3 Quick Reasons Why You Really Don’t Want to be an Atheist.


Atheists will often dress up their worldview in hope to make it seem appealing. For example, they commonly refer to themselves as rationalists, freethinkers, and give themselves all sorts of titles in hope to convey the impression of intellectual superiority. They also try to monopolize science and play it off against religion and belief in God which suggests that they wish to be the ones known for the employment of evidence and reason, and so on. But despite these attractive claims, how appealing is atheism really? We will look at several lines as to why I am convinced that atheism, if consistently applied, is exactly the opposite of appealing.

1. The Denial of Objective Meaning & Purpose in Life.

Most people I know want to live meaningful lives, and this includes atheists. People hope to live lives that ultimately make a difference, and that results in something good. Perhaps one even hopes to be remembered in some way for the hard work they put into certain projects after they die. But, on atheism, is there really any meaning to one’s existence at all?

I would argue not. On atheism, specifically naturalism and materialism (the two major philosophies embraced by atheists), the universe exists simply because it exists, and there is no ultimate objective purpose for its existence. The difference with many religions is that they invest the universe with spiritual and theological significance. Often our decisions in life have eternal significance. But atheism proposes the exact opposite of this. On atheism we exist by chance alone (there was no supernatural being who created us for any purpose), and we will cease to exist when we die. On such a view no ultimate meaning can be attached to our lives. It would not have even mattered if we did not exist in the first place, and everything that the human race has ever discovered and all the remarkable achievements that we have thought we’ve made (from the sciences to the philosophies and all in between) will face the same fate.

But don’t atheists live meaningful lives? Well, yes and no. True, on atheism we might be able to create the subjective illusion of meaning. This is the sort of meaning we attach to self-fulfillment in our moments of pleasure and work. However, we should not confuse this with objective, ultimate meaning. If we remove God from the picture we lose the transcendent standard that grounds our existence with any objective meaning.

It is a tough pill to swallow for on one hand the consistent atheist creates subjective meaning for himself while being cognitively aware that when its reduced to its constituent elements the human being possesses no more significance than other life forms on the planet, including the likes of mosquitos, or cows, or dogs.

I believe that this makes atheism, if consistently applied to one’s life, unlivable. Imagine waking up each day having to face this reality.

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

-Richard Dawkins (1)

“At root, there is only corruption, and the unstemmable tide of chaos. Gone is purpose; all that is left is direction. This is the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe.

-Peter Atkins (Quoted by Richard Dawkins in Unweaving the Rainbow, p. ix)

2. The Denial of Objective Morality

I recall the harrowing narrative penned by the Spanish Bartolomé de las Casas in his History of the Indies (1561):

“They took infants from their mothers’ breasts, snatching them by the legs and pitching them headfirst against the crags or snatched them by the arms and threw them into the rivers, roaring with laughter and saying as the babies fell into the water, “Boil there, you offspring of the devil!”

De las Casas informed his readers about events taking place during the colonization of the West Indies and the evils perpetuated against its indigenous populations by the invaders, and what I suspect is that what the invading conquistadors did to these babies and their mothers was no less than a moral atrocity. I would venture to call it evil. Unsurprisingly,  I think most people would agree, and suppose that what was committed by the colonialists was a grievous crime, and an act no less than evil.

But how would such be viewed on atheism? As we’ve seen above, if atheism is true, and if we’re no more than chance products with no ultimate meaning in life, and no purpose either, it seems irrational, if not impossible, to claim that any acts are really evil. Similarly, it is equally absurd to claim that any acts are really good. Rather, what we are left with is an indifferent universe within which some creatures get hurt and others get lucky. It’s little more than probabilities and chance what these creatures will face off with. The babies and their mothers chronicled in the account by de las Casas were just unlucky. We might feel the pain of loss, tragedy, and feel that certain things are evil. However, this is merely explained by our superior cognitive faculties that give off these sense than these feelings having any objective meaning to them.

