Is God All In The Mind?

[Mr Walker]

Atheists and theists can well put the same amount and time of energy into thinking about this problem. They just employ different starting points and ways of thinking. That doesn't make one side either more energetic nor more intelligent. It, rather, reflects their most fundamental beliefs and understandings about the nature of themselves and their universe.

[+Link of Hyrule]

At least athiests are trying figure out how the universe started, instead of the mentally lazy religionists "well god it". L.M.A.O.

You do realise it was a Catholic who proposed the theory of the Big Bang, right? Edited January 17, 2015 by Paranoid Android

[+Link of Hyrule]

PA

What I get from reading your comments here recently is that while you answer No! to the topic question, Is God all in the mind?, that the basis for this is faith. So, it would seem fair to venture that your answer to a related question, "Are our beliefs about God all in the mind? might be Yes.

That would be a fair call, 8bits.

For example, you mentioned the feeding of the 5000 as a miracle. In other words, you discern in a natural and historical event, that some people had a meal together, the hand of God, that what food was available could not have fed so many people naturally.

And yet we can see over the four canonical Gospels the development of this interpretation of the event. There is no support in Mark for supernatural causation.

And this is where we must part ways and disagree, I think the account even in Mark is intended to be taken as a miraculous event.

I suppose the good news is that that places the question of God outside the scope of science, probably permanently, independently of any future progress of science, and irreversibly (so much for the antittheist fantasy of "God of the gaps" as an origin-of-belief narrative). The bad news is that nobody has much hope of ever persuading anybody else, not even the party who is factually correct, unless a miracle occurs.

And that is something that I feel quite comfortable with. I can't empirically prove my position, but I've had personal experiences that I simply cannot ignore.

~ Regards, PA

[GoldenWolf]

You do realise it was a Catholic who proposed the theory of the Big Bang, right?

I would say he didn't have much faith in "god".

[Occult1]

For your view you must assume a transcendent omnipotent creator which after existing for an eternity ( a logical impossibility), it spoke a magic word and miraculously brought a universe into existence. Now you tell me which idea strains credulity more?

Not really. How should I know that 'God' is omnipotent or existed for eternity? I would venture and say that isn't necessery. Based on my limited understanding of the world, I can only theorized - without knowing for a fact - that 'God', the prime mover, originate from a deeper reality, one that lies beneath the thin layer of events that we call existence and reality. Accepting this possiblity, it becomes reasonable to view the Universe or Multiverse as a physical manifestation of our metaphysical progenitor, or a great Thought. It is my personal belief that since we are of our Creator, in this fragmentary sense, we are bound to come back to this deeper reality, where we know who or what we are at a fundamental level and what is our purpose.

A lot of Atheists can't seem to think outside the box of classical monotheism when it comes to the concept of 'God'. I would suggest you look at pantheism, panentheism or deism for a broader view.

Edited January 17, 2015 by sam_comm

[+Link of Hyrule]

The only reason that science cannot measure it is because there is no evidence, which to some suggests questions why then people believe in it. Incorporeal things could be studied by science potentially if there was something to examine; science hasn't walled off 'supernatural' things from being able to be studied because of their nature, it's because of the lack of evidence. In this respect, the problem with science not being able to study spiritual things is the same as its inability to study leprechauns and centaurs, there is no evidence, and thus, 'science is silent' on these issues to the same degree.

With respect, I believe the term "supernatural" by its very nature is distinct from "natural", which the realm of science operates in. And sure, that may put it in the same basket as leprechauns and centaurs, but that still leaves me with personal experience that God exists. And on that note, I simply cannot (as noted to 8bits in the post immediately before this) ignore.

If God broke the laws of nature to create a miraculous event, then there could feasibly be evidence of that that could be studied depending on what the miracle was. Again, I don't know why you think the resurrection is a matter of science, I think because it has a physical/material component to it, but from our perspective now given the current lack of evidence, the resurrection is no more able to be studied than the afterlife.

I suppose since we cannot go back 2000 years and observe the event it isn't a matter of science anymore, but that really wasn't the intention of my point. I'm saying that it is generally agreed within the scientific community that once you're dead, that's it. There's no coming back. And leaving aside coroner mistake (oops, I guess his pulse was just very very slow), that is true. So to assert that someone broke this rule 2000 years ago is a contradiction of science - hence the claim of miracle. Compare this to other claims of religion like "the soul exists after the body dies" - that is a completely different thing to whether Jesus rose from the dead, to me that seems pretty clear.

