New Atheism

Atheism Plus, What’s all the Fuss?

(This is a collaborative post between Robert and me)

A light rain sprinkles onto the pavement as two men enter Plato’s Gourmet Coffee and take a seat. Light jazz, perhaps a bit too uplifting for both the genre and the topic at hand, drifts through the air as the conversation begins. 

Robert: So, I hear you wanted to discuss this new internet sensation they’re calling “atheism+”. I suppose that as an atheist myself, some sort of comment should be required. But I’ll let you have the first word. What are your thoughts on it?

Gil: Yeah I planned to make some comments but never got around to it. To be honest, I just don’t see anything remarkable about it. There are already causes like humanism that fight against racism, homophobia, etc. If the atheist is interested in such causes, they’re free to participate in them. The only difference here is that this seems to be nothing more than a marketing gimmick to tie atheism to a set code of living. Anyone who disagrees, according to Richard Carrier, is immediately not “one of them” and must be “disowned or discarded”. Not to mention cussed out as despicable, immoral, and un-godless. Christianity is said to be “fundamentally f***** because…it fails a most fundamental moral test”. Any non-religious person that disagrees with them is no better than any christian. It’s patently obvious that their goal is to market atheists as intellectually and morally superior to christians at the expense of excluding others. Atheism+ is remarkably similar to a religion, if you ask me. But I know I’m biased and I’ll be written off as such… So I’m interested in what you think of this, Robert.

Robert: I agree that it does seem like a marketing gimmick, especially for ultra-liberalism and radical feminism. I also agree that it does at times seem like a religion, although I might even go so far as to label it a cult. It certainly has some elements of a cult, such as silencing dissent – they often do something they call “shaming”, which is essentially publicly calling out people who act in a way they’ve determined is socially unjust in order to embarrass them.

I think comparing it to humanism is interesting, because it is similar in many ways; but in others it’s quite different. I mentioned ultra-liberalism before, but perhaps that’s not even strong enough of a term. Their views go far beyond even the most liberal politician I’ve seen. For example, we both think racial and other slurs are a social ill which should be fought against, but they take practically everything as a slur. I was checking out their forums the other day, and there was a post claiming that even the word “stupid” should not be used in a derogatory manner, because it’s “ableist language”. Of course, hurt feelings don’t seem to apply when they’re shaming someone they don’t like. I have a lot more to say, but for now I’ll pass the metaphorical microphone back to you.

Gil: Wow, a cult? And I thought I was harsh! You’re going to get it now, dude. Honestly though, I think you’re right on. If atheism+ ever had a brother, he’d be Stalin. That might be a little bit of a stretch, but this sort of activism has some extreme properties. Anyway, how would you handle an a+ atheist like Richard Carrier that publicly disowns you in front of everyone online? Would you strike back with a vengeance? I cannot believe they complain about the word “stupid” but are quite pleased to use it against their enemies. Talk about double standards!

Robert: Haha, well Carrier doesn’t seem to be such a big part of atheism+; it’s become more of a collective on their forum in the past month. But if one of them did try to “call me out”, I’d probably just roll my eyes, because the worst thing about the movement is that it seems to be all style and no substance. I’m all for social justice, but the way they go about it is so radical that it actually ends up becoming unjust.

I mean, the whole tone of it is just really strange. They’ve got their shaming, their trigger warnings, and their safe spaces, but they’re attempting to create all this in a public forum. Those things don’t exist publicly. You don’t get to have a “safe space” while you’re standing on a soapbox. You don’t get to expect that others provide a warning that what they say might “trigger” a victim. It’s fine in your living room, but when you parade the metaphorical streets, all bets are off.

Robert takes a deep breath, clearly struggling not to embark on a long rant. The sun starts to settle behind the horizon as the coffee shop’s lighting and music both fade into something kind of blue. 

Aaaaaaanyway, there’s some problems with atheism+ that seem pretty obvious, at least to us. But the bigger question is what we should do about it. Should we fight back, so to speak, against it? Or should we just ignore it?