The intellectual challenge for atheists, as is admitted by atheist scholars, is that if one removes God from the equation then one by definition removes the transcendent moral standard and laws set by God. Obviously, if God does not exist, as they believe, then there can be no such transcendent moral standard, and thus we have to create these laws ourselves. The problem is that this view of morality slides into moral relativism. For example, on relativism, given that moral values and duties are relative, one cannot really deem the behaviours of other tribes, people, and nations as morally inferior. If one nation wishes to stone homosexuals for their orientation, another nation, which seeks to upheld the human rights of homosexuals, cannot deem such behaviour as morally inferior. Or consider the example of the colonization of the West Indies. If atheism is true, then it is only my subjective opinion that genocide, or throwing babies off of cliffs or burning them alive in boiling water, is morally wrong. But the conquistadors had a very different view of the matter. They thought they were doing a morally good act, and why not have some fun in the process? Yet how could I say on atheism that what they did was morally evil in any objective sense? My moral view has no more significance than theirs.

This is undoubtedly a point of tension in the lives of atheists. They know that by consequence of their naturalistic and materialistic worldview that objective moral values do not exist yet they continue to make an endless stream of moral judgments, despite these moral judgements possessing no ultimate significance whatsoever.

“In fact, outright atheism remains a minority confession, and the modern Western world has witnessed the proliferation of alternative ‘spiritualities’ of various kinds,” and a major reason for this is that “Many, it seems, are dissatisfied with atheism as the ‘final truth’ of the human condition.

-Gavin Hyman (2)

3. The Denial of Freewill

On atheism only particles and physical forces exist. But if that is true, then human beings don’t have free will because our actions are completely determined by the laws of physics. Despite the fact that we feel that we possess freewill all of our decisions in life are attributable to some other factor (genetic, environmental, and biochemical) that preceded it. We might think we have freewill but on atheism this is just a very powerful illusion akin to the illusion that some acts are objectively morally evil. This rejection of freewill is what is known as determinism, a philosophical view that appears inescapable on naturalism and materialism.

The implications of such a view are significant. For example, there is the obvious difficulty of moral judgement. For instance, if freewill is an illusion then no perpetrator of a crime, whether that crime be rape or hurling babies from cliffs, could rightfully be convicted of the crime. To use another example, imagine if two friends, John and Tom, are mountain climbing and a sudden gust of wind blows John into Tom which results in Tom falling to his death. It would be unreasonable to hold John morally responsible for Tom’s death for Tom’s demise was a result of external factors beyond John’s control that resulted in John knocking Tom off of the cliff. I believe this analogy applies to our decisions on determinism. If an individual’s decisions have been determined by factors other than herself then she cannot be held morally responsible for them. A leading proponent of this view is the atheist neuroscientist Sam Harris. Harris reasons that on determinism,

“we can no longer locate a plausible hook upon which to hang our conventional notions of personal responsibility… You will do whatever it is you do, and it is meaningless to assert that you could have done otherwise” (3).

I engaged Harris’ essay with much interest in which he grapples with the implications. He uses the example of a family assaulted by thieves. The thieves break in, murder the family, burn down the house, and flee the crime. Harris explains that our condemnation of this act is predicated on the belief that these thieves had the choice to abstain from committing the crime. Harris, however, contends that given determinism and the determining preceding factors that resulted in these men committing the crime, the men actually had no choice but to commit it. Harris says that if he were in the shoes of one of these men he would too have committed the crime. There is simply no alternative. Harris makes sure his readers know that he condemns such behaviour, but such condemnation seems entirely irrational on atheism and philosophical determinism.

“Everything that has or will happen was determined at the big bang — and given that our brains are part of the physical universe, free will does not exist.”

-Graham Lawton (The Riddle of Free Will Goes Unsolved, 2011)


26 responses to “3 Quick Reasons Why You Really Don’t Want to be an Atheist.

  1. So in summary, your reasons are:
    1) You want there to be some absolute externally supplied meaning to life, so you choose to believe in something out of wishful thinking. But Atheists happily find meaning in their lives just the same. We don’t need to have it handed to us. The fact that you’re looking for some eternal meaning, is (as noted) just wishful thinking. And wishful thinking is an awful excuse for believing in something.

    2) Looks like a rehash of 1.

    3) Objective moral values – again – wishful thinking. Just because you WANT there to be some objective source of morality, doesn’t mean that it exists. Furthermore, you’d be hard pressed to find a significant majority of Christians who will agree on a great many of your “objective moral values” – the primary exceptions being values that are shared nearly universally among Christians and non-Christians alike (e.g. proscriptions against murder, etc.)

