There is no evidence for abcense

205 posts / 0 new
Last post
CyberLN's picture
Jo, you wrote, "In fact the

Jo, you wrote, "In fact the Bible essentially says the opposite of what Hitler believed and practiced."

I would stake a month's wages that every atheist poster active in these forums could list a number of places in the bible where it encourages the sort of behavior in which hitler engaged.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Cyber

@ Cyber

Jo has already been given comprehensive evidence of the racist, genocidal nature of his preferred 'holy' book, but has 'apologeticed' it away...to his satisfaction. Which is why we now refer to Jo as "ol pretzel face' and "the best friend of atheism".

Sheldon's picture
Jo "Hitler self identified as

Jo "Hitler self identified as a Christian."

Making him a Christian and he was also raised a christian, and baptised a christian.

Jo "Nazi philosophy in general, are found no where in the Bible."

Both ethnic cleansing and genocide are actively practised and encouraged by the deity in the bible. Nazis swore oaths to Hitler "before god", antisemitism and homophobia has been indoctrinated into European Christians for centuries, Hitler was a christian, as were the SS who ran the death camps, you're sounding ever more desperate Jo.

Jo "Would it be fair to conflate Atheism and Science (Darwin) with Nazism?"

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity, so that would be absurd. Some of the top scientists fled Germany under Nazism because of their distortion of the scientific facts of things like species evolution into the entirely unscientific race laws their propaganda labelled social Darwinism. You'd have to be pretty ignorant or very biased not to see through that lie.

Just as you'd have to be pretty desperate to claim Nazis were not Christians when 94% of all Germans were Christians at that time...and it was a mandatory requirement of the SS soldiers who ran the death camps to be christians, or at the very least theists. Now I doubt there were many Muslims, Sikhs, or Hindus in the German SS, and how likely is it any were Jewish? That doesn't leave many theists to choose from in a country that was overwhelmingly christian now does it.

Sheldon's picture
Jo "Hitler self identified

Jo "Hitler self identified as a Christian.
However, his antisemitism, and Nazi philosophy in general, are found no where in the Bible."

Neither are Christmas trees Jo, are you saying we should suspect duplicitous intent from anyone putting up a Christmas tree and claiming to be a Christian?

You are still ignoring the fact that the populace of Nazi Germany was 94% christian Jo, why is that?

You are still ignoring the fact that all members of the German SS were required to be Christian's Jo, why is that?

You do realise that the KKK is a christian organisation don't you Jo?

How about the Westborough Baptist church, are they Christians Jo?

You keep ignoring the fact that Christians have espoused antisemitism for centuries Jo, why is that?

Sheldon's picture
@Jo

@Jo

No one has conflated Nazism with Christianity Jo, that's a lie. They have however pointed out the fact that Nazi antisemitism is a derivation of centuries of European christian dogma. Of course antisemitism is a religious persecution, what else would it be? Though this claim as well as being yet another lie from you is pretty ironic given how often religious apologists try and equate atheism with both the Nazi Holocaust, and Stalin's mass murder, and Mao come to that.

By definition someone with no ancestral ties with Scotland who had never been there is not Scottish. Again I can only hope you're being ironic.

Nazi ideology wasn't remotely socialist, do you even know what socialism means? It was a totalitarian regime that centred power in one party and one leader, and industry was entirely subjugated to the will of that party and it's leader, it was the very antithesis of socialism, try looking beyond the name they called themselves.

Christian dogma is responsible for centuries of antisemitism and persecution and mass murder against Jews. Just because it isn't in the bible doesn't mean christianity is expunged of any responsibility for what it has taught for centuries.

Once again no one has equated Nazism with christianity, and the fallacious attempt to smear was directed at atheists by theists. As is always the case.

Calilasseia's picture
It is just an attempt to

It is just an attempt to smear. A guilt by association fallacy.

You mean like your attempt to peddle Weikart's repeatedly destroyed drivel as fact? The drivel he spreads in pursuit of creationism, claiming Darwin was responsible for the Holocaust? Or that Hitler was an "evolutionist", despite massive evidence to the contrary?