Gil: I think it’s good to be watchful and prepared, but at this point I don’t consider it a threat. They’re outspoken brats that have no prominent influence on society except for their own little online bubble. That’s not to say that it does not have the potential to become a powerful force (as new atheism has become), it’s just that I don’t think it’ll succeed for several reasons. First, it has produced division within the atheist camp by deriding those that oppose them. As such this is an internal affair between atheists and I have no intention of getting involved at this point. In fact, I think it is more strategically beneficial if we let them attack each other and hope that atheists such as yourself can tear this agenda down to the ground. If that fails then the least we can hope for is a split within atheism that would weaken their power.

Second, I think new atheism succeeded precisely because it was united in their deification of science, disgust for religion, and their love for thinking themselves to be “free thinkers” in comparison to those blind religious believers. Having a sense of superiority, a sense of common purpose, and sharing the same worldview really makes the difference here. Atheism+ on the other hand, creates division because not all atheists share that same vision, or if they do, they just don’t think it should define atheism. So without that universal unity, atheists like yourself can team up with christians to tear them down, which is something that you would’ve never seen in new atheism. They will hate and shun you for associating with evil christians, but that will only further reveal the hate-filed nature of their agenda.

You and me are proof that this is possible! We agree that atheism+ is a joke, even if we disagree on the existence of God. You were never a new atheist to begin with, but I have a feeling that even some new atheists would open up to the idea of uniting with an enemy against an enemy that they feel is destroying their unity. Third, I think atheism+ will really need to distinguish itself against other social groups that already do what they want to do. There’s a lot of talk among these atheists+ but not much action as far as I am aware. So for now, I will only choose to watch them until I have good reason to retaliate. We just need to be careful not to add gasoline to the fire.

Robert: I can certainly agree with that, although I don’t think most of them are hate-filled; they’re just jumping on a bandwagon. I guess the cool new trend on the internet is to be ultra-liberal and touchy-feely about everything. I could jump into their forums and try to critique them, but to be honest it probably wouldn’t do any good. So I suppose I’ll just sit back and wait for the whole thing to fizzle out.

Suddenly a young woman, with skin rendered pasty from a lifelong vegan diet and time spent in rather affluent dwellings, and bedazzled with hipster swag, approaches the table.

Woman: Hey! I just listened to your conversation, and you’ve got it all wrong. This is deeply offensive!

Robert: And?

Woman: And?! And you can’t offend other people! Check your privilege!

Robert: Look, we’re having a conversation here. If you have some actual critiques of what we’ve said, then feel free to tell us about them. But if you’re just going to scream about how offensive it is, get out of here.

Woman: Stop ‘tone trolling’! I’m a woman, and I have a right to be angry about these issues! If you don’t let me talk, you’re sexist and reinforcing the patriarchy!

Robert: I don’t care what you are. And I really don’t care how angry it makes you, because we weren’t talking to you in the first place. If you’re angry it’s your own fault.

Woman: Oh no you didn’t! Now you’re blaming the victim!

Robert: What victim?

Woman: Me! I’m offended, shocked, and hurt!

Robert: Welcome to life. It sucks, then you die. Why don’t you go do something productive instead of taking offense at everything anyone says?

The woman walks off in a frustrated huff, tripping over her own ego as she does so.

Robert: Jim Morisson was right. People are strange.

Bananas Prove God Doesn’t Exist!

This is absolutely hilarious. I think this really demonstrates just how puny some of the new atheist’s arguments can be. On the opposite spectrum, Ray Comfort hasn’t done any service to the apologetic community by using a banana to prove the existence of God. Both can sides can be equally ridiculous and unfortunately, we’re the ones who have to repair this stereotype.  I have to say though, this video accurately represents the general kind of skateboard atheists that you’ll find online. There are exceptions, but they’re hard to find.

Read Along: The Last Superstition Part 4

It’s been quite a while since I did my last post of a read along for Feser’s book. As promised, here is the next post on his next chapter “Scholastic Aptitude.” In this chapter, Feser introduces the scholastic views of the soul and natural, and he uses these concepts to talk about the fetus, same-sex marriage, and the purpose of sex. Lastly, he briefly discusses faith, reason, and evil.

