Plantinga’s Latest EAAN Refuted, by Dr. Stephen Law
Here's the money quote:
Jesse Bering on Klüver-Bucy Syndrome and Nymphomania
This article is a very significant one by the author of two books I recommend, The God Instinct, and The Belief Instinct. He tells us: "Although Klüver-Bucy Syndrome is relatively rare, it's one of the most notorious neurological causes of a complete breakdown in one's ability to control sexual urges." Read both pages linked below and see what you think. Here is his conclusion:
The Danger of Belief is Thinking You Believe What God Does
[Written by John W. Loftus] A study done by Nicholas Epley from the University of Chicago tells us all believers think God agrees with what they do about a host of non-related issues. Let me just quote from Discover Magazine’s “Creating God in One’s Own Image” (Nov. 30, 2009):
This is a recipe for disaster since believers will claim they have a divine mandate for anything they think is the case.
Epley asked different groups of volunteers to rate their own beliefs about important issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, the death penalty, the Iraq War, and the legalization of marijuana. The volunteers also had to speculate about God’s take on these issues, as well as the stances of an “average American”, Bill Gates (a celebrity with relatively unknown beliefs) and George Bush (a celebrity whose positions are well-known).If this study shows us anything at all it should make believers less certain of what they pontificate about. In fact, this study falsifies faith itself, for there is no independent way to determine what God thinks, if he exists at all. Believers simply create their own religion, their own Gospel, and their own God in their own image.
For many religious people, the popular question “What would Jesus do?” is essentially the same as “What would I do?” Through a combination of surveys, psychological manipulation and brain-scanning, he has found that when religious Americans try to infer the will of God, they mainly draw on their own personal beliefs.
Epley surveyed commuters at a Boston train station, university undergraduates, and 1,000 adults from a nationally representative database. In every case, he found that people’s own attitudes and beliefs matched those they suggested for God more precisely than those they suggested for the other humans.
This is a recipe for disaster since believers will claim they have a divine mandate for anything they think is the case.
On the Failure of God's Strategy
So many things to say about this and so little space. But think on this. Christians describe the world as a stage for a cosmic war. So what should God do with any skeptic who's aim is to dethrone him? He could continue allowing us to do what we do waiting for the time to sock it to us in hell. But our eternal fate would be equivalent to being blindsided with a divine sucker punch after the ending fight bell had rang. And waiting until that time seems unreasonable since we're leading others "astray" into eternal damnation, which isn't something I would want people to experience if I were God. I would think he would kill or silence the leading atheists late at night in mysterious ways when no one is looking. Or, he could give them their own undeniable personal miracle so they would believe. Or, God could personally visit them and explain enough of his mysterious ways for them to believe. Then too, God could simply snap his fingers and take away their critical thinking skills so that they would believe. Christians say it's all in his plan. Balderdash! Sounds inept to me. It's like God is a Jekyll and Hyde all rolled up into one. Don't quote the Bible to me. I know what it says. I'm questioning what it says. I do not believe it. Offer a reasonable answer. Tell me why his strategy is effective rather than a failure.
Harry McCall on the Lies of God
Does God lie? He most certainly does according to the Bible. If so, how can we trust anything in it? Maybe God's plan is to send skeptics to heaven and gullible believers to hell? ;-) Ya just can't know.
Quote of the Day, by Jon Jeremy
There is a fairly simple diagnostic test for delusion: before starting any debate, just ask: "What kind of evidence would cause you to change your mind?" If the answer is 'none' then you've caught one of the deluded. Go on with the debate by all means, but treat it as a spectator sport rather than an attempt to convince your opponent.
Proof That Islam is the Truth!
Yep, let's see other believers at the next Islamic worship service. Enjoy and convert now! So many believers, so sure of themselves, it all sounds the same. Because it is!
