Hi all,

I wanted to start a discussion to listen to adherents and hear what they have to tell us based on some questions I'd like to pose to them. In other words, I want to sincerely play the role of a seeker and ask them how I would know that their god is The One, True God. The purpose is not to deconvert or convert, I just want to walk through a seeker conversation where I'm allowed to ask questions of adherents and see what they have to say ... to listen. I am willing to expand on what I mean by "The One, True God" if a reader asks for that, to the extent that I think the definition is sufficient for the discussion.

This is the adherent's golden opportunity to proselytize; to convert me.

In order to do this effectively I need to ask the adherent for their imprimatur on a rule by which I can do this without bogging it down so that I can never get my questions asked. So, here it is. I'll ask a question as a hypothetical. It may be that there are more assumptions to the hypothetical that one could add, but I'll ask for the sake of discussion that we allow only the assumptions of the hypothetical I offer. This way, I can at least get through a few questions. If someone thinks the assumptions are insufficient just state that with your answer and we'll accept that as your answer informed by the assumptions of the question.

So, here's my question. I'll ask it and see if I can get a useful answer, recalling that I am a lifelong atheist who has never believed and who is sincerely trying to sort out all the gods out there and figure out which one to follow:

How do I know that your god is The One, True God?

Tags: Evangelical, Socrates, adherents, atheism, atheists, conversion, debate, deconversion

Views: 1739

Replies to This Discussion

Hey Zachary,

Well, if I wasn't being artificially forced to choose one of KK's precanned options, I would prefer another explanation altogether. I think it is most likely that the Epic of Gilgamesh derived from a genuine event which occurred in history involving a man, God, a boat, a flood, etc., etc. Just like any story gets messed up as it gets told by more people over time, so this ancient flood story took on more and more incorrect, and even ridiculous, elements as it evolved over time among different societies.

Just for the record, I don't think the question I asked precludes this possibility. My own assumption has been that a flood probably did occur. The question however, was if there was agenticity in the event or not.

So here's the question which I consider to be more important: Is it more likely that psychological and other factors have led cultures into modified and corrupted accounts of what are nevertheless genuine historical events from the early days of our species and genuine spiritual realities behind those accounts, or that the psychological influences alone have auto-generating these stories apart from any basis in a transcendent spiritual reality whatsoever?

Ohhh, oohhh, me me, hand raised! ;-) If you could just change one little sliver in there we'd be in total agreement. Here's my version:

Is it more likely that psychological and other factors have led cultures into modified and corrupted accounts of what are nevertheless genuine historical events from the early days of our species, or that the psychological influences alone have auto-generating these stories apart from any basis in a transcendent spiritual reality whatsoever?

Then I would agree that the first option is the more likely one. Another great post Zachary and thanks. By the way, I didn't mean to come down too hard on the religious narratives by implying they were "ridiculous". I was talking more about the secular example of the magical professor.

That evangelical atheist wicked little thang - kk

Well Zachary, it looks like we might be alone on this quest, at least for now. So, I'll go ahead with Question 6 as I don't see any significant support of any supernatural account thus far.

Question Number Six

The need for closure is a recognized psychological trait that comes in varying degrees amongst individuals in the general population. Those with a high need for closure tend to be outwardly observed as people with strong opinions, or who are strongly opinionated. By reaching a certain conclusion on an issue, one can have emotional closure. And whenever there is a void of fact people tend to fill it with certainty, regardless of how silly the conclusion may be. Furthermore, the order in which people receive information also affects how they rate the value of the object to which that information pertains. If received in order of increasing negativity, the final rating is more positive. If presented in order of increasing favorability, the final rating is more negative. The greater one’s tendency to need closure the more the person latches on to the first pieces of information and the value it assigns. This is called the Primacy Effect.

There are specific conditions under which this is more likely to occur; an important observation for religious contexts. If little is known of the object being ranked or valued, this tendency to rank according to the order in which information about the object is given is greater. This is a fancy version of “first impressions count the most” (because they are “first” impressions, the information about the object –in this example the person - is limited).

The need for closure in making value judgements can be augmented by placing a time pressure on the individual, forcing them to make a decision quickly. Loud noise can also cause this. In these cases people will experience a greater tendency to latch on to the information received first. The tendency to base conclusions on earlier information will be augmented in environments where there is:

  • Ambiguity
  • Uncertainty
  • Time pressure
  • Audible Noise
  • Peer accountability for the value assigned

Persons with low Primacy are almost completely immune to the Primacy Effect. But here is the big takeaway; persons with a high need for closure can be satisfied by simply saying “nobody knows” the answer, and that is okay. This dramatically reverses the observed behavior rendering the person with a high need for closure virtually identical to those with a low Primacy vis-à-vis some given example or trial.

Therefore, the adherent with a high need for closure will find any argument that satisifies their high need for closure to be compelling. The god did it answer is one such example.

A final note regards something academics call “Normative Influence”; which refers to the fact that people tend to follow the herd. From total strangers in a riot to the modeling of behavior between lovers or parent and child, normative influence is a hereditary trait that is ubiquitous amongst human beings and varies in intensity in like manner as the emotional bond between the individuals involved increases. 

Utterance 219 of the Pyramid Texts, circa 2500 BCE regarding the Egyptian King Osiris and his death

167: To say the words:
"Atum, this your son is here, Osiris, whom you have preserved alive. He lives! He lives! This Unas lives! He is not dead, this Unas is not dead! He is not gone down, this Unas is not gone down! He has not been judged, this Unas has not been judged! He judges, this Unas judges!

168: Shu, this your son is here, Osiris, whom you have preserved alive. He lives! He lives! This Unas lives! He is not dead, this Unas is not dead! He is not gone down, this Unas is not gone down! He has not been judged, this Unas has not been judged! He judges, this Unas judges!

169: Tefnut, this your son is here, Osiris, whom you have preserved alive. He lives! He lives! This Unas lives! He is not dead, this Unas is not dead! He is not gone down, this Unas is not gone down! He has not been judged, this Unas has not been judged! He judges, this Unas judges!

170: Geb, this your son is here, Osiris, whom you have preserved alive. He lives! He lives! This Unas lives! He is not dead, this Unas is not dead! He is not gone down, this Unas is not gone down! He has not been judged, this Unas has not been judged! He judges, this Unas judges!

171: Nut, this your son is here, Osiris, whom you have preserved alive. He lives! He lives! This Unas lives! He is not dead, this Unas is not dead! He is not gone down, this Unas is not gone down! He has not been judged, this Unas has not been judged! He judges, this Unas judges!

172: Isis, this your brother is here, Osiris, whom you have preserved alive. He lives! He lives! This Unas lives! He is not dead, this Unas is not dead! He is not gone down, this Unas is not gone down! He has not been judged, this Unas has not been judged! He judges, this Unas judges!

173: Seth, this your brother is here, Osiris, whom has been preserved alive, and who lives that he may punish you. He lives! This Unas lives! He is not dead, this Unas is not dead! He is not gone down, this Unas is not gone down! He has not been judged, this Unas has not been judged! He judges, this Unas judges!

174: Nephthys, this your brother is here, Osiris, whom you have preserved alive. He lives! He lives! This Unas lives! He is not dead, this Unas is not dead! He is not gone down, this Unas is not gone down! He has not been judged, this Unas has not been judged! He judges, this Unas judges!

175: Thoth, this your brother is here, Osiris, whom has been preserved alive, and who lives that he may punish you. He lives! He lives! This Unas lives! He is not dead, this Unas is not dead! He is not gone down, this Unas is not gone down! He has not been judged, this Unas has not been judged! He judges, this Unas judges!

176: Horus, this your father is here, Osiris, whom you have preserved alive. He lives! He lives! This Unas lives! He is not dead, this Unas is not dead! He is not gone down, this Unas is not gone down! He has not been judged, this Unas has not been judged! He judges, this Unas judges!

177: Great Ennead, this Osiris is here, whom you have preserved alive. He lives! He lives! This Unas lives! He is not dead, this Unas is not dead! He is not gone down, this Unas is not gone down! He has not been judged, this Unas has not been judged! He judges, this Unas judges!

178: Little Ennead, this Osiris is here, whom you have preserved alive. He lives! He lives! This Unas lives! He is not dead, this Unas is not dead! He is not gone down, this Unas is not gone down! He has not been judged, this Unas has not been judged! He judges, this Unas judges!

Is it more likley that the Egyptians carving these messages were experiencing a heightened need for closure or is it more like Osiris is The One, True God and yours is not?

- kk

I don't see any significant support of any supernatural account thus far

Ahh, but that is precisely the rub I wanted to get at. I totally support a supernatural aspect to all of the accounts given so far, just like I support a psychological aspect to them as well. But due to the rhetorical nature of the way your questions have been set up, my ability to articulate my support for the supernatural aspects has been masked over, while my ability to articulate my support for the psychological aspects has been accentuated.

This is why I wanted to make sure we were stating things clearly. When I assigned a low probability to the religious narratives you have supplied, that wasn't because I was willing to completely deny that some true spiritual/supernatural component was influencing them. And when I assigned a relatively higher probability to the psychological influence hypotheses, that wasn't because I was willing to embrace the psych hyp as the whole-hog explanation for everything that was going on. It is just that the questions were framed in such a way that my choice consisted of pitting granting validity to the psych hyp versus embracing the religious narratives as entirely valid. Again, apples and bananas. If I could have voted on the relative likelihood that psychological factors were influencing these beliefs versus the likelihood that supernatural factors were influencing these beliefs, that would have been a different story entirely.

Take Q2. Do I embrace the Helios narrative, as it stands, as highly probable? No. But if you only give room for a two-choice answer then that masks over the fact that some of my reasons for rejecting the Helios story are probably different from yours. As far as the mechanics of celestial orbits, I'm going to assume that you and I are on the same page in distinction from ancient Greeks. But there are other facets here, equally or more important than the mechanics of celestial orbits, in which I am probably closer to the ancient Greeks than I am to you.

Believers in Helios perceived an intelligence, and an intentional, powerful, "supernatural" being at work behind the wonder and glory of the fact that we are so privileged to have a sun rise and set over us every day. On that note, I would side with the Greeks over you. Regardless of how the mechanics work (axis-rotating earth vs. chariot-pulled sun) the bigger question I see is whether things ultimately work the way they do purely as a happenstance fall-out of impersonal laws, or ultimately according to someone's design and purpose. The Greeks and I fall on one side of that line, KK on the other.

I don't in the least bit think that the Greeks were foolish for sensing a supernatural aspect to the rising and setting of the sun. In fact, I think they were totally right about that! Now, admittedly, both their science and their theology were seriously lacking. Even if, at some point in their history, their ancestors knew the true story of the One who spoke the sun and the moon into existence, over time, due to the corruption of human nature and subsequent psychologically induced fallacies, for example, they developed a misguided explanation of it all in terms of Helios and his chariot. But the inaccuracies of the final mythological product as a whole do not negate the reality that the driving force behind them was an intelligently designed universe that cries out for explanation in terms of an intelligent, intentional, actor behind it.

Again, I'm siding with thousands of years of human history, across a huge spectrum of various races, continents, languages, and religions here in saying that yep, sure enough, the world around us truly does demand a supernatural intelligence based explanation. The problem with these myths isn't that the supernatural component needs to be thrown out, just that you need to listen to the sighted man's description of the elephant rather than the blind man's.

  Now, in terms of probability, let

A=there were psychological factors that influenced the development of this belief system

B=there were supernatural factors that influenced the development of this belief system

C=this belief system was true.

  You keep effectively asking me to compare P(A) vs. P(C), or something roughly like that. I'll admit that I reckon P(A)>P(C), but that line of questioning has a misleading effect, as demonstrated in your current claim that "I don't see any significant support of any supernatural account thus far". No! It is not the "supernaturalness" of the accounts that I have been voting against! It is just that they contain the wrong kind of supernaturalness, so I can't embrace the truthfulness of the narratives in toto. Your questions that artificially pit P(A) against P(C) don't allow me to factor in what I think, for example, about P(B)! That's why I wanted to make clear early on that I don't think the psych factors are the only factors at play in the development of, or act of people believing in, these narratives.

[And again, my interest in bringing "B" into the picture in addition to "A" has to do with the fact that I would claim that P(A and B) > P(A and (not B)), regarding which the Conjunction Rule has nothing whatsoever to say, so let's not go down that road.]

Hey,

Zachary, that was really, really, really long.

Ahh, but that is precisely the rub I wanted to get at. I totally support a supernatural aspect to all of the accounts given so far, just like I support a psychological aspect to them as well. But due to the rhetorical nature of the way your questions have been set up, my ability to articulate my support for the supernatural aspects has been masked over, while my ability to articulate my support for the psychological aspects has been accentuated.

It's not rhetorical, its a simple question anyone should be able to easily answer. You just don't want to because you see what it could imply if misused by an evangelical atheist wicked little thang.

This is why I wanted to make sure we were stating things clearly. When I assigned a low probability to the religious narratives you have supplied, that wasn't because I was willing to completely deny that some true spiritual/supernatural component was influencing them. And when I assigned a relatively higher probability to the psychological influence hypotheses, that wasn't because I was willing to embrace the psych hyp as the whole-hog explanation for everything that was going on. It is just that the questions were framed in such a way that my choice consisted of pitting granting validity to the psych hyp versus embracing the religious narratives as entirely valid. Again, apples and bananas. If I could have voted on the relative likelihood that psychological factors were influencing these beliefs versus the likelihood that supernatural factors were influencing these beliefs, that would have been a different story entirely.

Take Q2. Do I embrace the Helios narrative, as it stands, as highly probable? No.

Of course you don't. No one would. That's the point of the question. When its not your religion its absurd ;-)

But if you only give room for a two-choice answer then that masks over the fact that some of my reasons for rejecting the Helios story are probably different from yours. As far as the mechanics of celestial orbits, I'm going to assume that you and I are on the same page in distinction from ancient Greeks. But there are other facets here, equally or more important than the mechanics of celestial orbits, in which I am probably closer to the ancient Greeks than I am to you.

Okay.

Believers in Helios perceived an intelligence, and an intentional, powerful, "supernatural" being at work behind the wonder and glory of the fact that we are so privileged to have a sun rise and set over us every day. On that note, I would side with the Greeks over you. Regardless of how the mechanics work (axis-rotating earth vs. chariot-pulled sun) the bigger question I see is whether things ultimately work the way they do purely as a happenstance fall-out of impersonal laws, or ultimately according to someone's design and purpose. The Greeks and I fall on one side of that line, KK on the other.

I don't in the least bit think that the Greeks were foolish for sensing a supernatural aspect to the rising and setting of the sun.

Who said that? They are victims of the same brainwashing techniques used right up to the present.

In fact, I think they were totally right about that! Now, admittedly, both their science and their theology were seriously lacking. Even if, at some point in their history, their ancestors knew the true story of the One who spoke the sun and the moon into existence, over time, due to the corruption of human nature and subsequent psychologically induced fallacies, for example, they developed a misguided explanation of it all in terms of Helios and his chariot. But the inaccuracies of the final mythological product as a whole do not negate the reality that the driving force behind them was an intelligently designed universe that cries out for explanation in terms of an intelligent, intentional, actor behind it.

Again, I'm siding with thousands of years of human history, across a huge spectrum of various races, continents, languages, and religions here in saying that yep, sure enough, the world around us truly does demand a supernatural intelligence based explanation. The problem with these myths isn't that the supernatural component needs to be thrown out, just that you need to listen to the sighted man's description of the elephant rather than the blind man's.

Heyyyy, wait a minute. If you call one a myth ...

Now, in terms of probability, let

A=there were psychological factors that influenced the development of this belief system

B=there were supernatural factors that influenced the development of this belief system

C=this belief system was true.

You keep effectively asking me to compare P(A) vs. P(C), or something roughly like that. I'll admit that I reckon P(A)>P(C), but that line of questioning has a misleading effect,

No, it doesn't. What about the magical professor? Could you answer that first? I think that will enlighten everyone because I bet if you are being honest (and I'm sure you will) you will concede that the answer is trivial and obvious. Only when religion gets involved do you hedge for 5 pages ;-)

You know I'm right, Zachary, admit it ;-)

as demonstrated in your current claim that "I don't see any significant support of any supernatural account thus far". No! It is not the "supernaturalness" of the accounts that I have been voting against! It is just that they contain the wrong kind of supernaturalness, so I can't embrace the truthfulness of the narratives in toto. Your questions that artificially pit P(A) against P(C) don't allow me to factor in what I think, for example, about P(B)! That's why I wanted to make clear early on that I don't think the psych factors are the only factors at play in the development of, or act of people believing in, these narratives.

[And again, my interest in bringing "B" into the picture in addition to "A" has to do with the fact that I would claim that P(A and B) > P(A and (not B)), regarding which the Conjunction Rule has nothing whatsoever to say, so let's not go down that road.]

But that isn't what I'm asking.

- kk

Hi all,

I have some questions for adherents. If anyone wants to answer them I'd like to hear it.

The first is below:

Suppose I live in a society in which a common story told is that when little children make straight A’ in school a magical professor flies around the globe in a chariot going to each house where such a child resides and tosses candy down the chimney for that child as a reward for having done so well in school. Now, suppose I show you a study that clearly, and with a sound methodology and considerable replication of results, shows that children will tend to believe stories like this if they are sufficiently young and their parents and their community reinforce the tale. They call this phenom the “A” effect.

The question is:

Is it more likely that the children believe this story because of the A effect or because there is a magical professor that flies around in a chariot dropping candy down several million chimneys?

- kk

Hey,

Well, that's not the question, though. Here it is:

Is it more likely that the children believe this story because of the A effect or because there is a magical professor that flies around in a chariot dropping candy down several million chimneys?

- kk

Hey - okay tiger ;-) - kk

Question Number Six

More about the Need for Closure

One of the most important things a grieving person needs to do is get past the trauma of loss and move on with their lives. This is usually called “closure”. There is a genuine and very real need of human beings for this. There is a “Need for Closure”.

The need for closure is a recognized psychological phenomenon that comes in varying degrees amongst individuals in the general population. Those with a high need for closure tend to be outwardly observed as people with strong opinions, or who are strongly opinionated. You see this in everyday life in heated political debates, blog participants who cannot accept the obvious, religious debates and virtually any discussion involving strong opinions and a participant bearing them. The good thing about this, and the compliment to those like this, is that by reaching a certain conclusion on an issue and sticking to it, one can have emotional closure. And whenever there is a void of fact people will tend to fill it with certainty, regardless of how silly the conclusion may be.

In the seminal study “Primacy Effect in Personality Impression Formation” by Norman H. Anderson and Alfred A. Barrios, something called the Primacy Effect was studied in which the personality traits of individuals were rated by others. Each trait was offered by one of six acquaintances of the subject being observed. In other words, participants were given six choices, no more, no less, of personality traits they could ascribe to a given individual they observed. The participants had no direct personal knowledge of the sujbect being observed. They were asked to rank each one of these traits on an 8-point scale of weakest to strongest.

It was scored thusly:

4 Highly Favorable

3 Considerabley Favorable

2 Moderately Favorable

1 Slightly Favorable

-1 Slightly Unfavorable

-2 Moderately Unfavorable

-3 Considerably Unfavorable

-4 Highly Unfavorable

In addition, the persons asked to do the rankings were a group of six people who were acquaintances of the subject being observed. The six traits were smart, Artistic, Sentimental, Cool, Faultfinding and Awkward". IN this first trial, because there is an equal number of good and bad traits, one would expect an average ranking of around 1.38, which is what they got.

If we run another trial with another subject to observe and then reverse the word list, like this, "Awkward, Faultfinding, Cool, Sentimental, Artistic and smart" …

In other words, if we just reverse the order in which these adjectives are supplied to the observers (the order in which information is presented), they rank quite differently, yielding an statistically significant lower average ranking (in this trial, -0.72). This is because people tend to base final conclusions on the earliest information, regardless of type or kind.

The difference in these scores, 1.38 - 0.72 = 2.10, is called the Primacy Effect and it is well-studied. These results have been shown to be consistent over numerous studies of varying methodologies, all of them showing that:

When people attempt to render judgments under uncertain conditions a natural tendency is to experience greater influence from the information that comes along earlier rather than later. In other words, if "God" has the answer now and science doesn't, people tend to accept the "God" answer.

One of the common methodologies was to use the example of running trials with hiring managers at a corporation in which potential candidates for a job were to be ranked by the hiring manager as to their likelihood of success in their role at the company; a scale running from 1 to 10 with 10 being the most likely to succeed. The hiring managers are given tape recordings of the candidate which demonstrate the candidates handling of situations in various business conditions. As in the other studies, though presented to the hiring managers as being in "random" order, in fact the recordings are given to one group in ascending order of favorability and to the other group in descending order of favorability. The results have consistently shown an astonishing psychology around this:

Hiring managers were told this ranking scheme was still in the experimental stage and you weren't sure how valid their results will turn out to be: uncertainty was added regarding the applicability of their findings.

For reasons of "professional ethics" the hiring manager would not be allowed to find out how accurate their conclusions turned out to be: uncertainty was added regarding the falsifiability of their findings.

These two conditions set up the following overarching condition:

You could make these judgments (predictions of future performance) with little or no accountability because none of the other participants - or anyone else - would know how you ranked candidates. Because of these very liberal conditions one should expect a high Primacy Effect, and that is what they got, getting a Primacy Score of 7.5 on a 1 to 10 scale.

Then in follow-on sessions the opposite tact is taken: the hiring managers are told that their answers will be extremely important to the entire industry and will be believed and taken seriously everywhere. They are also told that they will be held to strict account for their answers and all will know how they responded. Finally, your predictions will be tested against measured results taken over time to see how accurate your prediction was. As expected, this caused the Primacy Effect to drop to 4.9 because now the hiring managers had strong motivation to come up with good predictions.

In a third series of trials the hiring managers are given time limits; that is, time pressure is applied for them to provide their predictions. It was generally set up as considerable pressure. When done the Primacy Effect increased because of the clinical term a "Need for Coginitive Closure", in this case forced by a time constraint. Psychologists call this seizing and freezing in which a subject will offer up the first prediction or answer that comes mind to avoid the ambiguity and uncertainty other predictions might cause.

There are specific conditions under which the Primacy Effect is more likely to occur; an important observation for religious contexts. If little is known of the object being ranked or valued (death), the Primacy Effect increases. When there is a lack of accountability (life after death is not falsifiable) the Primacy Effect increases. Where there is uncertainty about the applicability of any one theory of death, the Primacy Effect increases. Where one can provide an answer sooner than any other answer, the Primacy Effect increases. In other words, the tendency to grasp for the simplest, "God did it" answer, regardless of its real or believed validity, increases.

- kk

The Osiris worshipers and I both have a Need for Closure.

So, for the sake of expediency, and all important caveats aside, I'll vote for the "role of the A effect" over "the magical professor actually does drop candy down millions of chimneys".

I very much look forward to talking more about this magical professor scenario with you, and the other examples, if we can ever get to the end of this chain of questions. How many of them are there?

Hey Zachary,

Well, I think there is a basic honesty issue involved here. Not that any answers to the question are inherently dishonest, just that its getting to the point where I'm questioning the objections as being motivated by something other than reason, wittingly or not. In any other context you and I both know that the magical professor question would be easily answerable. Why it presents such a roadblock in this conversation is the more interesting part.

The questions are, I'm pretty sure, going to be less than 20, but if we keep digressing we'll never get through them. The point of this exercise was to ask adherents questions that I'd think should be easy to answer so that we could at least bracket the primary question. The purpose isn't to reach some final conclusion. The point here is not debate but questions and answers that help illustrate and illuminate.

- kk

I am a lifelong atheist who has never believed and who is sincerely trying to sort out all the gods out there and figure out which one to follow:

How do I know that your god is The One, True God?

KK,

  If you sincerely want to sort out which God is The One, True God, may I suggest:

Step number 1: Process of elimination. Rule out all the "gods" which never even claimed to be The One, True God. Rule out the "gods" which were reckoned as merely one member of a pantheon by even their most devout worshipers. Rule out mortals who were merely granted immortality at some point in time by the gods.

  It would be pretty silly for me to vote in favor of Helios or Osiris being The One, True God, if nobody ever even claimed that on their behalf, now wouldn't it? There is no point in going out of your way to try to "promote" someone to One, True God status if they never claimed to be there.

  I hope these thoughts are helpful in your effort to get things sorted out. Step 1 alone will save you an awful lot of effort.

-Zach

Hey Zachary,

I appreciate the suggestion. But I have a strategy in mind. I'll just repeat what I posted above because I think this is really the central issue:

Well, I think there is a basic honesty issue involved here. Not that any answers to the question are inherently dishonest, just that its getting to the point where I'm questioning the objections as being motivated by something other than reason, wittingly or not. In any other context you and I both know that the magical professor question would be easily answerable. Why it presents such a roadblock in this conversation is the more interesting part.

The questions are, I'm pretty sure, going to be less than 20, but if we keep digressing we'll never get through them. The point of this exercise was to ask adherents questions that I'd think should be easy to answer so that we could at least bracket the primary question. The purpose isn't to reach some final conclusion. The point here is not debate but questions and answers that help illustrate and illuminate.

And, yes, I am very sincere in these questions. That's why I'm asking such simple ones.

- kk

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Discussion Forum

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service