    4) No freewill? Nonsense! You have no scientific basis for declaring free will to be nonexistent under a materialist worldview. Scientists don’t claim (yet) to have anywhere near a good enough understanding of consciousness, to draw that conclusion. But even if it were true – it’s still just an argument based on wishful thinking.

    5) Practical impossibility: I’ve already refuted your arguments about meaning and purpose (the fact that they aren’t handed to us doesn’t mean we don’t find meaning and purpose). I’ve likewise refuted your claim about free will. Your conclusions in this item are therefore not supported.

    So – why accept atheism – well that goes back to your opening remarks. You note (with disdain) that atheists refer to themselves as rationalists, evidence, and reason. Your feeble attempts (mostly appeals to wishful thinking) notwithstanding, those ARE the reasons to accept atheism.

    And in your conclusion, you fall into the classic fallacy of Christian apologists – the false dichotomy. You presume that there are only two choices – Atheism or Christianity. There are many thousands of choices. Yet (once again) you argue for your choice based on no reason other than wishful thinking (which is NOT a rational basis for a decision of this sort). Your claim that you have the evidence to back it up is patently false.

    • I might address some of these.

      1) This is begging the question. I can find meaning without believing in God, but that wasn’t the argument. You’re affirming what we already know, that life has meaning. We say life has meaning BECAUSE God exists, not because we believe He exists. To clarify, it is this you need to disprove.

      3)”Objective moral values – again – wishful thinking.”
      Hmm, what I’m going to do is say you’re correct here for sake of argument. Is hoping objective morality exists a bad thing as your tone seems to imply? Is hoping that torturing infants for fun is always wrong bad? That’s a virtuous thing to hope for in my book. I’ve never meant anyone who disagrees, so wouldn’t you say I’m justified in believing that, hey, maybe torturing infants for fun is wrong in everyone’s eyes? You may say “Well there are people sick enough to do so,” and that would be a valid argument if the person committing the act saw it as something morally right.

      4) I think we do have free will, but only in the sense that it is a spiritual gift that frees us from sin. We don’t have free will in and of ourselves. I’m confused why you think that stance is nonsense. Do you disagree with Stephen Hawking when he says,

      “It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behaviour is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.”-Stephen Hawking.

      You say “You have no scientific basis for declaring free will to be nonexistent under a materialist worldview.” Huh? Where is this coming from? What research have you actually done? I’m baffled.

      • 1) So you’re declaring that life has meaning because of an unproven assertion that God exists. Sorry, but the burden of proof of that assertion is on you.

        2) I didn’t say that hoping for objective morality was bad (or good). I’m just saying that using hope as a basis to believe in the existence of mythical beings is not rational. I hope I win the lottery, but I don’t base my budget on that hope.

        4) Stephen Hawking’s comments on free will began with “It’s hard to imagine…” He didn’t say it’s impossible. And I’ll reiterate (since you didn’t comment on this) – Scientists don’t claim (yet) to have anywhere near a good enough understanding of consciousness, to draw that conclusion.

        As for your final comment “You say “You have no scientific basis for declaring free will to be nonexistent under a materialist worldview.” Huh? Where is this coming from? What research have you actually done? I’m baffled.” What are you baffled about??? You’re asking what research I’VE done, but James is the one who claimed that “On atheism only particles and physical forces exist. But if that is true, then human beings don’t have free will or the ability to reason. “

  2. Good post, James. I can’t resist making a reference to one of my all time favourite films here that I think sums up atheism quite honestly 🙂

    “You are the all-singing all-dancing crap of the world!”- Tyler Durden.

    I believe that character is the honest conclusion of a lack of belief in God personified. Without God, humans are just another animal, no different than the ant we step on without a care. We have no real identity. However, if we were made in the image of God, and He created us to see each other as He sees us, the existence of human worth makes a lot more sense than a mere bias to our own kind.

    • No different from an ant? Are you seriously saying that you can’t see the enormous qualitative and quantitative difference between a human and an ant (without believing in God)?

      But it appears that (like James), your reason for believing in God boils down to wishful thinking. It would be nice if there was a Santa Claus too, but the rational person will choose not to believe in him just the same.