On Appreciating the Arguments of Ludwig Feuerbach
Feuerbach was a skeptical pioneer who influenced Karl Marx. The first edition of his influential skeptical book, The Essence of Christianity
, was criticized widely by the public at large as "baseless." So in the Preface to the Second Edition two years later, he explains why so many people thought his work was bad, just like many Christians think my work is bad. While I'm not comparing myself to him, what he said in response was brilliant:
, was criticized widely by the public at large as "baseless." So in the Preface to the Second Edition two years later, he explains why so many people thought his work was bad, just like many Christians think my work is bad. While I'm not comparing myself to him, what he said in response was brilliant:If Nothing Else Look at the Trend, From Conservative to Moderate to Liberal to Agnostic to Atheist
[Written by John W. Loftus] In Ed Babinski's book, Leaving The Fold: Testimonies Of Former Fundamentalists,
published seven years ago, there are testimonies from former fundamentalists who became moderates, liberals, and even "ultra liberals," like Dewey Beegle, Harvey Cox, Conrad Hyers, Robert Price (who now describes himself as a "Christian atheist"), and seven others. We could add other names like Howard Van Till, Valerie Tarico, John Hick, Marcus Borg, John A. T. Robertson, James Wall, Andrew Furlong, and James Sennett. In another section there are testimonies of former fundamentalists who became agnostics, like Ed himself, Charles Templeton, Farrell Till, and five others. We could add other names like Robert Ingersoll, William Dever, Bart Ehrman, and William Lobdell. In still another section of his book there are former fundamentalists who became atheists, like Dan Barker, Jim Lippard, Harry McCall, Frank Zindler, and four others. We could add other names like Hector Avalos, Michael Shermer, Ken Daniels, Ken Pulliam, Jason Long, Joe Holman, Paul Tobin, myself and many many others. I can't remember all the names of the important people who left fundamentalist Christianity because there are simply too many of them to remember! If you read Ex.Christian.net, deconversion stories are posted there almost every day.
published seven years ago, there are testimonies from former fundamentalists who became moderates, liberals, and even "ultra liberals," like Dewey Beegle, Harvey Cox, Conrad Hyers, Robert Price (who now describes himself as a "Christian atheist"), and seven others. We could add other names like Howard Van Till, Valerie Tarico, John Hick, Marcus Borg, John A. T. Robertson, James Wall, Andrew Furlong, and James Sennett. In another section there are testimonies of former fundamentalists who became agnostics, like Ed himself, Charles Templeton, Farrell Till, and five others. We could add other names like Robert Ingersoll, William Dever, Bart Ehrman, and William Lobdell. In still another section of his book there are former fundamentalists who became atheists, like Dan Barker, Jim Lippard, Harry McCall, Frank Zindler, and four others. We could add other names like Hector Avalos, Michael Shermer, Ken Daniels, Ken Pulliam, Jason Long, Joe Holman, Paul Tobin, myself and many many others. I can't remember all the names of the important people who left fundamentalist Christianity because there are simply too many of them to remember! If you read Ex.Christian.net, deconversion stories are posted there almost every day.Dr. Richard Carrier On the Dark Ages
Richard reminded me he wrote on this subject a few years back. Enjoy. Below is the money quote:
The Debunking Christianity Challenges
Here are three Debunking Christianity Challenges:
1) The 2015 Debunking Christianity Challenge.
2) The Debunking Christianity Challenge, Part 2
3) The Debunking Christianity Challenge, Part 3
1) The 2015 Debunking Christianity Challenge.
2) The Debunking Christianity Challenge, Part 2
3) The Debunking Christianity Challenge, Part 3
Dr. Matt McCormick On the Goodness of God
In A Simple Paradox Concerning God’s Goodness he writes:
Has God committed morally wrong actions? If God is the almighty creator of the universe, then there are countless instances where there was an event that God was either directly or indirectly causally responsible for that we would ordinarily identify as morally wrong. Consider the class of actions or omissions that we would identify as morally wrong if a moral agent had been present and had committed them or allowed them to happen. A person drowns by herself near a dock on a lake where a life vest sits on the dock. If a person had been standing next to the life vest and saw her drowning in the lake, but refrained from tossing the life vest to her, we would think of that failure to act as morally abhorrent. There are countless other events like these where it does not appear that God did what we would ordinarily have identified as the morally obligatory act. Therefore, it would appear that God has committed (or by omission allowed to happen) countless morally wrong events.