Oh, and speaking of that massive body of evidence refuting Weikart's well-poisoning garbage, some of which I presented here, I'm still waiting to see some sign of recognition of that body of evidence on your part, let alone any substantive attempt to address it.

Randomhero1982's picture
Well said Nyar...

Well said Nyar...

I mean, it's like trying to discover which posters are fucking idiots.

We can make deductions from evidence given, which tends to be quite clear in many cases!

But it's a simpler task when one claims to be a fucking idiot.

Self identification and/or preponderance of evidence go a long way!

Grinseed's picture
Jo, you are neither difficult

Jo, you are neither difficult or demanding, on the contrary you have been most helpful. It is clear you have missed the main thrust of my post and you neatly provided the reason for your misunderstanding.

You seem obsessed with "objective falsifiable evidence". The real issue here is not about any particular question or answer, but more about how all questions and answers are perceived and understood.

I described two simplified perceptions of reality, basically yours and mine, theist and atheist. You agreed with me that in your reality your god is real; he is your Alpha and Omega.
You went off on some tangent suggesting I described your god as a screaming tyrant using force and undue pressure. Your descriptions, not my meaning.
I used the word "influences" intentionally and I did not use the word "unduly" and I still maintain that as a theist, your thoughts and intentions are always "influenced" by your god and his laws, even if using, as you said, his "still small voice". I do understand the theist notion of 'free will'.

I will assume you agree with my explanation and understand I am not dissing you or your faith in anyway and push on.

I need you to read the following with as much tolerance as you can muster. I have revised the original, replacing it with a blunter version in a bid to get my meaning through to you. In my earlier explanation you simply disregarded my statement that no god exists in my reality by emphatically insisting he existed in yours and by demanding I prove, with objective falsifiable evidence that he didn't exist in mine.

So with the risk of repeating myself yet again, in my atheist perception of reality your god does not exist. Period.
You are disagreeing right now.
Understandable, but nonetheless, besides the obvious cultural and literary effects of christianity and the bible, your god does not exist in my reality, has no influence, no "still small voice" and certainly with no screaming or undue force.

I know you disagree and will insist your god is right here with me in my reality, but I cannot accept that and you cant prove it and I know better than to demand or expect any sort of evidence. And yes I cant prove he doesnt inhabit your reality, but I don't need to because he is not my claim. I think he only exists as an idea inside your head and nothing more.

Just re-read the last three paragraphs and try not to react negatively. Seriously, give what I have just written some consideration and accept that I am being completely honest.

Now consider the enormous differences between our perceptions.
Then consider what I wrote earlier regarding your questions about objective falsifiable evidence, ie "you are suggesting a single outcome for two sorts of claims which ignores the fundamental differences between them." Those fundamental differences centre on a reality with a god and one without.

Neither reality can be proven true, because there can be no objective unfalsifiable evidence presented for either case.

This is why from a single perspective, theist or atheist, one person's notion about a god can be "rational" and another person's "irrational". There can be no standard that can be applied with such a glaring difference like an omnipotent god creating such a huge disparity.

Using the same line of reasoning for all interpretations is simply not feasible in such a situation. The theist and atheist interpretations are mutually exclusive and no amount of apologetics or reasoning can overcome that.

Theists make the claim their god exists but cannot prove it. Atheists reject the theist claim and don't need to prove anything. End of story.

Jo's picture
@ Grinseed

@ Grinseed

Thank you for your candor and consideration.

I "seem obsessed with objective falsifiable evidence" because I am frequently asked for it by Atheists.
It is a faulty question.
It presupposed that objective falsifiable evidence can be provided for Gods existence.
Atheist frequently fail to ask the corollary question.

"Theists make the claim their god exists but cannot prove it. Atheists reject the theist claim and don't need to prove anything. End of story."
I agree and accept what you said.
However, I think the statement is somewhat incomplete and lacking.
Should it also include that those who do not believe God exists cannot prove it?
Do you have the same lack of faith in there not being any God?
I think it also fails to in any way adequately address the question.

Many Atheist (not Atheism) seem to essentially believe there is no God.
But they only seem interested in rejecting one claim, but not its corollary.

I think I completely understand your "atheist perception of reality your god does not exist."
I understand that we both have a very different perception of reality.

Am I understanding it correctly that we each have a different perception of reality?
How is a "perception of reality" different than a belief?

