The most famous, passionately argued, longest-running debate

angry_carlos_hernandez_landeroIn June 2005 I delivered my lecture “If you can read this I can prove God exists” and posted it on my website.

Today, I have to thank a brotherhood of evangelical atheists for making it world-famous. It became the longest-running, most viewed thread on the largest atheist discussion board in the world.

They never successfully countered it.

A few months after I posted my talk, a gentleman named Rob sent me an email that said, “I see right through your sophistry and pseudoscience…” and an intense discussion began.

After a couple of weeks he got flustered, so he went to the largest atheist discussion board in the world, Infidels. He posted a link to my talk and basically said, ‘be nice to this guy while you rip him to shreds.’

I’d be lying to you if I said I wasn’t nervous. I was nervous. (Wouldn’t you be?) One of me, dozens of them. One slip of the foot and they’d eviscerate my sorry carcass like a pack of wolverines.

If you’ve spent any time on Infidels, you’ve seen – it’s not like those guys are real big on manners. The anger and hostility is so thick you can cut it with a knife. The Infidels website is six thousand pages of rage and spitting vitriol.

It’s do-or-die time. If there’s a hole in my theory, sooner or later these guys will find it.

And I really did fear that at some point someone would pin me down on some technicality. Or at the very least, that I would screw up or say something I didn’t mean and there would be some disaster I’d have to recover from.

Nope. That’s not what happened. What happened was actually a little surprising.

Let’s just say… they used to intimidate me. They don’t anymore.

I called their bluff.

Before this happened, I couldn’t have imagined that any group of self-respecting, educated men and women would actually try to tell me that DNA isn’t really a code. But that’s exactly what they did. (It is formally, scientifically and literally a code. See explanation here.)

They tried to tell me DNA was not a code – then tried to tell me a snowflake is a code – at the very same time!

They mocked me for taking science books and dictionaries literally. They called me every name in the book. One guy got so furious that the moderator had to delete his posts and ban him from the forum.

But after years of trying, they have not punched a single hole in the argument.


The argument begins with an open question “Did DNA come from natural processes, or was it designed?” and it goes like this:

1. The pattern in DNA is a code (by definition)

2. All other codes we know the origin of are designed (by observation)

Therefore we can explore five possible conclusions:

a) Humans designed DNA
b) Aliens designed DNA
c) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
d) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information*
e) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

(a) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans. (b) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time. (c) may be a remote possibility, but it’s not a scientific explanation because it doesn’t refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It’s nothing but an appeal to luck. (d) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code.* So the only systematic explanation that is consistent with science is (e) a theological one.


3. To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of design.


That’s it. That’s the argument. It’s that simple.

It’s so elegant, it’s irrefutable. It’s airtight.

There is nowhere for the atheist to go, except to say “I don’t know.”

Which is the truth. We don’t know, we can only infer.

All these guys understand that once they admit they don’t know, I’ll say, “Congratulations. Welcome to the world of agnosticism. Honest inquiry is now possible.”

Die-hard members of Infidels are profoundly committed to their atheist beliefs. They are just as devout as members of any religious sect. They won’t go there.

So they just endlessly argue that DNA really isn’t a code…. or it’s only a code in our imaginations…. or that rocks and snowflakes and cosmic rays are codes. Or that it’s not permissible for rational people to draw these sorts of silly conclusions.

I spent five years answering every single question and addressing every objection. I posted an exhaustive Q&A summary at You can click to six different pages that carefully address all the major arguments.

I noticed that one by one, the ‘smart ones’ dropped out. The moderator refuses to answer any of my questions, even though I’ve answered every single one of his.

One guy said, “If you quote Hubert Yockey one more time, I’m going to scratch your eyes out.”

One guy, screen name “Robert Webb” eventually showed up. He’s an atheist but he’s also a computer programmer and he called them on it. He said, “Perry’s definitions are correct, points #1 and #2 are right and you’re never going to prove him wrong.” They lashed out at him for saying that, and accused him of secretly arguing my side.

So far as I can tell, most of the ones who are still hanging in there haven’t actually read or listened to my presentation. They just go around in circles and call me names.

I stop by every few months and answer questions. Meanwhile this has become the most viewed, longest-running thread in the history of Infidels.

I have proven God exists, and… the place where this has been most thoroughly articulated is the largest atheist website in the world.

I love it!

God has a sense of humor, doesn’t He?

I’ve learned a lot from this. In no particular order, here’s what I’ve observed:

1. When people are backed into a corner and do not want to change their beliefs. They go into denial. No amount of logic, evidence, scientific findings or proof can change their minds. I guess somehow I had thought that if you put enough peer-reviewed, non-controversial textbooks, definitions and examples in front of them they would admit that I could be right.

Nope… not the case. If someone doesn’t want to believe something, there is nothing you can do to change their minds.


2. Most people do not know that science is based on inference. The idea that there is a law of gravity is inferred from 100% consistent observations. You can’t literally prove it. Belief in all scientific laws rests on faith in something you cannot prove: Namely, that the universe operates according to fixed discoverable laws.

3. Many people also do not know that the core belief of science – that the universe operates according to fixed discoverable laws – was originally a religious idea. To the best of my knowledge, this idea was first introduced 3000 years ago by Solomon, who wrote “Thou hast ordered all things in weight and number and measure.” (Wisdom of Solomon 11:21)

4. People who are well informed about things like the inner workings of computer systems – hardware and software engineers, for example – almost never challenge me on Information Theory. When I gave three different lectures at Lucent Technologies / Bell Labs, for example (the company where Claude Shannon first developed information theory), nobody accused me of applying the theory incorrectly.