When it comes to the soul, Aquinas took Aristotle’s view that everything in our experience is made up of form and matter. The soul just so happens to be the form of “or essence of a living thing” (121). But from that it follows that every living thing has a type of soul. Moreover, there is a type of hierarchy with these souls. At the bottom of that list is the vegetative soul or “nutritive soul” that has the powers of “taking in nutrients, growing, and reproducing itself” (121). Next, the animal soul has the powers of sense experience and locomotion (movement). Lastly, there’s the rational soul, which has the powers to “grasp abstract concepts [...] and to reason on the basis of them” and the ability to have free will. Now, the hierarchy works in the following way: the highest type of soul is the rational soul and it contains its own powers in addition to the powers of the animal and vegetative soul. So, for example, when we look at humans who have the rational soul, we see that humans can reason (rational soul), can move around and interact with other objects via the senses (animal soul), and humans can take in nutrients by eating food and it can reproduce through *gasp* sex.

Feser reminds readers not to forget how final and efficient causality works. Feser writes,

As we have seen, a thing’s having a certain form goes hand in hand with its having a certain final cause or natural end, or a hierarchically ordered set of final causes or natural ends. A plant is ordered toward taking in nutrients, growing, and reproducing itself; those are the ends nature has given it. An animal has these ends too, along with the ends entailed by its distinctive powers of sensation and locomotion. (122)

Feser goes into much more detail about the soul and responds to some of the ridiculous objections brought by Dennett and Dawkins about how neuroscience is making free-will and the soul a thing of the past. Essentially, Feser briefly demonstrates that neuroscience doesn’t harm Aquinas and Aristotle’s view of the soul at all. Rather, neuroscience is going to be consistent with it! Eventually a discussion on the soul will lead us to ask when a human being gets his rational soul. So, when does he or she get one?!

At conception. For a soul just is the form–the essence, nature, structure, organizational pattern–of a living thing, an organism. And the human organism, as we know form modern biology, begins at conception. [...] Once you add Aquinas’s metaphysics to modern biology, there can be no doubt that the soul is present from conception, and thus that a human being exists from conception. (128)

On the section of natural law, Feser does a wonderful job of breaking down the view of final causality and essence,  while applying it to same-sex marriage and sexual ethics. I’m going to forgo discussing this section simply because I’m planning a future post on sexual ethics and contraception from a natural law perspective that will use a lot of material from this section of Feser’s book. So, I’d rather not have to repeat myself again. So, if you’re just itching to read this chapter, sorry! Either buy the book, or wait for my future post ;)

Now, about faith, Feser describes it as this:

faith is from the point of view of traditional Christian theology: belief in what God has revealed because if God has revealed it it cannot be in error; but where the claim where He had revealed it is itself something that is known on the basis of reason. Faith doesn’t conflict with reason, then; it is founded on reason and completes reason.” (157)

Another interesting point that Feser brings up is how not every Christian is going to sit and study all the arguments for God’s existence and the Bible’s reliability. Not every Christian is going to have their beliefs “intellectually” grounded, so to speak. Unless you’re an academic or intellectual, you aren’t going to plow through a metaphysics textbook and try to understand the nature of reality. So, are people’s reasons for believing in faith entirely blind? Not necessarily. Feser asks readers to think about Einstein’s E=MC^2 equation. The lay person on the street probably has no clue how this equation works, what it stands for, and all the calculations involved at reaching it. Yet, we hold that they’re justified in believing in its truth because the believe it “on the authority of those from whom they’ve learned it” (158). So, why, then, can’t this work for religion? In other words, “if this is legitimate in other aspects of life, there is nothing per se wrong with it in religion” (158).

After slapping the new atheists a bit, Feser talks just briefly on the problem of evil. If you thought the chapter “Getting Medieval” was good, wait until you read through this chapter. It’s rare that I find books that are real page turners and are funny and intellectually rigorous. Good thing Feser has a knack for being both.

Read Along: The Last Superstition Part 3

Maybe I’m being biased simply because I’m a fan of Feser or because I’m pretty much an Aristotelian-Thomist myself, but I’m definitely loving this book.

In the next chapter “Getting Medieval”, Feser turns to our favorite philosopher Thomas Aquinas (for a more in-depth treatment of Aquinas and Thomism, I highly urge you to check out Feser’s book Aquinas. I own it and I’ve read it, and it’s probably the best introductory book I’ve read so far on Aquinas. I did an extensive book review and summary of the book here for AP315). Simultanouesly, Feser unleashes and rips at the four horsemen of the New Atheists once again. I found myself chuckling and laughing once all over again. I mean, for those who are not already familiar with Feser and how he is on his blog, this book and his tone may bother some people, and it may annoy some.