      • That wasn’t my philosophy, that was Tyler’s from Fight Club. Haven’t you seen it, Richard? If you can explain why Tyler’s views are wrong through the eyes of atheism I’m more than happy to adjust my views 🙂 Allow me to parody a famous atheist line. “Christianity is wishful thinking like getting a tooth pulled out is a reward.” Santa doesn’t tell us to take up a cross, now, does he? He doesn’t tell us to love the ones we hate the most, I’m sure. Also, do you have a prejudice against the Easter Bunny? You never mention the poor fella. All the atheists are using Santa. Honestly, I think there’s a conspiracy going on here…..

        • I’m confused. Are you saying you don’t believe what you said in your post? As for explaining why his views are wrong in the eyes of an atheist, please re-read my original response to James’ article – in particular on item 1.

          No, Santa doesn’t tell us to take up a cross or to love our enemies, but he does tell us to be nice, rather than naughty. He also tells us he’s watching, and knows whether we are naughty or nice. And he tells us that if we are nice, we’ll be rewarded in the future.

          But how does the fact that Christianity promotes those particular tenets change anything? Every religion (and the belief in Santa Claus) has its own set of beliefs. Lots of other religions and philosophies promote love of our fellow man in various forms or fashions. Does that somehow mean they must all be true?

          Your parody is rather strange – given that Christianity teaches that its adherents will be rewarded with an eternity in paradise – and that any cross one takes up in this life is therefore a small price to pay. You and James have both argued that belief in Christianity gives one a sense of meaning and worth, something lots of folks desperately long for. So your claims that there’s no reward are disingenuous at best.

          I left out the Easter Bunny in the interest of brevity, but the same principle applies, just as it does for leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy, and all sorts of other mythical beings. None of them are supported by any objective evidence, and all are supernatural beings, by definition. Lots of folks would like to believe in them, and some actually do.

          • I quoted Tyler Durden and I believe his views are true and justified under atheism. I don’t believe them myself, however, because I’m Christian. That brings me to your first point in your original comment:

            “Atheists happily find meaning in their lives just the same. We don’t need to have it handed to us.”

            The problem is I’m sure James didn’t say “atheists cannot find meaning.” He said atheism itself does not support meaning. Say I find meaning in my family. That’s all well and good, but can I tell you why my family has immeasurable worth to me? I can say they raised me. I can say they’re human or that they’re nice people. But that hardly means Tyler’s quote is wrong. I’m just choosing to reject his views because….of willful ignorance, maybe? You’re begging the question, not arguing or explaining anything.

            “Lots of other religions and philosophies promote love of our fellow man in various forms or fashions. Does that somehow mean they must all be true?”

            I don’t believe I said that because Christianity teaches love it must be true. If I didn’t argue it I’m not going to defend it.

            “Your parody is rather strange – given that Christianity teaches that its adherents will be rewarded with an eternity in paradise – and that any cross one takes up in this life is therefore a small price to pay.”

            I’m not seeing it. My wishful thinking says it wants reward without the work. That’s not Christianity. Furthermore, the view that just because you believe means you get the same reward as everyone else is false. Heaven is honor, not merely paradise, and honor is something you need to work to achieve. Those who simply believe without putting the work in will not get a reward. In modern thought, they’ll probably be scrubbing toilets for eternity. That still doesn’t satisfy my wishful thinking.

            “I left out the Easter Bunny in the interest of brevity, but the same principle applies, just as it does for leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy, and all sorts of other mythical beings.”

            How are you so serious? lol. Richard, you need to laugh mate. Life’s too short to be so serious when talking about the Easter Bunny. Here:https://llwproductions.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/easter-humor-bunny-from-the-1960s.jpg

            • Well, you’re right, atheism doesn’t provide meaning, but it doesn’t pretend to. I can’t believe I have to explain this, but atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That’s it. Technically, it’s not a worldview, it’s a non-worldview. You’re assuming that the default position is belief, and I reject that idea. The fact that where you were born and who your parents are overwhelmingly determines your religion proves that.

              • Care to see how I defined atheism in my first comment:

                “I believe that character is the honest conclusion of a LACK OF BELIEF in God.”

