Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

10 Reasons Why Atheists Are Delusional

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Atheists/materialists/physicalist/naturalists are delusional. Here are 10 reasons why:

1. They dismiss morality as nothing more than strongly felt subjective preference, but admit they act as if morality is objective in nature.

2. They speak, act and hold others responsible for their behaviors as if we all have some metaphysical capacity to transcend and override the deterministic effects of our body’s physical state and causative processing, yet they deny any such metaphysical capacity (like free will) exists.

3. They deny truth can be determined subjectively while necessarily implying that their arguments and evidences are true and expecting others to subjectively determine that their arguments are true.

4. They deny that what is intelligently designed can be reliably identified when virtually every moment of their waking existence requires precisely that capacity.

5. They deny that some abstract concepts are necessarily true and objectively binding on our existence (such as the fundamental principles of math, logic and morality) yet reference them (directly or indirectly) as if they are exactly that.

6. They deny humans are anything other than entirely creatures of nature, yet insist that what humans do is somehow a threat to nature or some supposed natural balance.

7. They insist humans are categorically the same as any other animals, but then decry it when humans treat other humans the same way other animals treat their own kind (alpha male brutality, violence, etc), as if humans have some sort of obligation to “transcend” their “animal” nature.

8. They insist that physical facts are the only meaningful truths that exist, but then want to use force of law to protect subjective concepts that contradict physical facts, like “transgenderism”.

9. They insist spiritual laws that transcend the physical do not exist, but then insist that all humans are equal, when they factually, obviously are not equals at all – either physically or intellectually.

10. They pursue social systems that attempt to force the concept of equality on everyone as if they expect that through ignoring the physical realty of human inequality they can build a sound social system, which would be comparable to ignoring the inequality of building materials and insisting that they all be treated as equal when building a skyscraper.