The Late Ken Pulliam on the Mind of the Believer
Dr. Pulliam only blogged for about a year before his untimely death in October 2010. But he did have something to say about neurology and the mind of the believer. He reviewed a few important books and studies that I'll link to below:
Dinesh D'Souza On Why We Need Earthquakes
D'Souza reviewed a book for Christianity Today titled, Rare Earth, written by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, which he recommends. The answer proffered is that without earthquakes, "the planet couldn't support creatures like us." Here's my response:
The Mind of the Believer, Revisited
As I said earlier, the more I read the contorted ways Christians try to gerrymander around the basic questions I ask of them and the more they retreat when I ask for evidence to believe, then the more I become interested in the psychological state of the mind of the believer. Even though I once believed, it continually amazes me to see how believers respond to what I write. That's why the next several books I plan on reading have to do with this topic, books that you can read for yourselves, three of which I have previously reviewed (or commented on).
So let me pursue this here, even though it's probably fruitless. Let's say Christianity is palpably false much in the same way as Christians think Islam, Orthodox Judaism, and Hinduism are palpably false. Let's also say that believers in all of these faiths are delusional by virtue of being indoctrinated (or brainwashed) by their cultural upbringing to believe. Let's say this is all true even though I cannot persuade devout believers this is in fact the case, for if this is the case then it's highly unlikely anything I say could convince them otherwise. Okay? Now let me put the following questions to you: If you are deluded by your faith would you want to know? Are you honestly interested in knowing whether or not your faith is true? Or, do you instead get a knee-jerk visceral reaction to any doubt producing argument? Do you come here to do battle with Satan himself, or do you view me as a human being who is sincerely expressing his doubts? Can you say you are willing to honestly consider what I write, or not? If not, why not?
So let me pursue this here, even though it's probably fruitless. Let's say Christianity is palpably false much in the same way as Christians think Islam, Orthodox Judaism, and Hinduism are palpably false. Let's also say that believers in all of these faiths are delusional by virtue of being indoctrinated (or brainwashed) by their cultural upbringing to believe. Let's say this is all true even though I cannot persuade devout believers this is in fact the case, for if this is the case then it's highly unlikely anything I say could convince them otherwise. Okay? Now let me put the following questions to you: If you are deluded by your faith would you want to know? Are you honestly interested in knowing whether or not your faith is true? Or, do you instead get a knee-jerk visceral reaction to any doubt producing argument? Do you come here to do battle with Satan himself, or do you view me as a human being who is sincerely expressing his doubts? Can you say you are willing to honestly consider what I write, or not? If not, why not?
Is God Omnipotent or Not?
Why is it that believers say God can do anything until I suggest a scenario that they don't like? This is yet another reason why I think Christians are delusional. It's crystal clear that what they think God can do depends on whether a given scenario is something that they like or not. It's much like how they deal with unanswered prayer. They count the hits and discount the misses. And it's much like giving God the credit for the good that happens in life and blaming human beings (or the devil) for everything else. I don't get it. Is God omnipotent or not? Let me give just one scenario concerning earthquakes which cause massive amounts of suffering.
Why the Gods are Not Winning, by Gregory Paul & Phil Zuckerman
American opinion on the issue of human evolution from animals has been rock steady, about half agreeing, about half disagreeing, for a quarter century. What has changed is how people view the Bible. In the 1970s nearly four in ten took the testaments literally, just a little over one in ten thought it was a mixture of history, fables, and legends, a three to one ratio in favor of the Biblical view. Since then a persistent trend has seen literalism decline to between a quarter and a third of the population, and skeptics have doubled to nearly one in five. If the trend continues the fableists will equal and then surpass the literalists in a couple of decades. Link
10 Awful Truths About Book Publishing
Given the following ten awful truths about book publishing I'm very thankful to have a decent readership of my books:
1. The number of books being published in the U.S. has exploded.
2. Book industry sales are declining, despite the explosion of books published.
3. Average book sales are shockingly small, and falling fast.
4. A book has less than a 1% chance of being stocked in an average bookstore.
5. It is getting harder and harder every year to sell books.
6. Most books today are selling only to the authors’ and publishers’ communities.
7. Most book marketing today is done by authors, not by publishers.
8. No other industry has so many new product introductions.
9. The digital revolution is expanding the number of products and sales channels but not increasing book sales.
10. The book publishing world is in a never-ending state of turmoil. Link.
The Delusional Mind at Work
People are chiming in against me and reveling in it. At last, "we've got him," they chant as they raise their glasses and sing songs to Jesus. "He's blatantly wrong, ignorantly wrong, palpably wrong, utterly wrong, completely wrong," they chant on into the night. What am I wrong about? That the Christian Middle Ages were the "Dark Ages." I pretty much stand by what I wrote, but here's what some are concluding from my being wrong:
Were the "Dark Ages" Really Dark?
