" drivel Behe cooked up, once again, I've been there and done that>. That post also exposes many of the lies peddled by the ID brigade, the fatuously sloppy nature of Behe's so-called "research", and the manner in which Judge Jones, presiding over the Dover Trial, noted that the IDists in court were prepared to perjure themselves in order to defend what was, in actuality, creationist ideology.

In short, those of us who paid attention in class have done our research, and found assertions such as the ones you've presented here to be complete and utter hooey. But I don't suppose this will stop you lying about science, will it?

Sheldon's picture
Oi! ROYISM, you'll something

Oi! ROYISM, you'll meed something for those burns that Calilasseia just torched you with.

Or you could just pray for it to go away.

cranky47's picture
Nah.

Nah.

Like most apologists, whatshisname is immune to facts and reason. Specifically: an inability/refusal to understand the basics of reasoned discussion . Also an anti science stance demonstrated by a lack of understanding of scientific method and the meaning of the notion of scientific theory. --or even of the word 'fact' .

We have a what I think is an appropriate saying in my family "No sense ,no feeling" So no, no screams from burns which would incapacitate a thinking person .

cranky47's picture
@Caliasseia

@Caliasseia

Pretty good stuff.

Always amazes me that the anti-science crowd haven't actually read much , if any science . So far, I've never run across an anti evolutionist who has read any Darwin , nor an anti Marxist who has read " Capital" . The anti intellectual, such as our little friend, seldom seem to have even a rudimentary understanding of reasoned discussion.

I know I'm a bigoted' elitist old twat; I truly lack the patience to bother with the wilfully ignorant. I'm pleased that you do. A nicely reasoned, informed paper.Thank you

ROYISM 's picture
@Calilaesia

@Calilaesia

You said: Indeed, in that post, I've exposed both the vacuity and the hypocrisy inherent in "design" apologetics on a grand scale.

Please give the link to that post or present a summary of your arguments so I can be enlightened.

You said: [2] understands the gigantic internal contradiction inherent in "design" apologetics. I don't expect you to be in a position to understand this either, though you could always provide evidence to the contrary if you think you're up to the challenge.

Please do furnish that gigantic contradictions.

You said: “Moreover, the reason that organic chemistry is the discipline responsible for origin of life theories, is quite simple - life is chemistry writ large.”

Yes, life is chemistry. But the puzzle regarding life has more to do with ‘information’ than chemistry. To be more clear, it’s not so much the chemicals that’s hard to fathom, rather it’s their arrangement. Studying about ink will not tell you how a poem was written… for that you need to understand the process that led to the arrangement of the words in the poem.

You said: I have a nice paper in my collection, documenting the application of evolutionary algorithms to spacecraft antenna design….”

Evolutionary algorithms differ from the Darwinian model in some very fundamental ways. One of them is that these models work towards an end goal set by the programmer. Whereas, to give that attribute to nature is too great a foresight you are placing on a blind undirected process.

You said: As for your assertion that the emergence of the first living cell is "an unfathomable conundrum", well this is bullshit too, and I've provided a fairly comprehensive overview of much of the recent work in the field here.

The Miller-Urey experiment makes some assumptions meant to facilitate the emergence of life’s building blocks. Hydrogen was included and oxygen was taken out of the mixture just to attain this end. While the early earth’s gravity would have been too weak to hold on to hydrogen, and oxygen must have been present, especially since water vapor was there. So with hiccups in the very first step, the rest of the processes are called into question as well. Even if you make that leap of faith, the rest of the hypothesis still leaves much to desire. The RNA world hypothesis, while it’s the best naturalistic explanation available, is still far from perfect.

You said: “For example, from the world of entomology, which I've spent some time studying, there exist species of Carabid beetles whose wings are fully functional, but which will never use them for flight.”