Comments
zeroseven said:
Yes, I am from New Zealand. I know Helen Clark is an atheist as I know her personally. Sorry, I know that’s not actually good evidence from your perspective seeing as I’m delusional.
Okay, so since she's publicly stated that she is an agnostic and has avoided directly answering the question about her religious beliefs, we can conclude she is a liar. Not exactly a profound revelation wrt a politician, so ...
Regarding the rest of the population I am just speaking anecdotally and from my own experience.
On the one hand I applaud you being able to admit this; on the other, you don't seem to see the problem in a debate when you represent something as the factual state of affairs when you have absolutely no knowledge of the facts. Do you not understand that believing what you expressed about New Zealanders, stating it with authoritative conviction in a debate where such information can easily be accessed, points towards a cavalier disregard on your part for any factual or logical basis whatsoever for your views? IOW, zeroseven, you just made a claim up you had no actual knowledge about whatsoever because what you claimed coincided with your personal experience and views and what you wanted to think about your country.
Religion is never mentioned in political discourse. We don’t have anyone trying to teach religious notions in public schools. We have no movements trying to prevent the teaching of evolution in public schools. SSM was voted in by a conservative argument here. We were the first country to have a trans-gender member of parliament who was a hugely popular candidate in a very conservative rural electorate. If someone running for high office announced they rejected evolution and believed in creation, they would not get elected. That kind of thing. I don’t know why 72% of that sample said they believed in a god or higher power in 2008. But that is a very vague question that would include, for example, people on the AA programme. And people will say “yes” to that question without really believing it. People are often delusional about that…
Why should anyone think you are doing anything other than just making up claims about New Zealand based on your anecdotal experience and personal views that you have no factual basis for? If all you say above is true, one then wonders why Helen Clark feels the need to lie about her atheism and refer to herself as an "agnostic". See the logical problem there wrt the narrative you have painted about your country's general atheism? Wouldn't she be more likely to be elected if she just admitted she was an atheist and proclaimed it loudly and proudly? One might wonder, how can zeroseven have such an obviously distorted view of the population of New Zealand - so distorted that he will offer up in public an easily disprovable assertions about it? One answer would be: zeroseven is delusional wrt his fellow New Zealander's spiritual views.William J Murray
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
zeroseven,
Eugen, the thing is, we (us atheists) regard you guys as delusional. Unlike WJM here I just don’t go around telling you all the time.
Speaking only for myself, I don't regard anyone here as truly delusional. I can usually understand the positions of even those I disagree with well enough to see the logic behind them. And those who do agree with me are obviously not delusional. :-)daveS
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
zeroseven
Eugen, the thing is, we (us atheists) regard you guys as delusional.
Perhaps, but you cannot defend that claim. That is the difference.StephenB
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT
HeKS, just trying to parse your comment at 26. If one doesn't live like a delusion is true, or only pays lip service to it, then how are they delusional? If I suffer under the delusion that I will die if I get wet, but nevertheless enjoy having baths and running around in the rain, how is that in any practical sense a delusion? I think I would call that being deluded as to being deluded. In other words, not deluded.zeroseven
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
zerosever
WJM, the only place I get told I am delusional is here, so I don’t take it to heart.
I am afraid that you are getting pretty far afield. WJM didn't say that many or most atheists are delusional in every conceivable way. He said that many or most atheists are delusional in 10 specific areas. So far, you have argued that atheists are not delusional in other ways. I don't doubt that at all. I am sure that most atheists are not delusional about how to make money or pursue political power. That hardly matters. What we are discussing are the 10 ways in which most atheists are delusional. That you have not addressed even one of them indicates that you don't have an answer. If you were to tell me that I am delusional as a Theist, especially if you were as specific as WJM on the other side, I can assure you that I would have no problem countering each and every item.StephenB
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
Eugen, the thing is, we (us atheists) regard you guys as delusional. Unlike WJM here I just don't go around telling you all the time.zeroseven
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
Of note, sometimes atheists honestly admit that they cannot live consistently within their worldview:
Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, "Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get." An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, "The impossibility of free will ... can be proved with complete certainty." Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. "To be honest, I can't really accept it myself," he says. "I can't really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?",,, In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots -- that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one "can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free." We are "constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots." One section in his book is even titled "We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.",,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html