I'm being taken to task for publishing a graph depicting the Medieval Ages as the "Dark Ages" leaving a huge gaping hole in Western history, which can be seen here. What some people failed to realize is the title to the post in which Augustinian Platonism shares a large part of the blame (no, it is not totally to blame). Augustine like Plato before him placed a much greater value on the heavenly world (the realm of the eternal "forms" or ideas) over the empirical earthly world.
Quote of the Day, One More Time
In my world miracles like virgin births and resurrections do not happen. What world do you live in? If they do not happen now then they did not happen in the ancient past either. And that's how historians must view the evidence. Yesterday's evidence has lost all of its power to convince. We do not believe in miracle claims in today's world and we live in this world. So how much more so is it the case that we cannot believe they took place in the ancient past! We can interview people in today's world and we still don't believe they happened. How much more so is this the case in the ancient past where we cannot interview the people involved! The overwhelming numbers of Jews in the days of Jesus did not believe he resurrected even though they believed in a miracle working God named Yahweh and the Old Testament. How much more so then is it the case in our world that we cannot believe when miracles are supposed to establish that Yahweh did a particular miracle in the past! Again, if they do not happen in our day then they did not happen in the past either. What world are YOU living in? --John W. Loftus
An Open Question to Christian Apologists
My claim is that believers like him were brainwashed or indoctrinated by being raised to believe in their respective cultures. I know he was. If my claim is correct then believers must be confronted with the issues I raise to know whether in fact they are, since, without being confronted with them they will never know that they are, if they are. Christian do you agree?
William Lane Craig on Middle Knowledge and Hell
When it comes to foreknowing our future, Craig argues that God has Middle Knowledge such that he knows “what every possible creature would do under any possible circumstances,” “prior to any determination of the divine will.”[1] So despite his protestations to the contrary isn’t it obvious that if Craig’s God has this kind of foreknowledge he could simply foreknow who would not accept his offered salvation before they were even created, and then never create them in the first place? If he did that “hotel hell” would never have even one occupant. Why not?
In question #202 at Reasonable Faith Dr. Craig tries to answer this type of problem:
In question #202 at Reasonable Faith Dr. Craig tries to answer this type of problem:
Is the "Is-Ought" Fallacy Really Fallacious?
Daylight Atheism, in discussing Sam Harris's controversial but insightful book, The Moral Landscape,
argues we can step over the "is-ought" problem and I agree. Here's the money quote:
argues we can step over the "is-ought" problem and I agree. Here's the money quote: It's true that you can't take any catalogue of facts about human nature, however comprehensive, and from them distill the conclusion: "We ought to value human flourishing." But for the same reason, it's also true that you can't start with any catalogue of facts about human history or the world, however comprehensive, and from them distill the conclusion: "We ought to use the scientific method to study reality." Does this cast doubt on the legitimacy of science as a human endeavor? More importantly, does it imply that there exist other ways of knowing that are just as valid? No system of thought can be derived out of thin air. They all have to be based on axioms that can, in principle, be rejected. But if that's a strike against objective morality, it's also a strike against philosophy, science, mathematics, and every other branch of human inquiry as well....And what to do with those stubborn philosophical skeptics, who insist to their last breath that we can't prove that human well-being should be valued above other qualities? Let them be. If our approach to morality is correct, its superiority will be borne out in practice and people will eventually be persuaded to come along for the ride, just as theists switched from faith healing to antibiotics when they saw how much more effective the latter was. Link.
The Ten Most Influential Books That Debunked Christianity
Of course, there were lots of books for me to choose from. In a few cases I had to choose just one book even though the author wrote several. And in a few other cases Christianity merely adapted and changed in response to a book. But in their day each of these authors threatened Christianity to its core. You can still get them and read them for yourselves. Do so.
Scientists to Theologians: Put Up Or Shut Up!