I understand that you can reject my claim and that don't need to prove anything.
But don't you want to answer the question?
It is easy to reject someones claim.
It is hard thing is to make a correct claim.

Sheldon's picture
"Theists make the claim their

"Theists make the claim their god exists but cannot prove it. Atheists reject the theist claim and don't need to prove anything. End of story."

Jo "I agree and accept what you said."

Jo "However, I think the statement is somewhat incomplete and lacking. Should it also include that those who do not believe God exists cannot prove it? Do you have the same lack of faith in there not being any God?"

Fuck me, why do you keep saying you agree with assertions, then immediately post a claim that shows you absolutely do not?

Atheism is not a belief, no matter how many times you rehash the lie that it is. Theism is a belief, and that is the affirmation of a claim. Atheism is not a contrary belief or claim.

Grinseed's picture
The atheist request for

For Jo

The atheist request for objective evidence for your god is not a faulty question, its quite a valid query.
The curious issue here is that most atheists I know would, I think, agree that the answer to this question and its corollary version gets the same answer -"no".

As for answering the question, I thought I had already.
"Theists can't prove the existence of their god by objective falsifiable evidence, because there is none." and "For atheists, regardless of the method and this certainly excludes objective falsifiable evidence, for the very same reason given above (there is none)"
I also added another reason which I will paraphrase for more conciseness, no-one, theist, atheist, can prove a negative claim. It is a logical impossibility. What you think is incomplete and lacking is impossible to supply, sorry.

Don't you yet understand that atheists ask this question because they know the answer is "no you can never provide that objective evidence" and that no-one is even suggesting they could prove his non-existence for the same reason, plus the fact that its not logically possible to prove a negative claim.

If you want to prove your god exists you need a different approach. I can only suggest living exemplary christian lives to impress and challenge us, rather than asking incessantly repeated, impossible questions that have no real answers of value.

Before I go any further with this I need to point out that I primarily identify as an empiricist rather than an atheist. I really only identify myself as an atheist when discussing religion and in fact its not something I would need to call myself but its a term theists label me for not believing in their peculiar faiths. In every other sphere of my life I am an empiricist who relies on material and physical events and experiences to make sense of things.

So is my rejection of the theism a belief?

Of course it is. Your perception of reality and mine are both faiths, but of differing qualities, and ironically both could be simultaneously, absolutely, wrong and there could be an imponderable number of other possibilities to choose from, but if only for the sake of our mental health and survival we are forced to make sense of our shared reality from the few choices available to us, due to various physical,sometimes cultural, constraints with time and mortality in particular.

My personal belief system is built on tangible, measurable, repeatable and even falsifiable experiences. It is nothing like the faith of a theist, who, yes I understand, can be as firmly convinced of their spiritual, innate experiences, which remain nonetheless intangible and largely unevidenced.

Easy to reject claims? Yes, and nothing is easier to reject than the claim for a non-physical, invisible, omnipotent deity who exists outside time and space, who only speaks through a book or singular revelations or through self identified prophets.

It really is very hard to make a correct claim on supernatural issues, if not impossible, and cant be as simple as making a single decision or even accepting a pre-existing subjective interpretation for it.

As an empiricist I have chosen a faith in tangible, evidenced, experience as my path to something called truth and along that path I have revised and altered, and reassessed things I really thought true, and either modified them or rejected them because of things I have learned or intuitively assessed as a result of amassed information. It is not a perfect life, I have gleaned no perfect answers, but it is in essence, an honest, earnest, if messy exploration of it.

Theists can never prove their god's existence. I am never obliged to prove his un-existence for their consideration.

Jo's picture
@ Grinseed

@ Grinseed

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply.

"The atheist request for objective evidence for your god is not a faulty question, its quite a valid query.
The curious issue here is that most atheists I know would, I think, agree that the answer to this question and its corollary version gets the same answer -"no"."
I whole heartily agree! That is the point I have been trying to get to.
I have started regularly asking the corollary because I am so frequently asked the antecedent from Atheists.
It seems like anytime a Theist comes on AR, one or more Atheists ask for objective evidence for God.
I must however ask, why do think Atheists ask it if they know the answer to both sides of the question is no?
I had the impression they were implying that it is evidence of no God.