Let me make my argument clear to you. What I am saying is that we find specified complexity or information (arrangement of primitive parts in a specified order) in nature. This is an observable fact. From there I deduce, that we only know of one source of information and that is intelligence. Now, if I were to accept the Carabid beetle example as proof for a flawed design, it would only show that the intelligence that gave rise to it was perhaps not so intelligent. If the Challenger Spacecraft crashed into the earth due to a design flaw, it does not mean that the spacecraft was not designed at all. It only means that the designer made some mistake. However, if that intelligence is God, then I agree, it’s supposed to be perfect. But then what is perfect depends on the overall scheme of things. You don’t have to go all the way to beetles and other cretins to show this. Every mutation is an example of design flaw, one can argue. Because mutations are copying errors – and if god had designed the copying mechanism, it’s not supposed to go wrong. Therefore, every cancer patient is a walking testimony of a poor designer. But what if the designer had meant it to be that way, because in his scheme of things life is not supposed to be perfect – suffering has a moral ontological purpose perhaps! Secondly, as in the case of appendix and the ass-back wiring of the eye, probably there is a function behind apparent design flaws that we are yet to uncover.

You said: specified complexity…Which has been demonstrated time and again in the scientific literature, to arise via testable natural processes, without any magic intervention.

Yes, provided you make all these sweeping assumptions.

You said: “I destroyed creationist canards about "information" comprehensively in this previous post.”

I appreciate your putting out links. They are indeed useful. But can I ask you a favor? Would it be possible for you to summarize the argument and put it in let’s say a few condensed bullet points, so it’s easier to comprehend the points without trawling through a lot of literature. Just a suggestion. Anyways, I will go through the papers and make up my mind.

You said: The results of that test, as I cover in detail in this exposition of that paper, demonstrate that UCA is the best fit to the observational data by a massive margin

Again some literature to trawl through. Will have a read and respond.

You said: “Convergence is an observed fact. Or have you not noticed how different vertebrate groups that acquired wings, had a habit of acquiring similar structures? The data says it happened.”

What is observed is the existence of similar features in two distantly related species – like camera eyes in humans and octopus! I don’t dispute that. But what is not observed is their chance emergence through a series of similar accidents through two evolutionary pathways that are totally unrelated. According to the theory, convergence is not the result of common descent,, right? So, here you see how one assumption (common descent) gets modified with another assumption (convergence) in order to save the theory. But the observed existence of similar traits in unrelated species should have actually falsified the hypothesis of common descent.

You said: Oh wait, Douglas Theobald provided a 100,000 word dissertation containing explicit statements of what it would take to falsify evolutionary theory. Go and fucking read it.

That’s more literature .Will try to find the time to go through it. But thanks for all the links anyways. I am sure I will have much to learn from them. Similarly with the link regarding Behe’s irreducible complexity.

Sheldon's picture
The point creationists always

The point creationists always seem to miss is that even if evolution were entirely falsified tomorrow, creationism remains unevidenced woo woo, complete hokum, superstitious myth, nothing more. So these asinine denials of scientific facts are doubly idiotic as this line of argument is the very definition of a false dichotomy fallacy, as it's not a choice limited to either evolution or creationism.

One is a scientific theory evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt, the other has no evidence at all to support it. Just the usual cliched appeal to ignorance fallacies.

xenoview's picture
@royism

@royism
You do understand what objective evidence is right? It's evidence that is outside of the mind, that can be tested and get the same results. Do you understand what subjective evidence is? It's evidence that exist only in the mind. All you faithfools have is subjective evidence that a god exist. None of you have ever given any objective evidence that a god is real.

cranky47's picture
"You do understand what

"You do understand what objective evidence is right? It's evidence that is outside of the mind, that can be tested and get the same results"

Umm, I've not seen any evidence of that.

Do you think it might be because English is a second language for what's his name? I really do want to be fair, but that howler about genetics and apparent total ignorance of evolution has made that a lot harder.

" None of you have ever given any objective evidence that a god is real."

Of course not. That's because there is none. To date, the question of the existence of god remains unfalsifiable.

Sheldon's picture
@royism

@royism
You do understand what objective evidence is right?

Nope, he does not.

Nyarlathotep's picture
ROYISM - While the early

ROYISM - ...oxygen must have been present, especially since water vapor was there.

The presence of water molecules does not in any way infer the presence of oxygen molecules. Another high-school chemistry fail from a creationist. Anyone surprised by that?

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.