Before turning to Aquinas and his arguments, Feser devotes a good amount of time to slapping the hands of the New Atheists for getting just about everything about Aquinas wrong. Things get pretty philosophical after this since Feser turns towards the existence of God. Feser did something really interesting that brought a lot of clarity and helped gauge people’s conception of God. He broke down the conceptions people have of God into 5 gradations:

1) The first is the kind of description you see village atheists have of God, namely, that God is some old dude up in the sky that’s sitting on a cloud and shooting thunderbolts at people.

2) The second gradation is that in which “God doesn’t really have a bodily form, and His thoughts and motivations are in many respects very different from ours. He is an immaterial object or substance which has existed forever, and (perhaps) pervades all space. Still, he is, somehow, a person like we are, only vastly more intelligent, powerful, and virtuous, and in particular without our physical and moral limitations” (87).

3) This one is really long, and I’m honestly too lazy to just quote the whole thing, but I feel like Feser does a better job of explaining it than I do…*sigh* decisions, decisions. Basically, God is not an object alongside other objects but God is existence itself. “The world is not an independent object in the sense of something that might carry on if God were to ‘go away’; it is more like the music produced by a musician, which exists only when he plays and vanishes the moment he stops” (88).

4) God understood by a mystical experience

5) God through which Aquinas knows Him through the “beatific vision attained by the blessed after death” (88).

The conception Feser takes as being the correct one and the one that Aquinas is true to is number 3. When discussing the Unmoved Mover argument, it’s important to have an understanding of the act and potency concepts mentioned earlier in the book (Feser also give an in-depth treatment of this in his book Aquinas). Feser goes into the whole technical philosophy and walks you through how Aquinas reaches his conclusions. I’m simply too lazy and tired right now to give you a summary of it (sorry!). He only discusses the Unmoved Mover and the First Cause arguments. He also demonstrates how the First Cause argument completely sidesteps the “issue” of the beginning of the universe and how Aquinas was not aiming to argue that the universe had a beginning. Whether or not the universe has a beginning, Aquinas’s argument for the First Cause still flows through nicely. Feser also criticizes Dawkin’s “argument” against the Fifth Way. With his sarcasm and colorful language, Feser remarks, “Well, if Dawkins really wants his consciousness raised, he should love this little revelation: Aquinas’s Fifth Way has nothing to do with Paley’s design argument or the creation/evolution debate. This is awful luck for a monomaniacal Dawkins afflicted with Dawkins’s strange intellectual variation on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, but there it is” (111). Feser sure does get Medieval and anyone wanting a good philosophical defense of a few of Aquinas’s arguments is going to love this chapter (Once again, if I haven’t stressed it enough already, if you want more of this, DEFINITELY get Feser’s other book Aquinas).

So far I have just one tiny complaint. I feel like Feser hasn’t given enough of a justification for formal and final causality. He does explain it a bit, but he doesn’t really talk much about it or defend it in depth. I’m hoping he will, but for the most part Feser disappointed me there. However, he does do a decent job of presenting the Aristotelian world view. Then again, this book isn’t really meant for much an in-depth analysis and defense of Aristotelian-Thomism.

I think what I’ll do now is just do a post on each chapter. I’m pretty much almost done with the book. I just have 60 pages left, but I’m behind on the blogging. So, I’ll just divide up the posts to doing a post for each chapter leaving just 3 posts left in total. The next post will be on chapter 4 which is titled “Scholastic Aptitude”.

 

Read Along: The Last Superstition Part 2

Feser’s book is definitely not letting me down. Not only is he cracking more sarcastic “jokes” and more rants about the New Atheists, but he’s getting pretty philosophical, and I likey.

So after his discussion of Plato and his theory of forms, Feser turns to the importance of Aristotle and his philosophical contributions. This is no minor issue. Feser has very strong feelings about the importance of Aristotelian philosophy and the consequences of abandoning such a philosophy. I found it funny how he wrote out his feelings about the abandonment of Aristotelianism. Funny because of the ironic manner in which he framed and answered the question, but I ultimately think he’s right. So Feser asks, ”How significant is Aristotle?”, and his lamenting answer is, “Well, I wouldn’t want to exaggerate, so let me put it this way: Abandoning Aristotelianism, as the founders of modern philosophy did, was the single greatest mistake ever made in the entire history of Western thought” (51 Feser’s emphasis).

His lament doesn’t end there. It just begins, and it continues for a whole page. From the “disintegration” of “rational justifiability of morality and religious belief”, evolution vs ID controversy, abortion, same-sex marriage, to the “mind body problem”, skepticism, and relativism, Feser suggests that our cultural decay has been in a steady and slow (now rampant) decline as a result of the abandonment of Aristotelianism, which “provided the most powerful and systematic intellectual foundation for traditional Western religion and morality [...] that has ever existed” (51-52).

No doubt these are very strong claims. He even anticipates how some of his readers might ask or think that he’s somehow joking. But he readily admits that he isn’t, and he adds a number of qualifiers. I really do look forward to how his responses play out and how he will weave them together to back up his claims. He goes as far as admitting that he is indebted to the reader by making these grand assertions. Luckily, he asserts that he will jump into the metaphysics and “pay off [his] debt to the reader” (52). Feser does seem very confident in the power behind Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy.

With this confidence, he launches off into discussions on potentiality and actuality, form and matter, and the four causes. All these are pertinent to understanding Aristotelianism and Feser makes sure his readers understand its importance and applicability. To illustrate the concept of potency and act, Feser uses his famous little bouncy ball example (which I’ve employed myself since this illustration is the best way for people to understand it). The ball’s potency is basically those ways in which the ball can be, e.g., green if you paint it, flat if you pound it down with a hammer or something, and/or “gooey” if you melt it. Actuality is the way the ball actually is: a blue bouncy ball is actually blue, bouncy, round, and hard.

A few more distinctions are needed. Something in act cannot potentially be just anything. The ball cannot potentially be a toothpick or a leather chair. Its potentialities are such that they are grounded in the nature of the thing in act. Furthermore, something goes from potential to act only if something else in actuality acts as an efficient cause on it. Feser explains that for a rubber ball to actualize its potential and become goo, it requires something external that’s in act (heat) to melt the ball.

As an aside, I really didn’t intend to go on and summarize all of the concepts that Feser explains. I’m only doing this because it helps me understand it better as I explain it to an audience.

Anyways, so Feser goes into great detail explaining these concepts and the rest of them. Feser does explain how some of modernistic philosophy has become crap when he criticizes Hume’s problem of cause and effect and demonstrates how these problems only arose as a result of abandoning the aristotelian notion of explaining things, i.e., the four causes. He uses an example of a breaking a window with a brick to demonstrate. The “problem” is that the break being thrown is one event and the window being shattered is another event (65). Who’s to say that the first event caused the second? Feser says that there is no problem and the problem only arises because of Hume’s wrongheaded position in the first place. Simply put, “things are causes, not events” (66). So with regards to the brick and the window, Feser explains that “the key point in the causal series would be something like the pushing of the brick into the glass and the glass’s giving way[...] these events are simultaneous” (66). There’s a lot more technical jargon involved in his explanation. So Feser doesn’t just trout out a simplistic answer like I’ve framed it, but he does go into detail at how this event is explained and why Hume got it wrong.

Next to the act/potency distinction, the four causes is the chief cornerstone to Aristotelianism. But Feser observes how modern science claims to have buried the hatchet and made formal and final causes obsolete and false. Feser’s response to this was…well, you can see for yourself:

Let me be very clear about something. However widely accepted, these claims are, each and every one of them, simply untrue. They are false. Wrong. Mistaken. Erroneous. Non-factual. Not the case. And this is putting it too mildly: If one were to use the proper technical jargon common in traditional Australian philosophy [...] one would characterize them as ‘bullshit.’ (71)

Fesers response is basically that modern science never came close to disproving the four causes. All they did was drop the usage of two of them and moved on. This hardly counts as a refutation. Because of this move, Feser continues, philosophical problems arose and things have just been getting worse and worse. Once again Feser makes the promise that these things will get fleshed out later on in the book (and I’m inclined that this is true since he does have a chapter that’s titled “Descent of the Modernists”). I certainly hope he doesn’t leave his readers with not enough to fill them up. But I have faith in the guy.

I’ve already started reading the third chapter, and the book is just getting better and better. I’ll save my thoughts and some discussion on it for another post.

 

Read Along: The Last Superstition

Since I finished God, Freedom, and Evil I figured I’d do another Read Along and post my thoughts on my current read, which is Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition. Feser is definitely one of my favorite philosophers and influences, and he shows why in this book. Feser is both rigorous and humorous, while also being a great writer that can write clearly, precisely and concretely (it’s hard to find a philosopher who can have all of these traits). I think in his own right, Feser is a cross between Aquinas in rigor and Christopher Hitchens in rhetorical skill, and he’s able to blend these perfectly when needed. This book is where Feser shows this blend.

First of all, I entirely agree with Feser’s approach in this book. Not only is he matching up to and surpassing the New Atheists in the intellectual war, but also in the rhetorical one. “It is essential,” Feser proclaims, “then, not only that its intellectual pretensions are exposed but that its rhetoric is met with equal and opposite force” (25). I entirely agree. Most of the village atheists (and I’m referring to a specific group of atheists since I know that not all atheists are like this, or that not all atheists like the way the New Atheists handle things) don’t listen to intellectual arguments, and most of their own arguments are simply rhetorically filled with demeaning attacks towards religion. I think it’s about time someone not only knocks them off their feet by intellectually challenging them (not that this hasn’t been happening), but by also burying them into the ground by demolishing them with some witty rhetoric.

Most of the introduction and first chapter is focused on pretty much calling out the New Atheists and just ripping them down. Feser admits that for the time being, most of what he’s saying are just assertions, but he promises to flesh them out with intellectual argumentation and rigor in the remaining parts of the book. One part that really cracked me up was when Feser basically called particular atheists–those who say that believing in God is on par with believing in the easter bunny–a “shallow and sophomoric jackass” (15).

Feser’s description of the typical village atheist or “skeptic” is another masterful product of his wit:

A copy of Skeptic magazine ostentatiously tucked under his arm, the Darwin fish on the bumper of his car proudly signals his group identification with other members of the herd of “independent thinkers.” He “knows” that there is no God, and he isn’t whether even the thoughts he thinks he’s having are real or not. But he is pretty sure that his “selfish genes” and/or his “memes” in some way manipulate his every action, and quite certain that there’s nothing questionable per se about ‘”marrying” another man, strangling an unwanted disabled infant, or sodomizing a goat or a corpse (if that’s “what you’re into”). Despite his hatred of religion, he thinks global warming a greater danger than Islamic terrorism, and whether “meat is murder” is a proposition he thinks eminently worth of consideration. (17)

I think his description is as true as it is funny (and I think it was pretty funny). Sadly, I come across a lot of atheists like this, even in the philosophy department at my school. It’s as if Dawkins personally trained all his little cronies himself. They all follow the ridiculous and irrational model laid out by people like Dawkins, and Feser points his finger at this as well. Feser also reiterates an observation that many Christian philosophers have been pointing out (not that they’re the only ones who point it out, but they’re the ones who do it more and more), namely that the issues between science and religion is a battle of philosophies and not of science and religion per se. Feser calls this a myth. Plain and simple. He tells us that the dichotomy is between two metaphysical systems: that of “Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas on the one hand, and modern naturalism on the other” (21).

Most of his first chapter is spent on ripping on the New Atheists and setting the groundwork for what’s to come. The second chapter is where things get interesting (and fun for you ancient philosophy junkies). Feser begins to briefly sketch the history of ancient philosophy starting with Thales. He enters into Plato’s theory of forms and up to now he is discussing realism, nominalism, and conceptualism. Feser hasn’t spent time making a case just yet. He’s still just tilling the ground and explaining the ancient philosophy and is directing the conversation mainly over universals and forms since later he will use a lot of these concepts when he turns to Aristotle and Aquinas. This is as far as I’ve gotten. I’m really loving it. The book is a light read, but not light enough to where you won’t get any substantial philosophy. The way it’s looking, I think Feser is going to take me for a good ride with his book. I’ll keep you all posted on my reading and thoughts as I continue reading through. Hopefully I don’t finish it fast enough to where I won’t post anymore and thus won’t have anymore to write on this!

 

The new atheism? In short, 4 people who decided the rising dissaproval of religious fanatics was a good excuse to write books and to cash in on naive people who after reading the books would get the false impression that they are smart. Thus causing them to spend 100s of dollars on fallacious books to make greedy atheists rich.

-Falcondick69

Don’t you just love Youtube comments?

— The New Atheism In A Nutshell

 Scroll to top