I do disagree somewhat that a negative claim cannot be proven. I think proven is the wrong word.
Evidenced or shown may be a better word.
Jo is not a female could be shown by his X Y chromosomes, or a Doctors attestation to his physical traits.
We could use Cognostics Bear Cave Test to show there are no bears in the cave or on the moon.
There is of course the famous maggots do not spontaneous generate.

"If you want to prove your god exists you need a different approach. I can only suggest living exemplary christian lives to impress and challenge us, rather than asking incessantly repeated, impossible questions that have no real answers of value."
I wholeheartedly agree with this also.
I would like to remind you that my incessantly repeating the question was in response to so many Atheist frequently asking it of me, and other Theists.

"So is my rejection of the theism a belief? Of course it is."
I appreciate your transparency and frankness.
I do think that most Atheist would disagree, but I agree.
I think most Atheists have trouble admitting it.
There arguments betray it, but they refrain from directly admitting it.
I think it goes against there dogma and doctrines. (Sarcasm and humor, but also somewhat true)

"My personal belief system is built on tangible, measurable, repeatable and even falsifiable experiences. It is nothing like the faith of a theist, who, yes I understand, can be as firmly convinced of their spiritual, innate experiences, which remain nonetheless intangible and largely unevidenced."
This statement seems at odds with your previous statements.
Can empiricism answer the God question?

I also consider myself an empiricist, and a Christian.
I see them as complementary and I would be incomplete or lame without either.
If the Doctor tells me compound X will cure my disease.
I look at the double blind Phase 3 test.
If it shows a 99% cure rate, I take the medicine.
I don't consult the Bible or any Church leader.
If I need to get from point A to point B, I consult a map and not the Bible.
If I want to know why I and the universe are here, I consult the Bible.
The same for questions on the purpose and meaning of life and the hereafter.
I do not consult a science text book for those questions.

Can empiricism answer all questions?
How can it or does it answer the God question?
Is there any question or situation where you would not use it?

"As an empiricist I have chosen a faith in tangible, evidenced, experience as my path to something called truth and along that path I have revised and altered, and reassessed things I really thought true, and either modified them or rejected them because of things I have learned or intuitively assessed as a result of amassed information. It is not a perfect life, I have gleaned no perfect answers, but it is in essence, an honest, earnest, if messy exploration of it."
By in large, I agree and have walked a very similiar path.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - I do disagree somewhat

Jo - I do disagree somewhat that a negative claim cannot be proven.

Why don't you give an example of you proving a negative?

Tin-Man's picture
@Jo Re: "I do disagree

@Jo Re: "I do disagree somewhat that a negative claim cannot be proven."

Hey, Jo, here's a simple example for you. Let's say you have a desk you want built and you want me to build it for you. But for whatever reason, I do not want to build it for you, so I tell you I don't know how to do that. Please prove to me I am just lying to you and that I really DO know how to build a desk.

LogicFTW's picture
@Jo

@Jo

Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

And almost no other circumstance is this more true then the "god" ideas.

Millions, (billions?) of people for thousands of years have been trying very hard to evidence their god idea. All those people all that time and zero, real actual evidence outside of human ideas, fiction, etc.

When you have an idea with zero evidence behind it, it should remain just that; an idea. There should be no actual action, let alone entire, enormous, very wealthy religious organizations that demand hours a week of dedication to as well as lots of time and resources.

To drive home the importance of evidence, realize you demand it for just about everything else in your life, (hopefully!)

I have an idea: you owe me 1 million dollars. Pay me unless you can prove to me you do not owe me 1 million dollars.

Realize yet you can't prove that you do not owe me 1 million dollars? Does that mean my idea that you owe me 1 million dollars is valid? That you should pay me 1 million dollars? Of course not, that is ridiculous!
Just like all the god ideas.

Shed the prison that is the god idea placed on you strictly and only by other humans. I know it is scary, but you will be happier and a more free person on the other side of this journey towards freedom.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Calilasseia's picture
I'm late to this party, but

I'm late to this party, but better late than never (the diligent will be aware that I've been heavily involved elsewhere) ...