                Please read my comment before accusing me of ignorance. Furthermore, I couldn’t care less how you define atheism. A person who doesn’t believe in hygiene and a person who lacks hygiene are both going to end up dirty in the end, worldview or non-worldview. What matters is how you live.

                I don’t see BELIEF as the default. One hasn’t a clue to mathematics until they discover it, for example. Same with God.

                “The fact that where you were born and who your parents are overwhelmingly determines your religion proves that.”

                Hm, tell that to Peter Hitchens.

  3. James writes, “Given what we’ve just seen, why not consider Christianity?”

    Many atheists have considered Christianity. This atheist, for example. I was a Christian for a long time. However, ultimately, I stopped believing its claims. This was painful for me; it still is. Unfortunately, in the absence of a literal blue pill, I believe what evidence and reason compel me to believe.

    I don’t insist that Christianity is not true; I don’t insist that theism is a lie. I state merely the fact of my own disbelief. Maybe you are capable of staring at the face of your own belief or disbelief and declaring that the opposite is true. Maybe, having declared it, the opposite becomes the genuine truth for you. If this is the case, what a wonderful, marvelous thing. I wish that I had the same capability, but I don’t.

    • I was once also a Christian. Giving up on those beliefs was not painful for me though. The closest thing to pain I felt was in two areas:
      1) I took a long time to reject my Christian beliefs. During that time I had intellectual discomfort (cognitive dissonance) as I could not reconcile my beliefs with the objective evidence.
      2) Once I made the decision to disbelieve, it was a huge relief (due to the resolution of the cognitive dissonance). But I did have the same problem that many of the deconverted have – that of coming out of the closet with Christian friends and family, some of whom were not at all accepting of my atheism.

      As for your final thoughts – I wouldn’t wish on anyone, the ability to subvert their intellect to wishful thinking.

      • I think that many people do have the ability to subvert their intellect to wishful thinking. Further, in itself, I don’t think this ability is a bad thing.

        For instance, let’s suppose that I alone knew, incontrovertibly, that every human on earth was going to die horribly tomorrow, and that it couldn’t be stopped. Speaking personally, I would share this information with no one. Who could it possibly benefit, after all? I’d even conceal the information from my own mind, if possible.

        • I don’t agree with your example. While I would agree with your decision in that case, the decision to remain quiet is not subverting your intellect. Rather, it’s actually using your intellect to make a rational decision – to avoid panic, etc. And there is likewise no wishful thinking involved… You wouldn’t be wishing that the world could somehow be saved if only you remain silent.

          As for concealing it from your own mind – I’m skeptical. I think that most people would try to make the best possible use of their last day…. taking the day off work, spending time with their families, and/or doing things on their bucket lists.

  4. 1. Finding meaning in life is different for everyone. The fact that there is no afterlife means that I have to find meaning in THIS life, not in some afterlife that will never occur. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the Earth, because it’s the only life we have.

    2. See #1.

    3. Morality, including Biblical morality, changes with societal change. Example: 1 Corinthians 14:34: “Women should remain silent in the churches” Female pastors might dispute that. Slavery used to be defended using Bible verses too. So, what was that about objective morality again?

    4. The fact that free will doesn’t exist does not mean our actions are pre-determined. That’s a false dichotomy. Not only does free will not exist, it CAN’T exist. There is the illusion of free will, but not actual free will. If you choose not to, say, steal a stapler from work because you feel God will punish you, have you made a free choice? No, you made that choice based on outside influnces. No choice we make, from whether or not to kill someone to what sort of mustard to have on our pastrami sandwich, is made free of outside influence.

    5. This is kind of a rehash of #1, and such a word salad it’s hard to respond to. “God” isn’t evil because gods don’t exist. People can be evil. If one finds meaning in life by believing in a god, that doesn’t mean that a god exists; it only means that the belief in a god exists. I don’t see how belief in a god gives your life meaning. I find meaning in my life all over the place: in my work, in my hobbies and interests, in my family and friends, etc. It seems to me a very empty existence to only live for one’s invisible slave master.

    C the A: How do you know Christianity is the one true religion? How do you know the Bible is accurate? If this afterlife described in the Bible is so great, why not kill yourself so you can get there sooner? (Please note, I’m not asking you to kill yourself, I’m just curious why one wouldn’t) If you don’t want to kill yourself, why bother taking care of yourself? Don’t bother eating well or exercising, you’re just delaying your meeting with God!

