Mountains Of The Uk Closes 10 Jan
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Why Should God Appear/exist At All?
217 Answers
I asked this in naomi's 'Atheist Authors' thread, below, in response to khandro's query.
He did what all good religionists do and ignored it, so thought I'd put it out here.
Religionists....WHY does your God exist?
He did what all good religionists do and ignored it, so thought I'd put it out here.
Religionists....WHY does your God exist?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Clanad, time for me, at the moment, is very limited, so I’ll overlook the silliness and the personal slights and all the other interim nonsense you’ve posted - not least a link to the highly questionable https:/
I’ve asked you a question, knowledge of which you initially - and clearly, as suspected, quite disingenuously - claimed ignorance of. However, you’ve subsequently attempted to worm your way around it - but having done all that, ultimately you have no answer.
//Remember, no interpretation of Scripture is valid that is not based on careful exegesis, that is, on wholehearted commitment to determining what the ancient author meant by the words he used.//
You tried, credit for that, but as expected, it didn’t work. You’ve provided numerous links – and as I understand it from PhD’s, no less (why would anyone in possession of a good education consider that terribly impressive?) – but still no answer.
Frankly, if you depend upon other men, who have no more information available to them than you have available to you, to explain it to you, then the whole exercise has proven futile. You have all failed. What utter nonsense it all is.
I’ve asked you a question, knowledge of which you initially - and clearly, as suspected, quite disingenuously - claimed ignorance of. However, you’ve subsequently attempted to worm your way around it - but having done all that, ultimately you have no answer.
//Remember, no interpretation of Scripture is valid that is not based on careful exegesis, that is, on wholehearted commitment to determining what the ancient author meant by the words he used.//
You tried, credit for that, but as expected, it didn’t work. You’ve provided numerous links – and as I understand it from PhD’s, no less (why would anyone in possession of a good education consider that terribly impressive?) – but still no answer.
Frankly, if you depend upon other men, who have no more information available to them than you have available to you, to explain it to you, then the whole exercise has proven futile. You have all failed. What utter nonsense it all is.
Failed is as failed does, naomi… I've asked you multiple times to narrow your query a bit so as to be manageable, (after initially providing my answer which you didn't like) but yet you refuse and as usual turn to nastiness as an excuse for lack of in-depth knowledge of the subject that you have raised…
In our very first exchange, I clearly answered briefly and concisely what had happened on "Easter"… I should have realized, yet again, you resort and retreat to the ruse of appearing to have an interest in a reasonable exchange only to have that hope dashed by your persistent accusing the other party of "failing" to do something… in this case answer your question as well as attempting to slip sliding out of any discussion by your unfounded accusations… so be it...
In our very first exchange, I clearly answered briefly and concisely what had happened on "Easter"… I should have realized, yet again, you resort and retreat to the ruse of appearing to have an interest in a reasonable exchange only to have that hope dashed by your persistent accusing the other party of "failing" to do something… in this case answer your question as well as attempting to slip sliding out of any discussion by your unfounded accusations… so be it...
Clanad, //Death, burial, resurrection and thereby completion of God's eternal plan to reconcile man unto himself with the only sacrifice that would avail itself for the completion… that supplied by the Eternal and unchanging Yahweh… Himself (Just as prophesied centuries before, by the way…)//
^That was your initial answer – hardly something that can be considered factual. As for prophecy, how simple it is to manufacture events to suit prophecy. Why, the gospel writers even had Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey - and surely the simplest way to demonstrate that prophecy is bunkum is to examine the prophecy Jesus himself made:
“Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)
It didn’t happen.
^That was your initial answer – hardly something that can be considered factual. As for prophecy, how simple it is to manufacture events to suit prophecy. Why, the gospel writers even had Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey - and surely the simplest way to demonstrate that prophecy is bunkum is to examine the prophecy Jesus himself made:
“Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)
It didn’t happen.