How can atheists base their entire lives on a belief on something for which there is no evidence?

BZZZTTTT! Thats three errors straight out of the gate.

Error #1 : Unlike supernaturalists, we don't "base our entire lives" upon a small collection of assertions. That's your first error.

Error #2: Atheism doesn't involve "belief" full stop. This is because, in its rigorous formulation, atheism is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That is IT. It doesn't involve presenting any assertions itself, it leaves that to supernaturalists, and as a corollary of these two basic facts, it is the antithesis of "belief". Indeed, because all too often, belief, as practised by supernaturalists, involves uncritical acceptance of unsupported mythological assertions, we actively reject the fatuous notion that this constitutes a purportedly 'reliable' means of acquiring knowledge. Not least because it demonstrably doesn't.

Error #3: The moment scientific research establishes that testable natural processes are sufficient to explain a given class of entities and interactions, supernatural entities become superfluous to requirements and irrelevant from that point on. This has already happened for vast classes of entities and interactions of interest. In short, merely asserted mythological magic men aren't needed, and in accordance with Occam's Razor, may safely be deleted from the picture as long as the requisite precedent continues to hold.

Indeed, a nice exposition of my own view, which I am told is widely shared here, can be found presented in detail here.

As a corollary of all the above, your assertion is null and void.

Anyone who bases their life on that there is no God does base their life on a belief.

And here's your next error. Namely, assuming, with typical supernaturalist hubris, that not treating your assertions about your magic man uncritically as true the way you do, constitutes affirming the contrary assertion. WRONG. It's entirely possible to be suspicious of both assertions simultaneously.

What those of us who paid attention in class actually think on the matter, is that the existence of a god type entity is an unanswered question. One that, whilst remaining unanswered, permits us to operate safely as if such an entity does not exist, until evidence points in a different direction. Just as we were able to operate safely as if electrons didn't exist, until evidence for said entities was alighted upon by scientists. Which was sought precisely because the observational data in the run-up to the requisite discovery, pointed to the need for such particles to be a part of the observable universe, in order to make sense of that data. No such requirement exists with respect to a god-type entity of any sort at the moment. Therefore, we can provisionally continue as if such an entity does not exist, because no requirement for such an entity is demanded by extant observational data.

But I'm used to the manner in which supernaturalists either [1] cannot understand the distinction between a provisional modus operandi and adherence to an assertion as if that assertion constituted an axiom, or [2] choose wilfully to ignore that distinction for duplicitous apologetic purposes. Frequently, [2] is observed to be the case.

Meanwhile, diverting temporarily to deal with this:

What did the Nazi's do with "the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"?

Do not even THINK of venturing into this mendacious territory. You WILL regret it. Especially if you start peddling the lies of Richard Weikart here.

Moving back to the main course ...

That's a poor argument and you probably know why: the new scientific discoveries as well as the future ones.

Would this, perchance, include all those scientific discoveries that are rejected by supernaturalists, for no other reason than said discoveries happen not to genuflect before the assertions of their favourite mythologies?

Oh, and as Algebe succinctly noted, all too often, supernaturalists expend apologetic effort trying to place their various mythological magic men out of reach of scientific investigation, frequently as an evasive elision to avoid facing the awkward question of why there is zero evidence for any of their merely asserted entities. The trouble being of course, that in the next breath, the same supernaturalists then assert that their mythological magic men intervene in the physical universe in a manner that is demonstrably observable. This, of course, becomes problematic for their previous apologetics, because science is by definition the study of the observable. But I'm used to seeing supernaturalists trying to have their cake and eat it simultaneously.

Oh, and I've posted at length on the matter of how genuinely existing entities have a habit of being observable in this previous post. Along with some other comments that are apposite to this thread. A much more brief post that is also apposite here is this one.

Meanwhile, as for the search for life in places other than Earth, I've covered that one as well, namely here.

Finally, you might also like to take a peek at this exposition of the proper rules of discourse, as an example of the effort that is exerted by those of us who paid attention in class.

Sheldon's picture
So despite their lies to the

So despite their lies to the contrary, and their dishonest evasion of the question, we can see that neither Leper or Jo can demonstrate a shred of objective evidence that human consciousness can survive the death of the human brain.