    • I agree with most of your points. A couple of exceptions though.
      4) I don’t agree with the presumption that free will doesn’t exist. As I’ve noted elsewhere, science does not yet understand consciousness well enough to make that declaration. The fact that there are influences does not preclude free will. Influences are not the same as determinants.

      Re: Your question: ” If this afterlife described in the Bible is so great, why not kill yourself so you can get there sooner?” They’ve got that covered – since most Christians believe suicide to be a sinful act (a “mortal sin” in some circles), committing suicide would disqualify them from that afterlife.

    • I am intrigued by your comment that free will does not, and indeed cannot, exist. May I ask you a hypothetical question:-

      If some thug came up to you in the street, pointed a gun at your head, and said: “A few seconds ago I decided to shoot you, so unfortunately there’s nothing I can do about it now, is there?” How would you answer him?

    • There being no afterlife is not a fact, just an assertion. There are many accounts of people who’s brains and hearts weren’t functioning and still experienced things, with even greater awareness then when in ones body. Many of them give contradictory information from others but veridical ndes are vastly more consistent.
      It doesn’t make any sense to be annoyed by the belief in the afterlife. It is the only way there could be a hope to have. If there were no eternal continuation of life, there would be no reason for anything to exist and no reason to care about anything. But people and animals have love and care for others and what we experience in life. There would be no point for any of those feelings and the will to live to evolve and be inherited if all will eventually die and that be the end of it. There would be no advantage for anything then if it’s all literally for nothing.

      • Do you have any documented, scientifically validated “accounts of people whose brains and hearts weren’t functioning and still experienced things….”?

        I am not annoyed by a belief in the afterlife. I get annoyed when people make decisions that affect others, based on beliefs that have no rational basis. I get annoyed when people strive to set public policy based on their ancient myths and superstitions. I get annoyed when people argue that they just “know” something, in the absence of any supporting objective evidence (such claims are NOT knowledge, but rather are nothing more than opinions – no matter how strongly they may be held). I get annoyed when people point to the Bible (or any other book), and declare it to be infallible, in spite of numerous internal inconsistencies (e.g. Jesus’ last words), as well as countless claims that have been overwhelmingly disproved (e.g. the age of the universe).

        As for your contention that “… there would be no reason for anything to exist…”, you seem to be declaring that there must be an afterlife, for no other reason than wishful thinking. Yes, it would be nice if we could all live forever in eternal bliss, and that natural desire is no doubt a significant underlying motive behind the invention of thousands of religions. But such desires are irrelevant as arguments for or against an afterlife. If I wished strongly enough that I could fly, would that prove that I could?

        The simple fact is that there is no compelling objective evidence for an afterlife. If there was – well, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

  5. Once science discovered that the Universe had a beginning, a starting point, just as the Bible describes it, that from nothing came this marvellous place to be, the evidence for God was there. And now that a beginning has been found, the evidence for God is in place. For nothing cannot create our Universe. Only a being outside of time and space can. No matter how hard atheists yell, ‘God of the gaps’ at us, the Big Bang is the big evidence…

    • Sorry, but your logic is fatally flawed. The fact that the universe had a beginning, in no way proves a creator. There are multiple reasonable hypotheses as to the state of things before the big bang, and what may have initiated the big bang, none of which requires a creator. For example, one hypothesis is that all the matter of the universe already existed, but was compressed into an infinitesimally small volume (essentially the mother of all black holes). But within that black hole, there were quantum fluctuations that at some point caused the big bang to occur spontaneously.

      This is not unlike the routine phenomenon of radioactive decay, which happens randomly and spontaneously with no external agent.

      You make the same mistake that religious folks have made for millennia, in leaping to a “god of the gaps” conclusion, just because we don’t (yet) understand how/why something happened. Those same folks once attributed the weather, earthquakes, disease, the motions of the planets, etc. to the hand of god and/or demons at various times.

      • I am always amused by atheists who ridicule those who believe in an intelligent supernatural Creator, and yet are quite happy to place all their own unshakeable faith in implausible, unprovable, unsubstantiated, and totally irrational nonsense masquerading as “science”.

Let me know your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s