Christian theists love to point out the limits of science, and it does have some. But to focus on them to the exclusion of the massive amount of information we have acquired from science is being extremely ungrateful for what it has achieved. To me that is one aspect of the denigration of science. The limits of science are based in 1) the limits of human imagination, and 2) the limits of that which we can detect. That which is undetectable does not fall within the realm of science, although, with further advances in our scientific instruments we can detect things that were previously thought undetectable. If science does reach its limits in the future, there won't be any cause for theistic celebration because scientists may not know they have reached its limits, and because there are probably some things they might never know. Why should that conclusion, if they reach it, be preferred to an evolving God concept in a sea of god-concepts without any means to settle which one is to be preferred as the best explanation of the same data? What is the theistic alternative method for squeezing the truth out of the universe? What is it? Until theists can propose a better method than science to learn about the universe, they should just shut up!
Can You Not See What It Takes to Believe? You Must Bash Science!
Yep, that what Vic Reppert and gang must do, and Vic is supposedly an intellectual whom Christians say stands head over heels above me! lol Is this not completely and utterly ignorant? This is why I cannot believe. To do so you must be ignorant! I need not even respond since someone named Doctor Logic already did. See below:
A Romp Into Theories of the Cradle of Life
As a non-scientist who appreciates how science works let's take a look through this recent New York Times article summarizing the proceedings of a gathering of two dozen chemists, geologists, biologists, planetary scientists and physicists who pondered "where and what Eden might have been." Here's the article.
What Do Moammar Gadhafi and Christianity Have in Common?
You're both going down eventually. Kick against the goads all you want to. You're in denial. Lash out if you want. It'll do you no good. See here. As Led Zeppelin sings, "Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good." ;-)
Immerse Yourselves In Religion and See What You Get!
Andrew Bowen, 28, of Lumberton, N.C., is spending the 12 months of 2011 being "spiritually promiscuous," he says with a wry sense of humor. Each month he immerses himself in a different religion, adopting its rites and rituals, learning from its prayers and scriptures, meeting with its believers and sharing what he learns with the world. Bowen calls this yearlong effort "Project Conversion." He said: "Although I'm not pretending to convert to any of these faiths, I am giving myself as fully as possible to their practices, beliefs, rituals and culture. It's 100 mph for a whole month. I have to digest material in 30 days that would take a normal devotee a lifetime. One cannot help but to start thinking, dreaming, acting, sleeping, eating, speaking, singing, even making love differently." LinkWhile Bowen is not religious this is something even better than the DC Challenge, Part 2. Any Christians want to do either of these things?
Those Nasty Secular Intellectuals, Shame on Them
[Written by John W. Loftus] Some secular intellectuals have changed the world who, for all I know, were not nice people, or so we're told by Paul Johnson in his book, Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky
. I read a large part of the first edition when it came out in 1998, but it's now been revised. From people like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, to Karl Marx, to Leo Tolstoy, Ernest Hemmingway, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and George Orwell, Johnson specializes in the dirt. From theft to divorce to womanizing to hypocrisy to opportunism to lies, he digs it all up. It's not flattering to any of them if true, and I cannot dispute his facts.
At the end of his book Johnson summarizes what is his main point:
. I read a large part of the first edition when it came out in 1998, but it's now been revised. From people like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, to Karl Marx, to Leo Tolstoy, Ernest Hemmingway, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and George Orwell, Johnson specializes in the dirt. From theft to divorce to womanizing to hypocrisy to opportunism to lies, he digs it all up. It's not flattering to any of them if true, and I cannot dispute his facts. At the end of his book Johnson summarizes what is his main point:
Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die, by Gregory W. Lester
Because senses and beliefs are both tools for survival and have evolved to augment one another, our brain considers them to be separate but equally important purveyors of survival information....This means that beliefs are designed to operate independent of sensory data. In fact, the whole survival value of beliefs is based on their ability to persist in the face of contradictory evidence. Beliefs are not supposed to change easily or simply in response to disconfirming evidence. If they did, they would be virtually useless as tools for survival....Skeptical thinkers must realize that because of the survival value of beliefs, disconfirming evidence will rarely, if ever, be sufficient to change beliefs, even in “otherwise intelligent” people....[S]keptics must always appreciate how hard it is for people to have their beliefs challenged. It is, quite literally, a threat to their brain’s sense of survival. It is entirely normal for people to be defensive in such situations. The brain feels it is fighting for its life....it should be comforting to all skeptics to remember that the truly amazing part of all of this is not that so few beliefs change or that people can be so irrational, but that anyone’s beliefs ever change at all. Skeptics’ ability to alter their own beliefs in response to data is a true gift; a unique, powerful, and precious ability. It is genuinely a “higher brain function” in that it goes against some of the most natural and fundamental biological urges. Link
Christians demand that I must show their faith is impossible before they will see that it is improbable.