Quelle surprise and QED. All they have offered is the usual appeal to ignorance fallacy in a dishonest attempt to reverse the burden of proof, pathetic.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

Ennui...just about sums up my feeling at this constant assault of repetitive fallacies by half educated theists. Bordering on desuetude.....

But, yes, we do have to keep on keeping on as their religions of choice lose members, credibility and influence.

Mutorc S'yriah's picture
Re: "Atheists do not base

Re: "Atheists do not base their entire lives on a belief."

@ Leper {Anyone who bases their life on that there is no God does base their life on a belief. Of course there are those who never even think about it and we may argue about what they base their lives on on a practical level.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence for abcense so... Atheism is a religion really}.
_____________________________________________

I agree with you, Leper: "Anyone who bases their life on that there is no God does base their life on a belief", assuming that they believe that there is no god.

HOWEVER, I as an atheist do not claim that there is no god. What I claim is that I have found no convincing evidence that there is a god. Thus I live as though there is no god, because the EVIDENCE is ~ as though there is no god.

But I also live my life in the belief that I live on earth. However, that does not mean that the belief of being an earthling is a religion.

Doesn't religion or religiosity require worship of something? Denial of any god is, in and of itself, absent of something to worship. If you think that not believing something is a form of worship, and therefore a religion, that reduces religion at its base, to something pretty valueless. I mean, atheists don't go bowing down to a nothing, they don't follow rituals in deference to a nothing, they don't wear particular clothing in recognition of a nothing, they don't have any codes of practice trying to adore or appease a nothing. So where's the religion?

Atheism is a religion as just much as being bald is a colour of hair ~ it's not so at all, in either case.
_____________________________________________

IF there is(are) good reason(s) or good evidence to believe that a god actually exists . . .

• which god is it
• what are its properties
• what is that good evidence
• how can we recognise that it is good, valid evidence of which we ought to be convinced?
_____________________________________________

@Leper {Nevertheless, there is no evidence for abcense}
_____________________________________________

If there is no "something', then there WILL BE AN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE in support of it. In other words, if the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, there will be no evidence in support of it *. So absence of evidence is evidence of absence. However, absence of evidence is not proof of absence; it could be that there is evidence somewhere, but it hasn't been found yet.

* = https://www.dictionary.com/e/religion/flying-spaghetti-monster/

cranky47's picture
Umm, I think Leper has been

Umm, I think Leper has been banned.

xenoview's picture
Leper was banned.

Leper was banned.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
How can atheists base their

How can atheists base their entire lives on a belief on something for which there is no evidence?
Doesn't it frighten them?
What happens to an atheist after death if he isn't a good atheist?

Question, Why do theists always assume that atheists all share the same beliefs, principles etc.
Sure, on many grounds we likely do, but all of our outlooks and our lack of belief in a deity are not mutually exclusive.

Talyyn's picture
Well I do not like the Jack

Well I do not like the Jack Daniels whisky but the Ballantine one is good, don't know for you pals.

In Spirit's picture
Evidence of God versus no

Evidence of God versus no evidence.

Theist beliefs vs Atheism

I am getting quite tired of some arguments especially from theists.

Who cares what one believes or does not believe. What one can prove or what one cannot prove.

Dear theists,

Does your God not repeatedly say that it's righteousness will be placed in the hearts of it's people?
Are those people not scattered throughout the world?
Therefore regardless of our beliefs and non beliefs is it not more important that righteousness is in our heart? Isn't that what makes for a better world to live in?

Preaching beliefs divides people. Teaching your children well makes for a whole new class of people on the same page. There is an entire list of what "well" is. Let each one use whatever gift they can accomplish wherever that gift comes from.

So whether this gift is passed on from parents or role models or from some belief in a higher power, what difference does it make. It's that gift that is important, not any divisive belief. That's what theism should be striving for.

Theists, don't judge atheists based on what they do or don't believe without knowing what is in their hearts. You don't come out looking very good. No need to convince anyone of any deity, just the good things that make us all united and better and I can assure you that many atheists have been taught...'well' and continue to pass it on to their children.

Remember the old saying?...the devil is in the details. Let go of the details, you're just bringing out the devil

Peace out from this old hippie.

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.