And in the following article, Dawkins himself admits that it would be 'intolerable' for him to live as if his atheistic worldview were actually true
Who wrote Richard Dawkins's new book? - October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html Faith and Science - Dr. Raymond Bohlin - video - (2015) (48:46 minute mark) https://youtu.be/vTIp1kgSqzU?t=2552
And if you can't live consistently within your worldview, then your worldview does not reflect reality and your worldview is therefore a delusion
Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
Of humorous note: It is funny for an atheist to complain about people pointing out that atheists have lost their minds when atheists themselves claim they have no mind.
"What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne - militant atheist Photo – an atheist contemplating his 'mind' http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H-kjiGN_9Fw/URkPboX5l2I/AAAAAAAAATw/yN18NZgMJ-4/s1600/rob4.jpg
bornagain77
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
Response to K-S @10: 1. I didn't make any argument that morality was objective or that a supernatural entity was involved. Atheists often claim morality is subjective, and several here and many more elsewhere agree that they act as if morality is objective. Insisting that X is not true while agreeing that all sane people act as if X is true is both hypocritical and delusional. If one agrees that there is no way to know if X (moral objectivism) is true, and if one agrees that all sane people must and do act as if X is true, it is delusional to insist that X is not true. 2. Again, my statement had nothing to do with god; it had to do with the propensity of many atheists to insist that free will is an illusion (doesn't exist) while talking and acting as if it does. (See #1). 3. You seem to have a problem focusing on the actual statements I make. It seems you are reacting to them from some psychological template you are imposing over my actual post. Many atheists argue that there is no such thing as absolute certainty, or even credible certainty; that "provisional scientific fact" is as close as we can come to truth, and that logic, math, and morality are subjective commodities that cannot be said to be objective arbiters of true statements and inferences. WRT those atheists, I'm pointing out the self-refuting nature of such a perspective when they argue as if there is some means of measuring or determining the truth-value of their argument under that proposed worldview. 4. I didn't say it was an atheism/theism issue. I'm pointing out the absurd perspective of many atheists we have encountered here over the years. I'm certainly not making a claim about ALL atheists. I'm pointing out the delusional characteristics of many of them. 5. I'm reference atheists here and elsewhere who have denied the objective, binding nature of logic. Just because you are not familiar with them is not my problem. We had several atheists get banned from this site some time back because they would not commit to the objective, binding nature of the principle of non-contradiction, thereby logically reducing anything they might say to nonsense. 6. What balance is there other than "natural" balance for any system in the world to be in? Is there a "non-natural" balance? How would one ascertain whether or not nature was "in balance"? Where does a "non-natural" balance come from? 7. What does it mean to be the "top" of the evolutionary tree? How does one objectively define what the "top" means? 8. Tell me then what meaningful truths exist other than physical facts, and how you came to understand them as truths. 9. I didn't say all atheists. It would be rather foolish to try and make a claim about all atheists, don't you think? How are we all better off if we treat each other equally? Should I treat a child like I treat an adult? Should I treat Joe as an equal to Linda if Linda is qualified for the job and Joe is not? Should I treat Dahmer as the equal of Gandhi? I doubt that is what you mean, so perhaps you could enlighten me about what you mean by "treating people equally", and then explain why you think that would make me better off. 10. Human inequality is the world you actually live in, physically speaking. Humans do not have equal size, strength, land speed, intellect, physical capabilities, agility, emotions, capacity for abstract thought, etc. They are not born into equal circumstances nor have access to equal resources. You see, theism provides the foundation for the belief that there is a spiritual commodity by which all humans are equal in their intrinsic value - their spiritual worth, so to speak, as moral agents in the world imbued with divine purpose. In that sense, many theists consider all humans equals and imbued with unalienable, equal rights from their creator. However, atheism/materialism/physicalism/naturalism has no foundation for such a sense of spiritual equality of intrinsic worth; all they have are the physical facts of the world. If all we are assessing are they physical facts of the world, no two humans are essentially equal because they have no essence other than that which objectively varies from human to human.William J Murray
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
07 "...electorate. If someone running for high office announced they rejected evolution and believed in creation, they would not get elected..." Wow! You atheists are very compassionate and open minded, mate. Except when you are not.Eugen
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
zerosevern
But I do get tired of being constantly told how delusional I am.
WJM is not simply calling atheists delusional, he is explaining why they are delusional, and has not singled out any individual. There is really not that much to debate about. When reason confronts atheism, atheism will lose.StephenB
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