Jom, I’m implying that the authors of the gospels embellished the Jesus saga to align with the earlier prophecy – and furthermore if there’s any truth at all in the donkey ride perhaps Jesus himself, who was no doubt aware of the prophecy, made it happen.
//Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.// Zechariah 9:9
//Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.// Zechariah 9:9
So... Jesus knew exactly who He was, knew the prophecy well, knew He was trying to reveal who He was to a reluctant Jewish nation and knowingly fulfilled the prophesy... so where's the problem?
In Old Testament historical study, it's clear that the Jews recognized two seperate and distinct traits to the prophesied coming Messiah... on one hand he would be the "Suffering Servant" (Isaiah 52 for an astonishing description of what happened to Jesus) on the other He would be the "Conquering King" (Several Old Testament Prophets, example: Isaiah 9 and Isaiah 11).
Especially during Yeshua's lifetime on Earth, the Jewish leadership (Sanhedrin) taught and expected the Conquering Kink Messiah to appear and deliver the Nation from the Roman oppression. They got, instead, the Suffering Servant who came to save "all the people" though He Himself would ultimately die for his efforts.
Yeshua's toughest goal was to convince the Jews of His Messiahship, if you will, and He knew full well all of the Prophecies applicable, so it's difficult to understand your point of His willfully fullfilling a prophecy applicable to the Suffering Servant. (Even today Jews await the Conquering King Messiah, not realizing the Suffering Servant was the prelude with the Conquering King being the ending chapter, but one and the same.)
The Apostles finally came to understand this when Yeshua arose from the tomb. Especially notable is John's reaction when he peered into the empty tomb (John 3:10) (John was notably moved when he observed the grave clothes but focused on the 'face-napkin' folded neatly and laid aside and believed, {from the ancient Greek word eido meaning, "to understand, to perceive the significance of"[i] more about that significance if requested}).
A point has been made previously that the Christian 'faith' was but a small group to begin with and fraught with dangers from both the Jewish Sanhedrin as well as the Roman authorities, so why on Earth would the "...authors of the gospels embellished the Jesus saga..." which would draw attention to themselves?
Just the night before, they cowered in an upper room afraid of every noise and their own shadows... but became bold and spoke outright about Yeshua after just one exposure to the Risen One... each went willingly to his death, some in far away lands spreading the Good News. The Good News is for you too, Naomi... (נָעֳמִי - pleasantness in Hebrew BTW).
By the way, I think that Yeshua's appearance in the 'Transfiguration' (Greek metamoorphi ) with Moses and Elijah in the next Chapter 17: 1-8, is most likely the answer to question of His coming in His Kingdom... it happened suddenly and is reasonable, no. Others have offered other interpretations that are equally as valid in my opinion.
In Old Testament historical study, it's clear that the Jews recognized two seperate and distinct traits to the prophesied coming Messiah... on one hand he would be the "Suffering Servant" (Isaiah 52 for an astonishing description of what happened to Jesus) on the other He would be the "Conquering King" (Several Old Testament Prophets, example: Isaiah 9 and Isaiah 11).
Especially during Yeshua's lifetime on Earth, the Jewish leadership (Sanhedrin) taught and expected the Conquering Kink Messiah to appear and deliver the Nation from the Roman oppression. They got, instead, the Suffering Servant who came to save "all the people" though He Himself would ultimately die for his efforts.
Yeshua's toughest goal was to convince the Jews of His Messiahship, if you will, and He knew full well all of the Prophecies applicable, so it's difficult to understand your point of His willfully fullfilling a prophecy applicable to the Suffering Servant. (Even today Jews await the Conquering King Messiah, not realizing the Suffering Servant was the prelude with the Conquering King being the ending chapter, but one and the same.)
The Apostles finally came to understand this when Yeshua arose from the tomb. Especially notable is John's reaction when he peered into the empty tomb (John 3:10) (John was notably moved when he observed the grave clothes but focused on the 'face-napkin' folded neatly and laid aside and believed, {from the ancient Greek word eido meaning, "to understand, to perceive the significance of"[i] more about that significance if requested}).