I'm not sure you are arguing against this, but the reason I keep repeating the point that it's the lack of evidence, not necessarily the very nature of the spirit world, that prevents scientific study is because I think there are attempts to 'shield' spiritual assertions from the implications of its inability to be studied, by asserting that science is in principle unable to study them. I don't think that's the case, again, all it takes is one ghost.

And if we ever scientifically observe a ghost I'll revisit my position on the matter Until then I'm happy to stand by what I said.

[+Hammerclaw]

At least athiests are trying figure out how the universe started, instead of the mentally lazy religionists "well god it". L.M.A.O.

No, we try to find out all that too. They give credit to nothing and preen themselves on how scientific they are, while we give credit to God and they laugh us to scorn.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Perhaps I missed it, but who are these ancient theologians, I would be interested to know when the Bible was first interpreted.

Hi psyche, part of the reason it's taken so long to respond to you is that I've been trying to set aside the time to read the article I remember reading this in. I've just finished reading that article and it didn't actually go into ancient theologians. Wherever I read it, I specifically remember the name Maimonides - he's a Jew, and acknowledges the poetic nature of creation. As to the article I did read it was about 19th Century theologians responding to evolution, and noting that thoughts at the time weren't as opposed to evolution as modern people might think. Particularly considering several of them are the authors of what became known as "The Fundamentals", and which modern Fundamentalism allegedly hails from, theologians such as B.B. Warfield and Simon Orr, having no problem with the idea of evolution, provided a theistic context, of course. Even before these guys, before even Darwin, the philosopher Hegel suggested a form of evolution/natural selection (though it's ambiguous as far as I can tell whether he was a Christian or not - he was educated at a protestant university, but he wasn't necessarily a believer).

It's not what I would call proof, it is more what I would call yet another independent evaluation, but this is where religion seems incredibly blinkered to me, you are taking what even you describe as poetry, and ascribing historical record to it. Words do not do that, data does. And data is where science made God redundant, you do not have anything on that level, and claiming that this is a non material subject simply does not help matter.

What you have written is interesting and well thought out, but that is it, it is not researched, it is well thought out, no data backs these assumptions. It strikes me as a theologians modern view of the Bible rather than a convincing interpretation.

And I have to say, considering Plato, I feel your references to poetry allude to the bible being a fabrication with a good thousand years of amendments, it almost reminds me of how the tale of Atlantis got blown out of proportion by Ignatius Donnelly, and now many people think Atlantis was a real place, when it was only ever in Platos head.

Tenure is not proof. One cannot start from a default position of "this is correct because it is old" and then mitigate incorrect references. That just strikes me as hindsight, not forethought.

What I wrote nevertheless remains true, if there were not such a poetic indicator there's no way I could reinterpret it and would have to either accept the biblical account as true, or reject it as inaccurate.

At the end of the day, your interpretation is not the one that is being taught by the Church, the literal view is.

Which Church are you talking about psyche? Plenty of them teach theistic evolution. The Pope's gone on record as saying such, and though I'm not Catholic he does represent the largest single denomination of Christianity on the planet. Sure, some churches still teach creationism, some even dogmatically and intolerantly so, but many do not, and many church-goers are just like me in accepting theistic evolution. You live in Australia, you should know what most Australians think (unless Queensland is well behind the rest of us, which *sarcasm approaching* wouldn't surprise considering how behind you are in everything else - seriously, don't take that serious, it's a NSW/QLD rivalry joke).

More so than.

Again, we are back to being asked to consider a verbal as fact without actual evidence. No modern miracles seems a bit of a red flag to be honest.

And I've already said that things like this I take on faith. I'm not asking you to accept them as well

Well, as I said, I do not expect you to share those, but it is a big ask to expect a critical thinker to believe you have actually had a supernatural experience. Too many mundane things happen that people consider supernatural every single day. With all due respect, I cannot fathom why you would simply not be another one.

I think you found what you wanted to find, it worked with your perceptions, and that was that. I feel if you were a seeker of the truth you would not stop at religion, as it really is not answer, it is just Have faith that an answer exists which is beyond you, but held by a supernatural being. People like James Randi demystifies these experiences, and I have no doubt that with proper investigation, everything can be explained adequately without needing to refer to the Supernatural, which really is just another word for imagination.