I have been arguing daily for about six years online. I tire of arguing with people who continually move the goal posts, who seek out the tiniest loophole to drive a truckload of Christian assumptions through, who refuse to see the implications of current psychological studies on the state of the human mind, and who refuse to see the obvious and clear impact of my Outsider Test for Faith.
I've heard it all. And it disgusts me. Christians demand that I must show their faith is impossible before they will see that it is improbable. This is an utterly unreasonable demand. I cannot show their faith is impossible. I can only show it to be improbable, very improbable. Not only that, but they refuse to see what they're doing. Let's rehearse these things with a few examples, okay?
I've heard it all. And it disgusts me. Christians demand that I must show their faith is impossible before they will see that it is improbable. This is an utterly unreasonable demand. I cannot show their faith is impossible. I can only show it to be improbable, very improbable. Not only that, but they refuse to see what they're doing. Let's rehearse these things with a few examples, okay?
New Zealand Quake Kills 65 And Traps Hundreds! Isn't God Good?
I consider the evidential case against a good God from naturally caused suffering to be the most significant problem for believers.
Can anyone tell me why God did not do a perpetual miracle by averting that earthquake? If God was concerned about remaining hidden then no one would suspect he did anything if he averted it, because it would not have taken place. Anyone? Anyone?
Can anyone tell me why God did not do a perpetual miracle by averting that earthquake? If God was concerned about remaining hidden then no one would suspect he did anything if he averted it, because it would not have taken place. Anyone? Anyone?
Quote, Er, Argument of the Day, by clamat
I do think it’s fair to say New Atheists favor science and are suspicious of philosophy generally, and theology in particular. To my mind, there are several good reasons for this.
Like me, I suspect most New Atheists grew up seeing and benefitting from the ever-increasing fruits of science. It’s been said a million times, but I don’t think it can be over-emphasized: Science works. Science produces things. Philosophy and theology, on the other hand, seem only to produce more and more words.
Neither ever seem to resolve anything.
Here's Proof Christians are Deluded!
Want to see an utterly ignorant analogy by a Christian intellectual named Ed Feser? He's not alone. Victor Reppert linked to what he said. Feser's gripe is against the "New Atheist Types." He says that "Richard Dawkins, P. Z. Myers, and their clones in the blogosphere routinely display exactly the sort of ignorance and bigotry of which they haughtily accuse their opponents."
But Feser ends up being the ignorant bigot on this one.
But Feser ends up being the ignorant bigot on this one.
Dr. Richard Carrier Will Be Teaching an Online Course in March
Yep, with Dr. John Shook. Details here. It's probably not too late to sign up for it. Richard writes about it on his blog. I'm scheduled to teach a class for CFI in April.
The Top Ten Misconceptions About Atheists
Let me correct some of the most egregious misconceptions believers have about us, in reverse order:
The Debunking Christianity Challenge, Part 3
On the sidebar you can see two parts to the DC challenge. Now here's Part 3 based on what someone named Mike said in the comments section:
Atheism is a Full Blown Skepticism!
Believers ask me if I am skeptical of what I believe about religion because the brain distorts the information we receive. Let me be clear here. Atheism is born of skepticism and is a full blown skepticism. Precisely because I know how our brains distort information I am skeptical of that which I want to be true, and more importantly, I demand evidence for what I believe. Have you ever seen TV programs like CSI and/or Law & Order? Something like that. They need evidence to arrest someone just like I need evidence to believe. So how can I be skeptical of my conclusion that some belief doesn't have any evidence for it, if there isn't any evidence for it, or if the evidence is weak? Atheists are known as non-believers for that very reason.
How Do You Solve a Problem Like Believers?
Every once-in-a-while believers show up to remind me that I'm not succeeding in debunking Christianity, at least not with them. Rob Lundberg recently said this: "I haven't seen an argument from you John that would have me think that you're right either. Cheers." Well, let me make a few comments and then I have a song for people like him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)