A point has been made previously that the Christian 'faith' was but a small group to begin with and fraught with dangers from both the Jewish Sanhedrin as well as the Roman authorities, so why on Earth would the "...authors of the gospels embellished the Jesus saga..." which would draw attention to themselves?
Just the night before, they cowered in an upper room afraid of every noise and their own shadows... but became bold and spoke outright about Yeshua after just one exposure to the Risen One... each went willingly to his death, some in far away lands spreading the Good News. The Good News is for you too, Naomi... (נָעֳמִי - pleasantness in Hebrew BTW).
By the way, I think that Yeshua's appearance in the 'Transfiguration' (Greek metamoorphi ) with Moses and Elijah in the next Chapter 17: 1-8, is most likely the answer to question of His coming in His Kingdom... it happened suddenly and is reasonable, no. Others have offered other interpretations that are equally as valid in my opinion.
Clanad, I also think Jesus knew who he was, but that wasn’t the son of God – and I don’t believe his family, who questioned his sanity, thought he was the son of God either. I think he may have considered himself to be what the people were expecting – a conquering king intent on freeing the land from Roman occupation.
A ‘reluctant’ Jewish nation? You mean all those people who welcomed him so enthusiastically into Jerusalem?
// ….a small group to begin with and fraught with dangers….why on Earth would the "...authors of the gospels embellished the Jesus saga..." which would draw attention to themselves?//
The authors weren’t members of that small original group.
//I think that Yeshua's appearance in the 'Transfiguration' (Greek metamoorphi ) with Moses and Elijah in the next Chapter 17: 1-8, is most likely the answer to question of His coming in His Kingdom... it happened suddenly and is reasonable, no.//
A convenient interpretation, but not a reasonable one – in my opinion.
A ‘reluctant’ Jewish nation? You mean all those people who welcomed him so enthusiastically into Jerusalem?
// ….a small group to begin with and fraught with dangers….why on Earth would the "...authors of the gospels embellished the Jesus saga..." which would draw attention to themselves?//
The authors weren’t members of that small original group.
//I think that Yeshua's appearance in the 'Transfiguration' (Greek metamoorphi ) with Moses and Elijah in the next Chapter 17: 1-8, is most likely the answer to question of His coming in His Kingdom... it happened suddenly and is reasonable, no.//
A convenient interpretation, but not a reasonable one – in my opinion.
"... I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me."
We share our world with many beautiful, sentient creatures who show every sign of feeling pleasure and pain, Clanad. Are you equally amazed at how often God's love is denied to so many of them?
We share our world with many beautiful, sentient creatures who show every sign of feeling pleasure and pain, Clanad. Are you equally amazed at how often God's love is denied to so many of them?
Vetuste… God gave His only Son to die on a cross for one reason only, so that all of the world could be reconciled of the sin that separated Him from them. His love extends to everyone and what you're describing is man's retort to that love, not God's willingness to give it…
Again, I say the most amazing thing to me is that an all powerful, all loving Being could and would create a world and all that's in it but freely allow the creature He loved the most to say no…
Additionally, we read in Genesis that God (in His triuneness {if that's a word}) gave godship of that world to man in Genesis 1:26 (and elsewhere) where God the Father states "Let Us give him dominion over the earth. In Strong's Concordance the Hebrew word mashal (and others)(Strong: H7287) which is translated into English as dominion
Orig: a primitive root; to tread down, i.e. subjugate; specifically, to crumble off:--(come to, make to) have dominion, prevail against, reign, (bear, make to) rule,(-r, over), take.
Unfortunately, man gave this Dominion to Satan, hence Satan's statement (as an example) to Yeshua on top of the mountain during the testing in Matthew 4:8 and 9… "8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”
Satan has had that dominion ever since and Satan hates man with a vengeance we can't understand… it's through that hate that most of the ills of this world manifest themselves… But, there will be a day when the lion lays down with the lamb and what you rightfully say will pass away…
Naomi, I think I understand what you're saying, but Scripture says "…Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death. (Mark 14: 60-64).
Jesus publicly claimed to be the Messiah. He claimed to be the Son of God. He even used the divine name in His answer: “I AM.” Now, at the very least, Jesus answered, “Yeah, I’m the Messiah. I’m the Son of God.”
You are exactly correct in saying the writers (with the exception of John) of the Gospels weren't Apostles, never the less, Luke, for example had a close relationship with several of those that had accompanied Yeshua for 3 years. And although you are correct as well in stating His family questioned His sanity, that ended with the resurrection… especially with His brother James, who came to the table late but also became a "pillar" of the early church...
Again, I say the most amazing thing to me is that an all powerful, all loving Being could and would create a world and all that's in it but freely allow the creature He loved the most to say no…
Additionally, we read in Genesis that God (in His triuneness {if that's a word}) gave godship of that world to man in Genesis 1:26 (and elsewhere) where God the Father states "Let Us give him dominion over the earth. In Strong's Concordance the Hebrew word mashal (and others)(Strong: H7287) which is translated into English as dominion
Orig: a primitive root; to tread down, i.e. subjugate; specifically, to crumble off:--(come to, make to) have dominion, prevail against, reign, (bear, make to) rule,(-r, over), take.
Unfortunately, man gave this Dominion to Satan, hence Satan's statement (as an example) to Yeshua on top of the mountain during the testing in Matthew 4:8 and 9… "8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”
Satan has had that dominion ever since and Satan hates man with a vengeance we can't understand… it's through that hate that most of the ills of this world manifest themselves… But, there will be a day when the lion lays down with the lamb and what you rightfully say will pass away…
Naomi, I think I understand what you're saying, but Scripture says "…Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death. (Mark 14: 60-64).
Jesus publicly claimed to be the Messiah. He claimed to be the Son of God. He even used the divine name in His answer: “I AM.” Now, at the very least, Jesus answered, “Yeah, I’m the Messiah. I’m the Son of God.”
You are exactly correct in saying the writers (with the exception of John) of the Gospels weren't Apostles, never the less, Luke, for example had a close relationship with several of those that had accompanied Yeshua for 3 years. And although you are correct as well in stating His family questioned His sanity, that ended with the resurrection… especially with His brother James, who came to the table late but also became a "pillar" of the early church...
Clanad, there is no hint of investigative curiosity in what you’re saying. Rather than examine the’ evidence’ objectively you appear to grasp at tales of manifestations and devils and sentimentality. Have you ever questioned, for example, just how accurate the words allegedly spoken by Jesus really are? Who recorded his trials?
One other thing. //“And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”//
I’m assuming that the above relates to Jesus, to quote you, ‘coming in his kingdom’ – clearly, when – and if - the words were spoken, an event to be expected at some future date. How then do you reach the conclusion in your post at 13:23 Thu 01st Oct that the transfiguration, which had already occurred at that time (allegedly), was evidence of this prophecy fulfilled?
One other thing. //“And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”//
I’m assuming that the above relates to Jesus, to quote you, ‘coming in his kingdom’ – clearly, when – and if - the words were spoken, an event to be expected at some future date. How then do you reach the conclusion in your post at 13:23 Thu 01st Oct that the transfiguration, which had already occurred at that time (allegedly), was evidence of this prophecy fulfilled?
Naomi... I have investigated, exhautively, the evidence, both secular and religious and have come to the conclusion (especially when comapring that evidence with evidence for other historical cases) that the overwhelming (at least to me) evidence supports my coclusions. There's no doubt others would disagree, but that disagreement is largely based on subject material, not historical evidence.
The two prophecies you cite are entirely different... in the first you quoted, Yeshua simply stated some of the apostles would remain alive to see him coming into his glory... which did occur in the Transfiguration, while the second, used today, will occur at the end of the seven year Tribulation (which follows the Rapture of the believers) when The Christ returns to Earth and establishes the 1,000 year Reign...
Look, there are few subjects in Scripture that have more disagreement as to interpretation than that of the end times... but I, personally see this scenario as plausible when considering all the applicable sources on the subject... both Old and New Testaments...
You have a good point about the Transfiguration because I didn't elaborate very well. The Transfiguration was a prelude vision of what it will be like when Yeshua does come into His kingdom, which is still to happen.
Trying to keep as focused as possible to cut down on the length of my responses, at least a little...
Vetuste... of course God cares for His creatures, but not on the same scale as for mankind. I'm afraid we would disagree on the inherent characteristics of an animals makeup emotionally. I've seen references to 'soulish' animals... those of more developed intelligence and an ability to interact with humans... wolves, for example. But, without seeming cold about it, I believe all animals, even those that can interact with humans are given anthropomorhic treatment by humans as in "Oooo, such a cute little doggy... doesn't he look just like a baby?" whereas the dog itself sees the human as a part of the 'pack' to be deffered to or to be used to gain additional food. I'd agree (not knowing any better) that pets and some other animals have developed that ability to a high degree and that can appear as 'love' or sympathy.
In all of Scripture I see no reference to animals in heaven or hell and I'm not sure what that means. I know what it means in the context of Mrs. C. and her little white Zuchon though!
The two prophecies you cite are entirely different... in the first you quoted, Yeshua simply stated some of the apostles would remain alive to see him coming into his glory... which did occur in the Transfiguration, while the second, used today, will occur at the end of the seven year Tribulation (which follows the Rapture of the believers) when The Christ returns to Earth and establishes the 1,000 year Reign...
Look, there are few subjects in Scripture that have more disagreement as to interpretation than that of the end times... but I, personally see this scenario as plausible when considering all the applicable sources on the subject... both Old and New Testaments...
You have a good point about the Transfiguration because I didn't elaborate very well. The Transfiguration was a prelude vision of what it will be like when Yeshua does come into His kingdom, which is still to happen.
Trying to keep as focused as possible to cut down on the length of my responses, at least a little...
Vetuste... of course God cares for His creatures, but not on the same scale as for mankind. I'm afraid we would disagree on the inherent characteristics of an animals makeup emotionally. I've seen references to 'soulish' animals... those of more developed intelligence and an ability to interact with humans... wolves, for example. But, without seeming cold about it, I believe all animals, even those that can interact with humans are given anthropomorhic treatment by humans as in "Oooo, such a cute little doggy... doesn't he look just like a baby?" whereas the dog itself sees the human as a part of the 'pack' to be deffered to or to be used to gain additional food. I'd agree (not knowing any better) that pets and some other animals have developed that ability to a high degree and that can appear as 'love' or sympathy.
In all of Scripture I see no reference to animals in heaven or hell and I'm not sure what that means. I know what it means in the context of Mrs. C. and her little white Zuchon though!
Thank you for your multi-link post, Clanad. Clearly a lot of effort went into sourcing links and drafting the post. There's enough reading material there to last me until Christmas (much as I prefer forum debates to be a kind of 'ping-pong' of manageable factual morsels).
Just the first link alone likes to divert you off to secondary pages so what would have been a quick point expands into another page of similar length.
All the same, that meant I found this
"The unique purposes of each Gospel writer -- keeping in mind that all of the Gospels were written for Christians, not as evangelistic documents intended to "convince" any non-believer to become a Christian (though intended rather to affirm what is already believed)."
which flatly states the opposite of what any proselytiser would want to hear.
Up to now, amongst atheists' assumptions has been this idea that God's magical abilities have had to be continually dressed up, enhanced to do the job of convincing ever more sceptical audiences in far flung parts of the world.
It is, perhaps an area worthy of its own thread: why were pagan civilisations which had not even heard of or accepted Judaism yet so easy to convince to make the leap all the way to Christianity? And how much of the (embedded) OT's content escaped their attention until they'd already committed themselves?
I said in another thread that God/Jesus had to 'trump' the powers of pagan gods: they had to be impressive, all powerful and have great magical abilities. How can any god beat the coming back from the dead trick?
Just the first link alone likes to divert you off to secondary pages so what would have been a quick point expands into another page of similar length.
All the same, that meant I found this
"The unique purposes of each Gospel writer -- keeping in mind that all of the Gospels were written for Christians, not as evangelistic documents intended to "convince" any non-believer to become a Christian (though intended rather to affirm what is already believed)."
which flatly states the opposite of what any proselytiser would want to hear.
Up to now, amongst atheists' assumptions has been this idea that God's magical abilities have had to be continually dressed up, enhanced to do the job of convincing ever more sceptical audiences in far flung parts of the world.
It is, perhaps an area worthy of its own thread: why were pagan civilisations which had not even heard of or accepted Judaism yet so easy to convince to make the leap all the way to Christianity? And how much of the (embedded) OT's content escaped their attention until they'd already committed themselves?
I said in another thread that God/Jesus had to 'trump' the powers of pagan gods: they had to be impressive, all powerful and have great magical abilities. How can any god beat the coming back from the dead trick?
@Clanad
I think another thing which gets atheists' goat is the frequent useage of long, convoluted sentences to convey what turns out to be quite simple messages. Brevity is the soul of wit, as Oscar Wilde famously said.
As an example, if I edit the opening paragraph of your 14:42 02 Oct to its core meaning it reads
//Naomi... I have investigated [..] the evidence [..] and have come to the conclusion [..] that the overwhelming [..] evidence supports my coclusions. [..] //
Which is kind of a statement of the obvious: you conclude things because the evidence you have collected *so far* has passed some arbitrary threshold required for you to be convinced of something.
As atheists, we accept that you've been through this Damascene experience. All you need to appreciate is that other atheists have a much higher threshold. In some cases it will be so high that an actual meeting with the deity would be required by which time it would be a matter of fact, not faith in the existence of the deity.
Douglas Adams wrapped this up neatly, in the Babel Fish section. "For proof denies faith and, without faith, I am nothing".
I think another thing which gets atheists' goat is the frequent useage of long, convoluted sentences to convey what turns out to be quite simple messages. Brevity is the soul of wit, as Oscar Wilde famously said.
As an example, if I edit the opening paragraph of your 14:42 02 Oct to its core meaning it reads
//Naomi... I have investigated [..] the evidence [..] and have come to the conclusion [..] that the overwhelming [..] evidence supports my coclusions. [..] //
Which is kind of a statement of the obvious: you conclude things because the evidence you have collected *so far* has passed some arbitrary threshold required for you to be convinced of something.
As atheists, we accept that you've been through this Damascene experience. All you need to appreciate is that other atheists have a much higher threshold. In some cases it will be so high that an actual meeting with the deity would be required by which time it would be a matter of fact, not faith in the existence of the deity.
Douglas Adams wrapped this up neatly, in the Babel Fish section. "For proof denies faith and, without faith, I am nothing".
Hypognosis you say
I think another thing which gets atheists' goat is the frequent useage of long, convoluted sentences to convey what turns out to be quite simple messages.
I think that what really "gets their goat" is that anyone should post at all supporting religion in Religion & Spirituality thread.
I think another thing which gets atheists' goat is the frequent useage of long, convoluted sentences to convey what turns out to be quite simple messages.
I think that what really "gets their goat" is that anyone should post at all supporting religion in Religion & Spirituality thread.
@Grasscarp
If there were no theists posting in R&S, there would be nothing for atheists to spout off about. Finding things to talk about, among people of like mind is incredibly difficult to do without boring them with what they already know. We'd end up having to discuss the weather, or sports results, or the sort of things other AB sections are about.
If there were no theists posting in R&S, there would be nothing for atheists to spout off about. Finding things to talk about, among people of like mind is incredibly difficult to do without boring them with what they already know. We'd end up having to discuss the weather, or sports results, or the sort of things other AB sections are about.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
Crosswords19 mins ago
1.000 Migrants Since Christmas Day
News55 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.