I believe the operative word in this section is YOU feel that I shouldn't stop at religion for an answer. I think no such thing

Handle what? I do not care how you live your life, that is not for me to say. I am here for discussion. If you prefer to be theologian, go right ahead, I am not going to say your are bad or stupid to do so, I feel religion itself shows it's own faults, and mentioning that has created several avenues of hostility. People feel threatened, but I can only put that down to their faith not being as strong as they state it is, and deep down, know this is what I say it is. Not real.

Hard facts are that science can tell us how the Universe and we got here, and there are mountains of evidence which stand behind a natural Universe, not one created by God. Religion goes back to man, no two ways about it, but man claims this is the word of God imparted to man. That is not fact, the former is which is supported by swathes of evidence.

Of course, in the very same way your belief does not affect me. I have been there, done that, and I feel moved on. Some have the arrogant audacity to state what my life is like, and how I am, which is not AT ALL Christian, yet claim to be devout, I have seen many very non Christian attitudes from people claiming to be Christian over the last 6 months, which are personal as your experiences be, but greatly disillusion me with regards to a Christian outlook. What I have seen insists that morality is not at all related to Christianity.

No I do not consider that neither of us is right, as I say science gives us ultimate detail, but we do not have a say in it like we do with religion. We are observers where science is concerned, so there is nothing to get wrong other than description and further observation tends to correct any error there, we are not part of the process. All we do is explain what we see. Religion relies on a tenuous claim that God spoke to man.

As far as I can see, the supernatural is disqualified, it simply does not exist and all claims of it are personal. To me, that just does not make sense, but indicates ego, man feeling so important that the most powerful being in the Universe consults him. Personal assurances that it does exist are not supported by anything more than personal assurances so from a rational point of view, until someone can prove to me that the supernatural does exist, for all intensive purposes, it appears very much to be another tall tale. To say science is the study of nature I find a strawman. Even that which is beyond nature has some sort of substance to exist, even if one we cannot identify, and therefore is subject to laws of science. We do not know exactly what happens is in a black hole either, but we know what goes into it, and how it works.

You say you don't care how I live, but your words don't really bare that out. I'll accept your word on it, but your continual reference to the redundancy of religion (which you still haven't proven, just asserted over and over in the hope that saying it enough will make it so) and the desire to edjacate (sic) religion out of the coming generations does suggest that you care at least a little.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion, I'll get to your next replies shortly

~ Regards, PA

Edited January 17, 2015 by Paranoid Android

[+joc]

Atheists and theists can well put the same amount and time of energy into thinking about this problem. They just employ different starting points and ways of thinking. That doesn't make one side either more energetic nor more intelligent. It, rather, reflects their most fundamental beliefs and understandings about the nature of themselves and their universe.

In fact, isn't that where we developed the concepts of Creator anyway? From attempting to answer the unanswerable...eons ago?

[+Link of Hyrule]

In this case, I beg to differ.

Differ as much as you like, I never claimed science was "baffled" by anything. I simply said it was unable to address the question one way or the other.

How do you keep getting that?

How many times have I said science makes religion redundant by way of providing verifiable answers that the Bible has incorrect? That is not disproving God, that is removing reliance on God one bit at a time until there is nothing left for God to do, other than exist like us.

Can you point out where I said Science disproved God? I bet you can show where I said science disproved claims in the Bible, but as far as God goes, my only remark is that he did not create the Universe, he did not create man, science has made God redundant, he does not need to exist for the Universe and everything in it to exist.

The most interesting thing about that is that only the non religious people seem to Understand that, the rest of you see it as an attack.

Perhaps we're not so far apart in our views as we think - you also agree that science hasn't "disproven" God, and I'll wager that's because God is something that cannot be studied by science. Which is really the point in my argument.

There is no "outside" of it. Not even in a theoretical non material Universe, personal choices are not affected by science, which is what religion is. It is not a physical "thing"

I guess this is where it's my turn to differ with you.

Again, I need to see what these alleged theologians say, for all I know you may have misinterpreted that as you did the Berkley link. They are your thoughts that I did bother to read, and the rest of that thread.

*see above post for details*

How does that not sound like you think I may have a rational explanation for your claims, and might dispel that mysticism?