WJM, the only place I get told I am delusional is here, so I don't take it to heart. Yes, I am from New Zealand. I know Helen Clark is an atheist as I know her personally. Sorry, I know that's not actually good evidence from your perspective seeing as I'm delusional. Regarding the rest of the population I am just speaking anecdotally and from my own experience. Religion is never mentioned in political discourse. We don't have anyone trying to teach religious notions in public schools. We have no movements trying to prevent the teaching of evolution in public schools. SSM was voted in by a conservative argument here. We were the first country to have a trans-gender member of parliament who was a hugely popular candidate in a very conservative rural electorate. If someone running for high office announced they rejected evolution and believed in creation, they would not get elected. That kind of thing. I don't know why 72% of that sample said they believed in a god or higher power in 2008. But that is a very vague question that would include, for example, people on the AA programme. And people will say "yes" to that question without really believing it. People are often delusional about that...zeroseven
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
[Stop trolling my thread, CF. - WJM]clown fish
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
"10 Reasons Why Atheists Are Delusional" I have to strongly disagree. Most of atheists I know, especially the outspoken ones, are pretty well educated and informed... I don't think they are delusional at all. There is just no way. Most of them just can't stand an idea of a transcendent/ superior being for the reasons of their own... And many of them might have some reasons...valid or not...to explain their stand.J-Mac
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
Zeroseven said:
Sorry, that was a bit sneery. But I do get tired of being constantly told how delusional I am. Still, usually I manage to turn the other cheek. Take the Nelson Mandela approach.
If you're constantly being told you are delusional, you might want to seriously consider the possibility.William J Murray
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
zeroseven said:
Well you have just diagnosed the vast majority of my fellow citizens as suffering from a psychiatric illness. I still find it amazing that a whole country could be infected with a psychiatric illness and yet still be so highly regarded in the world community.
Hmmm. Taking into account what zeroseven later says about a potential first woman head of the UN, I'm tentatively concluding that zeroseven is talking about New Zealand (Helen Clark being the UN chief candidate). Correct me if I'm wrong, zeroseven, and let me know if you're talking about some other country. Zeroseven claims that the "vast majority" of his fellow citizens are atheists (since atheists are the subject of my argument). Are they? Wikipedia says:
The International Social Survey Programme was conducted in New Zealand by Massey University in 2008. It received mail-responses from around one thousand New Zealanders above the age of 18, surveying issues of religious belief and practice. The results of this survey indicated that 72% of the population believe in God or a higher power, 15% are agnostic, and 13% are atheist (with a 3% margin of error).[11]
I couldn't find any more recent statistics that explicitly quantified the atheistic population. Perhaps zeroseven can supply some evidence for his claims? Otherwise, it appears zeroseven is delusional wrt the beliefs his fellow citizens (if he is indeed from New Zealand).
(And one of our most severely ill and deluded individuals may soon be the first female secretary general of the UN. Pretty good for someone suffering from an undiagnosed (well apart from your diagnosis) psychiatric illness).
If he is talking about Helen Clark, I couldn't find where she said she was an atheist. Perhaps zeroseven can direct us where such evidence exists. In any event, zeroseven seems to be making the claim that mental disorders are historically rare for heads of state. I wonder how zeroseven would evidence such a claim?William J Murray
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
Sorry, that was a bit sneery. But I do get tired of being constantly told how delusional I am. Still, usually I manage to turn the other cheek. Take the Nelson Mandela approach.zeroseven
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
[Stop trolling my thread, CF.- WJM]clown fish
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
zeroseven
These kinds of threads actually make me feel sorry for you guys. You seem so out of touch with the modern world. You remind me of Amish people.
Your sentiments are misplaced. Any sociologist or social psychologist will tell you that Christians are much happier than atheists, and also have a much greater sense of well being that their non-believing bretheren It isn't even close. Odds are that the people you are sneering at on this thread are much happier than you are.StephenB
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
[Stop trolling my thread, CF. -WJM]clown fish
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
These kinds of threads actually make me feel sorry for you guys. You seem so out of touch with the modern world. You remind me of Amish people.zeroseven
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
WJM, so a delusional disorder is actually a "psychiatric illness" according to Wiki. Well you have just diagnosed the vast majority of my fellow citizens as suffering from a psychiatric illness. I still find it amazing that a whole country could be infected with a psychiatric illness and yet still be so highly regarded in the world community. (And one of our most severely ill and deluded individuals may soon be the first female secretary general of the UN. Pretty good for someone suffering from an undiagnosed (well apart from your diagnosis) psychiatric illness).zeroseven
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
zeroseven offers up his rationale for why he is not delusional: because what he experiences is not what he'd expect if he were delusional. News flash, zeroseven: delusional people do not think what they are experiencing is what delusion would look like. I hate to contradict zeroseven's delusion about what a delusional disorders would look like, but from Wiki:
Delusional disorder is a psychiatric illness in which the patients present with delusions, but with no accompanying prominent hallucinations, thought disorder, mood disorder, or significant flattening of affect.[1][2] Delusions are a specific symptom of psychosis. Delusions can be bizarre or non-bizarre in content.[2]Non-bizarre delusions are fixed false beliefs that involve situations that could potentially occur in real life; examples include being followed or poisoned.[3] Apart from their delusions, people with delusional disorder may continue to socialize and function in a normal manner and their behavior does not generally seem odd or bizarre.[4]
Some symptoms of a deulusional disorder:
Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it. The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background. The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
It's a good thing then that atheists do not actually act out in accordance with their delusional beliefs; otherwise, they would not be able to live normal, successful, fulfilled lives.William J Murray
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
zeroseven
StephenB, I often wonder how that proverb is interpreted in the US, where material wealth seems to be more important than anything else (a la Donald Trump)
As a general rule, those who worship money will do anything to get it (and keep it.) Too many Americans, I think, have fallen into that trap. In my judgment, Trump, though rich, is actually fighting against rich elitists who would enslave or eliminate the middle class. I think he realizes that a countries GNP does not translate into success if 1% or less of the people have almost all the wealth. From what I have gathered, most truly rich people want to separate themselves from, and lord it over, plain ordinary working-class people. Though far from a perfect man, I don't think Donald Trump has that mind set.StephenB
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
Is this the same V. J. Torley who thinks that there is strong evidence for a flying priest? I guess I have a higher standard of proof than you do. UDEditors: This is where Barry's comment @ 28 is confirmed. CF got caught red handed lying his ass off. No acknowledgement; no apology; no mea culpa. Just move on to the next thing. clown fish
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
#3 should be "insist" instead of "deny?" Or am I getting mixed up?Phinehas
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
CF @ 25:
But, it is very telling (speaks volumes, is self referrentially incoherent, will lead us over the cliff to a broken back) that theists feel it necessary to fabricate a list to discredit atheists rather than create a list to support theism.
CF, you are a liar: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/no-evidence-for-gods-existence-you-say-a-response-to-larry-moran/ (one of many examples) It never ceases to amaze me that people like CF feel like they can say any damn thing they want, and when they get caught lying they just move on to the next damn thing as if they were not caught. I guess that's what it means be to a subjectivist. The whole "thou shalt not bear false witness" thing becomes entirely optional.Barry Arrington
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
zeroseven
Generally there are further mental health consequences to living a life like that. I look around the country I live in where religion has retreated to the very fringes of public life and I don’t see a society suffering from the problems I would expect to see if what you say is true. Quite the opposite.
What you are experiencing is the phenomenon of lag time. It takes many decades for the chickens to come home to roost. Its the same with an individual. When things are going well, a person (or a country) can form bad habits, the consequences of which will not be known for a long time. By contrast, when a person of country has become degraded, it takes a long time for the good habits to produce fruit. Further, whoever does well in society depends on the nature of that society. A good society is one in which it is easy to be good and hard to be bad. A bad society is one in which is it easy to be bad and hard to be good. In a good society, it is easy for a good man and hard for a bad man to be successful. In a bad society, it is easy for a bad man and hard for a good man to become successful.StephenB
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
zeroseven @22 I don't know why you would expect public life to fall apart as a result of atheists continuing to live life like objective moral values and duties really exist even though they will happily spend hours arguing that they don't, or like people have subjective experiences of life and think about things and have free will when even atheists who actually bother to think about these issues admit that atheism must necessarily deny the existence of these things. Society doesn't fall apart when people behave like the logically necessary implications of atheism are false. It falls apart when they start to act like these things are true.HeKS
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
Zeroseven, but you drive on the left side of the road. Isn't that evidence enough of mental delusion? :) But, it is very telling (speaks volumes, is self referrentially incoherent, will lead us over the cliff to a broken back) that theists feel it necessary to fabricate a list to discredit atheists rather than create a list to support theism. It is somewhat reminiscent of how ID supports their view by picking on evolution rather than pointing out the strengths of ID.clown fish
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
StephenB, I often wonder how that proverb is interpreted in the US, where material wealth seems to be more important than anything else (a la Donald Trump)zeroseven
June 8, 2016
June
06
Jun
8
08
2016
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply