4everGod: Oga stop lying. The internet is there for you to utilize. Both christopher and Peter were Atheists right from youth...Have you read Christophers book GOD IS NOT GREAT and Peters Counter book THE RAGE AGAINST GOD?
Peter came to God eventually after he realised his errors and tried all he could to convert Christopher.
For this Lie you just posted here I will open a thread about Peter Hitchens and lay it bare verifiably and from His own mouth.
sekundosekundo: Wow! all I know is that as an atheist, I was into masturbation for 20yrs, I fornicate, I lie easily, I was a drunkard, I steal and do a lot of evil because I was made to believe that I am not answerable to any God but when I became a Christian all the evil l was doing stopped by the power of God. My father who was an atheist even told me on his sick bed to embrace Christ. He told me a lot. He died about 5yrs ago at the age of 96yrs all through this years he was an atheist. My mum also died as an atheist. l know better than you know. And cannot be deceived any more.
i think i now know why you became a theist... You want to ''sin'' and sin as you like and whenever you do..you use your ''buy-back clause''...after all he'd always forgive you... Well done...
naijaFrank: I certainly think that For a deep thinker, there could be many designers. After all the germans made Mercedes and the Koreans made KIA. Having a designer does not necessarily compel me to believe that there is only a single source of this super intelligence... What if there are multiple Gods as our ancestors believe
Having said that, I am Agnostic with a tiny bit of faith perhaps as a result of my Christian upbringing.
My believe system is based on the simple fact that I do not know anything for sure. Maybe there is one God, maybe there are a million and maybe there is none - Maybe we do not yet possess a level of intelligence to make sense of the complexity of nature. Maybe the mystery and the pursuit of this knowledge is important in the spectrum of life.
at the bolded..thank you! They keep on giving us arguments for poly deism and poly theism... But they claim theistic...
donbrowser: Weed ko Breeze ni So Elephant grass is pollinated by wind? Did I mention flower? Explain how you find weeds growing where they are not planted SIMPLE!
jonbellion: lol you creationists crack me up. So you believe in intelligent design the comedy of science. Lol okaaaay you don't have to believe in evolution but your not accepting it does not make it a lie that is something you do not seem to understand. And btw we did not evolve from apes how is this hard to understand. The modern apes and the humans share a common ancestor. I'm sure the Alsatian christian dog also tells his friends it didn't evolve from a wolf despite being artificially selected by humans 10 000 years ago to the various dog breeds we have today. You did not come from a modern ape oo. You and then share a common ancestor. Our other species like homo Neanderthalis and homo erectus have died out. Or did they inform you that us homo sapiens are the only human species in your church?
even if we came from modern apes.. Europeans are the ancestors of americans... Why are there still europeans? These creationists are lame in thinking.
jonbellion: wtf are you saying. Why are you ignorant naaaaaaa. For Gods sake ray comfort even took the video down because he was informed he was wrong. The banana we know today is a seedless tripod an asexual clone bred through banana tree pups these are manually cut side shoots of the parent clone including a stem and some roots. It is only through human cultivation he has managed to survive this long despite the fact it is not sexually propagated. The wild bamanas have hard flesh and inedible seeds. Plus bananas only grow in the tropics. Jesus certainly had not seen a banana. So if they are designed for consumption why do they only grow in the tropics that people don't have access to. Ray comfort took the video down cuz he discovered he was wrong and you are here defending him nawa oo
its really funny.. A simple google search can cure a lot of ignorance.
dhesire: This has always been my comfort, whenever I am confronted with issues like this. One day it will all end, if Heaven/Hell is real and you die a FAITHFUL CHRISTIAN, then nothing to lose and again if Heaven/Hell is not real and you die, again nothing to lose but if you die an Atheist and you find that Heaven/Hell is real, then you are a confirmed LOSER!
wackpoet: Pardon my generalization, but it's clear you haven't watched the video. I can understand it's pretty long and your mind is already set. Stephen Meyer asked Mr Peter Atkins if the quoted statement was accepted scientific knowledge and he agreed. Now, this video was recorded in 2010 and I agree that a whole lot of ideas could have come to dispute earlier facts, so if you do find any please do tell me. If evolution were true why aren't there present any live examples of animals evolving into another one. Also answer this, if you stayed in a tree for years and your children and children children stayed in trees for years would you grow a tail ( as implied by evolution) ?
he brought no new scientific questions...just dead old arguments that have been debunked since.. And to your question...no thats not evolution..you dont understand it yet. But let me show you something the pic below is an atavism(just search it yourself) we have many cases of people born with tails... Which is as a result of the failure of the tails formed during embroyology to regress---embroyology shows we are related to other mammals(a common descent) proof of evolution.
ever811: OK sir but every body must not be a scientists like you...buy can you explain to me in a lay mans language what the evolution theory answers about this questions... 1.how the chemicals that formed life came into existence and found there way to a particular place as many as they are to form life? 2.how did the chemicals formed male and female with there respective organs for reproductive purpose.3.did man learn how to use every part of his body or its by nature,(have it in mind that chemicals are not intelligent so the couldn't have created man to such specifications as to what he should use every part of his body for) such as teeth to chew his,food tongue to taste and control his words,ear to hear,eyes to see,brains to reason with which some people has deliberately refused to use there own.fingers to grip...anus to excrete what he has eaten for new one to come in for him to survive..if you believe all this things happened by chance.. the you can also believe that the the first humans had televisions in there houses..iam waiting for your answers,dot refer me to any link answer me word by word by your self..tank you
open a thread for this...i will reply you there... I dont want to derail this thread.
ever811: OK sir but every body must not be a scientists like you...buy can you explain to me in a lay mans language what the evolution theory answers about this questions... 1.how the chemicals that formed life came into existence and found there way to a particular place as many as they are to form life? 2.how did the chemicals formed male and female with there respective organs for reproductive purpose.3.did man learn how to use every part of his body or its by nature,(have it in mind that chemicals are not intelligent so the couldn't have created man to such specifications as to what he should use every part of his body for) such as teeth to chew his,food tongue to taste and control his words,ear to hear,eyes to see,brains to reason with which some people has deliberately refused to use there own.fingers to grip...anus to excrete what he has eaten for new one to come in for him to survive..if you believe all this things happened by chance.. the you can also believe that the the first humans had televisions in there houses..iam waiting for your answers,dot refer me to any link answer me word by word by your self..tank you
open a thread for this...i will reply you there... I dont want to derail this thread. Okay?
ever811: sir,so going by the first definition.. its shows that banana either the bush or the one we consume are products of nature not man made so go back and read that your comment again...where you said the banana we consume is artificial.. thank you
lol..you dont even know what the word artificial implies... We said...the banana we have today is as a result of artificial selection by humans...not nature.. Go and read up artificial selection..i cant argue simple agric'
ever811: dictionary meaning of the word .. ARTIFICIAL.. then you can continue with your grammar on banana.. thank you
artificial - /ɑːtɪˈfɪʃ(ə)l/ adjective 1. made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural. 2. (of a person or their behaviour) insincere or affected. 3. (of a bid) conventional as opposed to natural. Artificially modified.
wackpoet: Guess no matter how different our views are ,we have one thing in common ; we are both Jon Bellion fans. I do not believe in evolution basically because it makes minimal sense and there aren't factual proof of its happening, just theories by ' prominent ' scientists. Most scientists go along with evolution because it is like a gate pass to acceptance in the scientific community. Evolution hasn't and cannot account for the origin of life ( correct me if I'm wrong) . Because the first life form, the first DNA molecule had to have come with a pre-programmed information that would help it replicate and scientists agree that information must come from an intelligent source ( whom we call God) . if it was that a few clicks just happened and life was formed from inorganic components, I might understand evolutionary point of view . But no, there were a million and one variations that could have happened , but everything just followed a precise pattern all leading up to all forms of life we have now . I don't claim to be an authority on the subject but do check out this audio ' Stephen Meyer Vs Peter Atkins( renowned chemist, atheist and author of most of your university text book) arguing on the movie ' Expelled ' . This is the you tube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSZlPZvIOC0 . Read, listen and be sure of what exactly you defend.
all scientists agree that info' must come from an intelligent source?? Are you a pseudostatitician?
davtosh: All ATHEISTS beliefs are based on science. They so believe in science like it will never fail or there could never be a mistake in science beliefs.
Pasted below are just ten out of several Scientific beliefs that have been proven wrong by scientists themselves. And I wonder where our NL Atheists would hide their faces when eventually what they are die-hard BELIEVERS of today are proven wrong tomorrow.
You believe the Abrahamic God does not exist and thats why you rain insults on Him and His Son who is Him. SMH
The Abhamic God don't fight and strike like humans would expect Him to do to proove His existence No. Because He knows you will know one day that He surely exists either here on earth before you die or after you have died. So go on and have your fun, rain more abuses on Him and curse Him. One day you will if He exits or Not.
Read
Below are Failed Scientific Beliefs. I am not a Science student neither was I. I am an Artist a Painter and Sculptor. So what I paste below was Copied from a research on the Internet.
Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong) 1
POSTED BY EVAN ANDREWS ON MARCH 12, 2010 IN EDUCATION, SCIENCE | 85,459 VIEWS | 176 RESPONSES
One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong. Theories are constantly being refigured, and new research frequently renders old ideas outdated or incomplete. But this hasn’t stopped some discoveries from being hailed as important, game-changing accomplishments a bit prematurely. Even in a field as rigorous and detail-oriented as science, theories get busted, mistakes are made, and hoaxes are perpetrated.
The following are ten of the most
groundbreaking of these scientific discoveries that turned out to be resting on some questionable data. It is worth noting that most of these concepts are not necessarily “wrong” in the traditional sense; rather, they have been replaced by other theories that are more complete and reliable.
10. The Discovery of Vulcan
Vulcan was a planet that nineteenth century scientists 1 believed to exist somewhere between Mercury and the Sun. The mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier first proposed its existence after he and many other scientists were unable to explain certain peculiarities about Mercury’s orbit. Scientists like Le Verrier argued that this had to be caused by some object, like a small planet or moon, acting as a gravitational force. La Verrier called his hypothetical planet Vulcan, after the Roman god of fire. Soon, amateur astronomers around Europe, eager to be a part of a scientific discovery, contacted Le Verrier and claimed to have witnessed the mysterious planet making its transit around the Sun. For years afterward, Vulcan sightings continued to pour in from around the globe, and when La Verrier died in 1877, he was still regarded as having discovered a new planet in the solar system.
How it was Proven Wrong:
Without La Verrier acting as a cheerleader for Vulcan’s existence, it suddenly began to be doubted by many notable astronomers. The search was effectively abandoned in 1915, after Einstein’s theory of general relativity helped to explain once and for all why Mercury orbited the Sun in such a strange fashion. But amateur stargazers continued the search, and as recently as 1970 there have been people who have claimed to see a strange object orbiting the sun beyond Mercury. Amusingly, the entire would-be discovery’s greatest legacy today is that it inspired the name of the home planet of the character Spock from Star Trek .
9. Spontaneous Generation
Although it might seem a bit ludicrous today, for thousands of years it was believed that life regularly arose from the elements without first being formed through a seed, egg, or other traditional means of reproduction. The main purveyor of the theory was Aristotle, who based his studies on the ideas of thinkers like Anaximander, Hippolytus, and Anaxagoras, all of whom stressed the ways in which life could spontaneously come into being from inanimate matter like slime, mud, and earth when exposed to sunlight. Aristotle based his own ideas on the observation of the ways maggots would seemingly generate out of dead animal carcass, or barnacles would form on the hull of a boat. This theory that life could literally spring from nothing managed to persist for hundreds of years after Aristotle, and was even being proposed by some scientists as recently as the 1700s.
How it was Proven Wrong:
It was only with the adoption of the scientific method that many of the classical theories like spontaneous generation began to be tested. Once they were, they quickly crumbled. For example, famed scientist Louis Pasteur showed that maggots would not appear on meat kept in a sealed container, and the invention of the microscope helped to show that these same insects were formed not by spontaneous generation but by airborne microorganisms.
8. The Expanding Earth
Our modern understanding of the interior and behaviors of the Earth is strongly based around plate tectonics and the concept of subduction. But before this idea was widely accepted in the late 20th century, a good number of scientists 2 subscribed to the much more fantastical theory that the Earth was forever increasing in volume. The expanding Earth hypothesis stated that phenomena like underwater mountain ranges and continental drift could be explained by the fact that the planet was gradually growing larger. As the globe’s size grew, proponents argued, the distances between continents would increase, as would the Earth’s crust, which would have explained the creation of new mountains. The theory has a long and storied past, beginning with Darwin, who briefly tinkered with it before casting it aside, and Nikola Tesla, who compared the process to that of the expansion of a dying star.
How it was Proven Wrong:
The expanding Earth hypothesis has never been proven wrong exactly, but it has been widely replaced with the much more sophisticated theory of plate tectonics. While the expanding Earth theory holds that all land masses were once connected, and that oceans and mountains were only created as a result of the planet’s growing volume, plate tectonics explains the same phenomena by way of plates in the lithosphere that move and converge beneath the Earth’s surface.
7. Phlogiston Theory
First expressed by Johan Joachim Becher in 1667, phlogiston theory is the idea that all combustible objects—that is, anything that can catch fire—contain a special element called phlogiston that is released during burning, and whic 1 h makes the whole process possible. In its traditional form, phlogiston was said to be without color, taste, or odor, and was only made visible when a flammable object, like a tree or a pile of leaves, caught fire. Once it was burned and all its phlogiston released, the object was said to once again exist in its true form, known as a “calx.” Beyond basic combustion, the theory also sought to explain chemical processes like the rusting of metals, and was even used as a means of understanding breathing, as pure oxygen was described as “dephlogistated air.”
How it was Proven Wrong:
The more experiments that were performed using the phlogiston model, the more dubious it became as a theory. One of the most significant was that when certain metals were burned, they actually gained weight instead of losing it, as they should have if phlogiston were being released. The idea eventually fell out of favor, and has since been replaced by more sophisticated theories, like oxidation.
6. The Martian Canals
The Martian canals were a network of gullies and ravines that 19th century scientist mistakenly believed to exist on the red planet. The canals were first “discovered” in 1877 by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli. After other stargazers corroborated his claim, the canals became something of a phenomenon. Scientists drew detailed maps tracing their paths, and soon wild speculation began on their possible origins and use. Perhaps the most absurd theory came from Percival Lowell, a mathematician and astronomer who jumped to the bizarre conclusion that the canals were a sophisticated irrigation system developed by an unknown intelligent species. Lowell’s hypothesis was widely discredited by other scientists, but it was also popularly accepted, and the idea managed to survive in some circles well into the 20th century.
How it was Proven Wrong:
Quite unspectacularly, the Martian canals were only proven to be a myth with the advent of greater telescopes and imaging technology. It turned out that what looked like canals was in fact an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blown across the Martian surface by heavy winds. Several scientists had proposed a similar theory in the early 1900s, but it was only proven correct in the 1960s when the first unmanned spacecraft made flybys over Mars and took pictures of its surface.
5. Luminiferous Aether
The aether, also known as the ether, was a mysterious substance that was long believed to be the means through which light was transmitted through the universe. Philosophers as far back as the Greeks had believed that light required a delivery system, a means through which it became visible, and this idea managed to persist all the way through to the nineteenth century. If correct, the theory would have redefined our entire understanding of physics. Most notably, if the aether were a physical substance that could exist even in a vacuum, then even deep space could be more easily measured and quantified. Experiments often contradicted the theory of the aether, but by the 1700s it had become so widespread that its existence was assumed to be a given. Later, when the idea was abandoned, physicist Albert Michelson referred to luminiferous aether as “one of the grandest generalizations in modern science.”
How it was Proven Wrong:
In traditional scientific fashion, the notion of a luminiferous aether was only gradually phased out as more sophisticated theories came into play. Experiments in the diffraction and refraction of light had long rendered traditional models of the aether outdated, but it was only when Einstein’s special theory of relativity came along and completely reconfigured physics that the idea lost the last of its major adherents. The theory still exists in various forms, though, and many have argued that modern scientists simply use terms like “fields” and “fabric” in place of the more taboo term “aether.”
4. The Blank Slate Theory
One of the oldest and most controversial theories in psychology and philosophy is the theory of the blank slate, or tabula rasa, which argues that people are born with no built-in personality traits or proclivities. Proponents of the theory, which began with the work of Aristotle and was expressed by everyone from St. Thomas Aquinas to the empiricist philosopher John Locke, insisted that all mental content was the result of experience and education. For these thinkers, nothing was instinct or the result of nature. The idea found its most famous expression in psychology in the ideas of Sigmund Freud, whose theories of the unconscious stressed that the elemental aspects of an individual’s personality were constructed by their earliest childhood experiences.
How it was Proven Wrong:
While there’s little doubt that a person’s experiences and learned behaviors have a huge impact on their disposition, it is also now widely accepted that genes and other family traits inherited from birth, along with certain innate instincts, also play a crucial role. This was only proven after years of study that covered the ways in which similar gestures like smiling and certain features of language could be found throughout the world in radically different cultures. Meanwhile, studies of adopted children and twins raised in separate families have come to similar conclusions about the ways certain traits can exist from birth.
3. Phrenology
Although it is now regarded as nothing more than a pseudoscience, in its day phrenology was one of the most popular and well-studied branches of neuroscience. In short, proponents of phrenology believed that individual character traits, whether intelligence, aggression, or an ear for music, could all be localized to very specific parts of the brain. According to phrenologists, the larger each one of these parts of a person’s brain was, the more likely they were to behave in a certain way. With this in mind, practitioners would often study the size and shape of subjects’ heads in order to determine what kind of personality they might have. Detailed maps of the supposed 27 different areas of the brain were created, and a person who had a particularly large bump on their skull in the area for, say, the sense of colors, would be assumed to have a proclivity for painting.
How it was Proven Wrong:
Even during the heyday of its popularity in the 1800s, phrenology was often derided by mainstream scientists as a form of quackery. But their protests were largely ignored until the 1900s, when modern scientific advances helped to show that personality traits could not be traced to specific portions of the brain, at least in not as precise a way as the proponents of phrenology often claimed. Phrenology still exists today as a fringe science, but its use in the 20th century has become somewhat infamous: it has often been employed as a tool to promote racism, most famously by the Nazis, as well by Belgian colonialists in Rwanda.
2. Einstein’s Static Universe
Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory found its biggest adherent in Albert Einstein—the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe”—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity.
How it was Proven Wrong:
The theory of a static universe was problematic from the start. First of all, a finite universe could theoretically become so dense that it would collapse into a giant black hole, a problem Einstein compensated for with his principle of the “cosmological constant.” Still, the final nail in the coffin for the idea was Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the relationship between red shift—the way the color of heavenly bodies change as they move away from us—and distance, which showed that the universe was indeed expanding. Einstein would subsequently abandon his model, and would later refer to it as the “biggest blunder” of his career. Still, like all cosmological ideas, the expanding universe is just a theory, and a small group of scientists today still subscribe to the old static model.
1. Fleischmann and Pons’s Cold Fusion While the conditions required to create nuclear energy usually require extreme temperatures—think of the processes that power the sun—the theory of cold fusion states that such a reaction is possible at room temperature. It’s a deceivingly simple concept, but the implications are spectacular: if a nuclear reaction could occur at room temperature, then an abundance of energy could be created without the dangerous waste that results from nuclear power plants. This groundbreaking theory briefly seemed to have become a reality in 1989, when the electro-chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons published experimental results suggesting that they had achieved cold fusion—and the precious “excess energy” it was hoped to produce—in an experiment where an electric current was run through seawater and a metal called Palladium. The response to Pons and Fleischmann’s claims by the media and the scientific community was overwhelming. The experiments were hailed as a turning point in science, and it was briefly believed that with cold fusion energy would be cheap, clean, and abundant.
How it was Proven Wrong:
The fervor over cold fusion died down as soon as other scientists tried to replicate the experiment. Most failed to get any kind of similar results, and after their paper was closely studied, Fleischmann and Pons were accused not only of sloppy, unethical science, but were even said to have stretched the truth of their results. For years after, the idea of cold fusion became synonymous with fringe science. Still, despite the stigma attached to it, many have argued that there was never anything necessarily wrong about cold fusion as a theory. In recent years, scientists have once again started to experiment with new ways of achieving a so-called “tabletop nuclear reaction,” with some even claiming to have achieved surprising success.
good...so science doesnt claim to be infallible...and accepts correction.. Do you and your book of literature?
GRIMMJOE: No we won't, my advice life is too short live it well and right,do good unto others, And stop hoping for a better life in a non existing heaven where all you do all day is praise, How will you feel when you family that failed to make it,burn for
A child of 6 years old go to hell for stealing a piece of meat
we are all born in sin,so where do dead babies to to
How old are we going to be in this after life
How do a man survive in a fish for days
The sun stood still,no natural disaster
So tell me if a strange unknown man turns water to win will you drink it
Most Christian are Christian cos they were born into it as well as Muslim
And they are over 4000 religion
And some people still believe the earth is 2000 years old
christianity is a perversion of human intellect and psyche.
musicwriter: Guys. Here's a more worthy video of an atheist professor of Biology who later came back to his senses and realized evolution doesn't make sense. It took a simple question from one of his female student to reset his brain. The man is a top scientist, and his refutation of atheism was so huge in the US that it was turned to a movie.
okay..with mathematics as you prefer ...prove to us how 8 people gave this present world populace,, 2)how the mutations/information necessary for the diversity of species which we see in the ''kinds'' today...a genetic model of this is required.. 3)where's your evidence in the Bible that animals have been rapidly morphing from one species into another,,as the bible suggests animals have remained the same-------The description of animals given in the bible corresponds with modern day species E.g Job 39(ostriches) and other animals etc 4)For your version of “evolution” to be true animals would have to have evolved from a few “kinds” to millions of species in less than 3000 years,and this ought to have been greatly observed by humans with contemporary eye witness accounts..e.g the elephant takes a decade for sex.ual maturity to set in and gives birth to a couple of offsprings...so its ancestor would have been morphing virtually every generation...any records? 5)Extra biblical records prove that animals have remained ''unchanged'' for long... E.g the sarcophagus of Prince Thutmose of egypt's cat of the 18th dynasty(1543-1292 BCE) shows the cat---No different from modern day..there are many others like mummified animals dating older than this and recorded cases of domesticated animals..but i decided to use the one which is verified and the date:static... The chronological date for your flood is 2348 BCE so do you believe this speedy evolution of about 30,000 kinds is possible is less than a thousand years? Cc gaelllic
Interesting. Some are skeptics, some are ironical atheists.
not one skeptic in the op... Ironical atheists?? Yes
I thought atheists were atheists.
atheism no longer has a narrow meaning
I wish I had the time to remove all the non atheists from your number-desperate thread. But you can even do it your self.
i dare you bro...try your luck..lets see
Why not just post people who clearly claimed they were atheists, not deists, agnostics or anything.
not one deist on my thread... I myself i'm an agnostic...but i can vouch for atheism..
The few supposed agnostics on it sef each majorly strongly disbelieve in religion,and strongly disbelieve in the afterlife too..(from their own words) and make no comment of a possible belief..like einstein did(one reason i didnt want to add einstein)
Oh please, They do. We never get to hear about the useful ones untill they have acheived. Its the useless ones that scream their names. Ironic, isnt it So Bill gates is an atheist Or did you lump he and his likes to your very few number of atheists Bill Gates thinks it makes sense to believe in God, do you think so too There goes your IQ.
yes..the deistic version of a God makes sense at least...not a personal God and bill gates is an agnostic;a special excerpt(an ironical atheists at the scratch)
Einstein was anti-atheist. I can give you his quotes against atheism. I think you should just lump him with your atheist acheivers, since you need people who were clearly not atheists to team up against the ever countless Religious acheivements.
i clearly knew this...one of the reasons i refused/didnt want to add him..or do you think i would not research einstein of all people? And the religious achievements this modern era..is not very comparable to the ones by atheist
The dye referred to in matthew is the kermes dye;the word is from kokkos(kokkinos),greek for kermes the insect the dye was produced from described by pliny the younger to give a ''bright red''
but for purple...different dye,different word...etc..
Christianity Etc › Re: Watch The Newly Released Movie: "The Atheist Delusion" Free Here by MrMontella(m): 10:03am On Oct 25, 2016
Or did you lump he and his likes to your very few number of atheists