I did not expect you to share a personal experience at all, but obviously you have, and only willing to do so with people who you feel will agree with you that it was supernatural. Mate, that does not sounds like string faith. Not the sort of faith that I have in empirical results. It does not bother me, but actions speak louder than words.

It's simply a fact that personal experience is personal. Share with me all you like about your personal experiences that led you away from your faith in God, and it isn't going to change my mind one iota. That's really all there is to it, you're reading too much into it if you think that I'm not sharing simply to avoid your rationality.

And here I was........

Funny how opposite upbringings have given us opposite conclusions or is it?

To be honest, most teenagers do to my experience.

But that grain of belief was already planted. It is how anyone before 1980 grew up here pretty much, belief was what you were taught. Gods words was the be all end all, and Atheist was a dirty word.

It is a good thing that it turned out for you well, as you know Church tore my parents apart, and did not improve my life at all, but the opposite, But you know what? That grain had been instilled in me too. I also had this niggling nugget of faith that ate away at me. I went to Church groups of my own bat. I would snap at atheists the same way so many "Christians" snap at me here, the people who deride my views here would be more than surprised to see how much religious background I have.

And yet here I am now.

Nobody really "turns" to Religion until they are adult, Child years are spent instilling that belief, yes we have confirmation and all that, but one really considers themselves part of a Church Community when they walk in there under their own will on a regular basis. One of my colleagues arrived back from Sri Lanka today. Now he is a Buddhist.

Different upbringings, different outcomes, I guess that's what it comes down to. My experiences led me to the inescapable conclusion that there is a God. Yours did not.

You keep making this claim without references....... hard to discuss when I don't know what yu are talking about.

Maimonides is the only name I specifically remember, my last post goes into greater detail.

No Probs!! Nice to lighten the mood, it is after all a discussion and I am not trying to convert people, and have said that if religion was to be made redundant, it would be by disseminating better educational standards that allow people to understand the scientific model from a young age. That is not saying people are stupid for embracing religion, it means that I feel most people do not get two sides to the story, and that is why we have so many religious, and why Atheism is only an emerging concept that has been recently allowed to exist. In some places in the world, you will still get murdered by authorities for being an atheist. That alone says just how much religion fears a level playing field.

I think what it rather shows is how much humanity still needs to grow. It's not just a "religion" issue, I seem to remember something called "communism" that rose in Eastern Europe and began executing anyone who wanted to hold a religious belief.

[White Crane Feather]

Seriously? I think materialism holds up pretty well and we still have 0 evidence for spiritualism

It dosnt hold up at all..not well... not at all. That's true Beauty of science is that its capable of showing Us that if the very philosophy it was founded on cannot hold to observations, it must be dropped no matter how much somone is attached to it.

Spiritual paradims are another matter. unfortunatly we do not have the tools to investigate it properly because there is large priority and interpretation problem between the subjective and objective.

Edited January 17, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[Mr Walker]

In fact, isn't that where we developed the concepts of Creator anyway? From attempting to answer the unanswerable...eons ago?

Children and adults use their minds to identify agents and non agents. From observation and deductionThey also create logical reasons for events that they do not have sufficient data to understand . So yes, creation myths grew from this thought process.

God is different, however. God interacts with humans on many levels including mind and body. When a human encounters god they have to make sense of god in the knowledge and thinking skills available to them. I do not "create " the same image of god when I encounter god as someone from 2000 or even 200 years ago. I can include quantum thinking, modem science and engineering and technical data in creating my understanding of the nature of god. Thus if god materialises physically before me, I tend to think terms of matter transmission and the manipulation of matter and energy rather than in terms of miracles beyond my understanding.There is nothing in the bible story that man will not be able to do within a few hundred years of scientific progress. In a few thousand years, if we survive, we will be as technically powerful as the god in the bible was, to humans of 2000 years ago.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

PA

I suppose since we cannot go back 2000 years and observe the event it isn't a matter of science anymore, but that really wasn't the intention of my point. I'm saying that it is generally agreed within the scientific community that once you're dead, that's it. There's no coming back. And leaving aside coroner mistake (oops, I guess his pulse was just very very slow), that is true. So to assert that someone broke this rule 2000 years ago is a contradiction of science

Science has nothing to do with it. It is the universal experience of humankind that once dead, warm-blooded animals do not later on live once again. Your "coroner's mistake" is that the person isn't dead - it wouldn't be a mistake otherwise.

Jesus' resurrection raises no peculiarly scientific issue. Scientists' beliefs about reanimation of corpses qua scientists coincide with their beliefs qua people. Paul wasn't writing to scientists, the profession didn't exist in his time. Nevertheless, he expected his audience to be favorably impressed that Jesus was seen alive after he had died.

BTW, I thought you were a Nicene Christian. Nicene Christians believe in the resurrection of the dead generally, sometime in the indefinite future. There actually is a well-known philosophy of science prototype of such hypotheses. The searchable term is Goodman's grue.

All grue-type hypotheses are resolved by attending to the current condition (dead in the case of those who have died). The hypothetical milestone-free future condition (alive again) is not denied, but is useless (I wouldn't do anything differently than I do already), unevidenced (even if Jesus did rise from the dead, it furnishes no reaon for me to think that Uncle Fred will ... and Fred's three days were up long ago), and even if true, it furnishes nothing for a scientist to study.

So, like all other grue conjunctions (Fred is dead and someday will be alive), the object of naturalistic study is solely the observable conjunct (Fred is dead). What, if anything, anybody thinks about the other conjunct (Fred will return) makes no difference to the study of the observable one. "Naturalistic" is not intended as a euphemism for "scientific." Historians don't study France from the perspective that Napoleon is coming back, either.

Edited January 17, 2015 by eight bits

[Leonardo]

Materilaism makes some claims about the physical universe that are testable. Those claims fail. Materilaism no longer applys.

What conditions are you referring to?

There are no conditions upon which materialism hinges which, to the best of my knowledge, have been invalidated via scientific testing so as to show materialism is defunct. If there was, that philosophical position would no longer be a part of the branch of study and be removed from the curriculum for the purpose of education.

[+Hammerclaw]

What conditions are you referring to?

There are no conditions upon which materialism hinges which, to the best of my knowledge, have been invalidated via scientific testing so as to show materialism is defunct. If there was, that philosophical position would no longer be a part of the branch of study and be removed from the curriculum for the purpose of education.

Sounds like the typical confusion between the observer effect and quantum uncertainty. Materialism is alive and well.

[Just Dave]

More sense than Mythical Creature which religions call it god waved the magical stick and energy was created of nothing....

You see that makes no sense, so you believe that in ancient Egypt people were talking to aliens just because they pictured it, mayans had airplanes, Greeks talked to Zeus and Ares, and so on .... If religions are true than based on believers weird logic every other god based religion is true....

but...

no.... there is only 1 god and every religion says that for their own... You see whats happening because our brains failed to explain certain things we didn't even try to look at scientific perspective or cause.... it was simply god....

God is an excuse in some cases good in other bad... You win the lottery, god was with me... you kill someone, god will forgive me... excuses..

I could write a book, trying to explain from simple point of view on why religion is man~made thing...

Imagine for a second, how would our world look like if god was actual true and angels and demons and all those religios creatures.... Havoc, you would take a subway to work, and there would be a horned monster sitting beside you, too much fantasy,... But because such things don't exist, there are no demons, angels, gods,...

Edited January 17, 2015 by SurgeTechnologies

[White Crane Feather]

Nice bit of trolling

Your kidding right. Amoungst all the "sky daddy" comments and insinuations that the religous are some how mentally ill and you call that trolling?!?!? It's a little misinformed, but I found it amusing and at least a little bit acurate.

[White Crane Feather]

What conditions are you referring to?

There are no conditions upon which materialism hinges which, to the best of my knowledge, have been invalidated via scientific testing so as to show materialism is defunct. If there was, that philosophical position would no longer be a part of the branch of study and be removed from the curriculum for the purpose of education.

That's because old paradims die hard. There are some very specific things that materilaism "hinges" on that indeed do not hold after scientific observations. Undeniable things actually.

I see, so if a philisophical position dosnt fit scientific understanding its some how dropped from academia? I don't know what university you went to Leo but one of my first college courses was ethics... A philosophy course, and young earth creationism was indeed part of the study. It came up in other philosophy courses aswell. Materilasm/physicalism has gone both the way of young earth creatiinism and the dinosaur

Edited January 17, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[White Crane Feather]

Sounds like the typical confusion between the observer effect and quantum uncertainty. Materialism is alive and well.

No confusion. The uncertainty principal leads to very real things in the universe that show us that there are rules that the universe operates buy. These rules are more fundamental than matter and energy itself and require different branches of physics to define. As such the standard model becomes reliant on quantum physics. If materialism held up to scrutiny the standard model would be needed to exsplain quantum realities not the other way around.

Tunneling specifically shows us the immaterial nature of the fundamental rules of our reality. until such time that quantum effects that govern reality are shown to be a result of matter itself material is no longer fundamental. Infact, if the unjverse was indeed caused by a quantum fluctuation, then I'm not sure how anyone can cling to materilaism. The problem people have is that they need some kind of anchor for the mind to try and visualize what else might be happening. This simply can't be done, so

Mathmatics reveals what our minds are inequiped to deal with. .

The observer affect has little to do with observers and more about processing of reality and conservation of calculation. So yes more evidence that there is a more fundamental reality than simple cogs in a clock, but probably not in the way you were imagining it. Materialism is no longer a valid description though many do try to push out the definition like a theory to encapsulate new onservations, but we left any reasonable attachment to the term a long time ago.

I often find people that claim others are confused about QM are indeed confused themselves. There is actaully an old saying about this. Feynman I beleive said it.

Edited January 17, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[+Hammerclaw]

No confusion. The uncertainty principal leads to very real things in the universe that show us that there are rules that the universe operates buy. These rules are more fundamental than matter and energy itself and require different branches of physics to define. As such the standard model becomes reliant on quantum physics. If materialism held up to scrutiny the standard model would be needed to exsplain quantum realities not the other way around.

Tunneling specifically shows us the immaterial nature of the fundamental rules of our reality. until such time that quantum effects that govern reality are shown to be a result of matter itself material is no longer fundamental. Infact, if the unjverse was indeed caused by a quantum fluctuation, then I'm not sure how anyone can cling to materilaism. The problem people have is that they need some kind of anchor for the mind to try and visualize what else might be happening. This simply can't be done, so

Mathmatics reveals what our minds are inequiped to deal with. .

The observer affect has little to do with observers and more about processing of reality and conservation of calculation. So yes more evidence that there is a more fundamental reality than simple cogs in a clock, but probably not in the way you were imagining it. Materialism is no longer a valid description though many do try to push out the definition like a theory to encapsulate new onservations, but we left any reasonable attachment to the term a long time ago.

I often find people that claim others are confused about QM are indeed confused themselves. There is actaully an old saying about this. Feynman I beleive said it.

Wouldn't know, I'm an Idealist, myself. Dielectical Materialism is still all the rage in certain circles, I hear.

[XenoFish]

God interacts with humans on many levels including mind and body

So there is no free will?

if we survive, we will be as technically powerful as the god in the bible was, to humans of 2000 years ago.

[+Liquid Gardens]

that still leaves me with personal experience that God exists. And on that note, I simply cannot (as noted to 8bits in the post immediately before this) ignore.

From what little I've gathered concerning your experiences, or at least from the 'personal experiences' I've heard from other theists, they don't have what I would term 'personal experience that God exists', they have an 'unexplained personal experience'. "God best explains this" has been offered up as an explanation for the unexplained for millennia, and has been shot down nearly every time. You don't have to ignore your personal experience, but you have chosen, in my view and based on the little that I know, to use this as evidence of something very specific that is not really provided for with the corresponding specificity of experience and evidence.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Liquid Gardens

[White Crane Feather]

From what little I've gathered concerning your experiences, or at least from the 'personal experiences' I've heard from other theists, they don't have what I would term 'personal experience that God exists', they have an 'unexplained personal experience'. "God best explains this" has been offered up as an explanation for the unexplained for millennia, and has been shot down nearly every time. You don't have to ignore your personal experience, but you have chosen, in my view and based on the little that I know, to use this as evidence of something very specific that is not really provided for with the corresponding specificity of experience and evidence.

How exactly has it been shot down?

Edited January 17, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[+Hammerclaw]

How exactly has it been shot down?

Atheists announce they have proven scientifically that God is unnecessary, smirk condescendingly, then high five and bro-hug each other.

[White Crane Feather]

Atheists announce they have proven scientifically that God is unnecessary, smirk condescendingly, then high five and bro-hug each other.

Haha yes I have noticed that they tend to get together in groups and "talks" and congratulate each other and laugh at all the silly little people. Not all of them of course.