The ones who argue are science wannabes, not professionals. People who think that watching the Discovery Channel or the latest Evolution show on PBS makes their opinions scientific.

5. When people feel threatened they abandon facts and resort to name-calling and emotional tirades. They accuse you of practicing “pseudoscience” and they say that you’re an “idiot” and a “creationist”.

They quote passages from the latest Richard Dawkins bestseller as though it were a Holy Book.

6. The real reason some people believe that life was caused by random accident is they have a very, very hard time fathoming that an all-knowing God would allow the world to be so messed up. This is a moral judgment, not a scientific position. “Accidents happen, therefore it’s all an accident.”

This at least appears to relieve them of having to explain why there is evil in the world. (Perhaps that’s true. But the problem is, it leaves them with no objective definition of what is good.)

7. Theologians gave birth to science in the middle ages. People who believed the world operated according to fixed, discoverable laws, began to search for those laws. People like Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Mendel, Boyle, Maxwell and even Einstein saw science as a way of studying the mind of God.

Science itself got started in ancient Rome, Greece, China and in Islam – but it never went anywhere in those cultures. Why? I would like to suggest that none of those cultures had a theology that described a systematic universe. But Christianity did teach that the universe was systematic and discoverable and that’s why science succeeded in the West after failing everywhere else.

8. Because of my websites and, I have had literally thousands upon thousands of email conversations with people about science, religion, morality, and all of kinds of deep questions. People from literally every single country in the world, every religion, every race and belief system you can imagine.

And I can assure you – NOBODY argues more stridently than the atheists. Nobody.

Militant atheism is most zealous form of religious fundamentalism in the world today. And yes, based on all my conversations and experiences I do classify atheism as an extremist religion. I’ve heard all the usual objections to that but I just don’t buy them. Modern atheism is not the least bit interested in discovering the truth, it’s only interested in making disciples.

A common stereotype of Muslims, for example, is that they are dogmatic and belligerent. But almost none of the Muslims I have ever encountered are actually like that! Atheists overwhelmingly are.

They’re combative and not only do they fail to show respect, they display burning contempt and derision for religious people. Atheists are more dogmatic about what they believe than anyone else I’ve ever encountered. Again, that’s my own experience from answering thousands of emails and debating in the Infidels forum.

9. Many people perceive science and religion as being in a war with each other. It’s a false war that has been largely invented and perpetrated by a tiny minority of extremely angry people. These people have perpetrated a lot of myths, too – for example they tell you that people believed the earth was flat until 500 years ago.

Wrong. People have known the earth was round for 2500 years.

You may not have known that prior to the mid- to late-1800’s there was far less hostility between science and religion. Yes there are the Galileo vs. the Church stories, but we have an exact reversal of that today: Scientists who are persecuted by secular institutions because of their religious beliefs. I predict that some day the present hostility will subside.

10. Atheists are very good at going on the attack. But they are astonishingly weak when they are called to defend what they believe (i.e. that life was a random accident; that the big bang happened for no particular reason at all; that there’s an infinite number of other universes somewhere.) I’ve found that when I press them for answers, they usually at some point suddenly vanish, never to return.

A very popular biologist, author and prominent atheist spokesman (he is referenced more than 200,000 times on the Internet and was a featured speaker at the 2010 World Atheist Conference in Melbourne Australia) subscribed to this very email series you’re reading right now. He sent me an email just the other day. He said:

“You’re insane, and you’re ignorant. You can stop sending me your foolish twaddle, your info is now in my filters.”

I kindly asked him if I could post his name and his comments on my website. No response.

That’s it. Total refusal to engage.

You know why?

Because he knows he can’t win.

I realize that I am not being terribly kind to atheism here (though I am not being unkind to anyone either). The atheist belief system needs to be punched in the face by people of all beliefs, and forced to account for itself. The infidels debate and this website is an open challenge for atheists to provide evidence for the things they believe in.

Tossing around words like “rational inquiry” and “science” and “non-sequitur” is no substitute for sound reasoning, actual practice of science, and the use of logic.

If atheism is going to wear the robe of science and reason, it’s time for us to expect it to answer science questions, not evade them. We need to demand reasons, not non-reasons. Open factual discussion, not name-calling and childish behavior from anonymous cowards.

And… if the atheist doesn’t know, let’s allow him to admit he doesn’t know, and be kind to him when he makes that admission.

And once he is open to following the evidence wherever it leads, let us welcome him into the world of honest and rational inquiry.

Perry Marshall

P.S.: I used to say: “If you doubt what I am saying here – go to the Infidels site and see for yourself. Read every single post in the 5+ year thread.” (They took it down and refused my requests to make it public. Screen shot at Read every reference you can find to this anywhere on the Internet. If after that you still think that my argument has been dismantled by the Infidels and I’m doing a cover-up job, then come back here and post your questions. Please read the FAQ first.

*P.P.S.: I have a multi-million dollar prize for Origin Of Information at

316 Responses

  1. Rastegar T. says:

    Greetings Perry,

    What do you mean by a “systematic universe”? Because I think the analogy of Muslim scientists with Chinese or Greco-Roman science is a bit unfair. Seeing as how those civilizations were largely non-religious or Polytheists.
    Some Persian, Andalusian and some Arab/Moor scholars of the Islamic era made leading contributions in a variety of fields. Figures such as Alhazen, Avicenna, Khwarazmi, Al-Zahrawi, Geber, Omar Khayyam, Zakaria Razi “Rhazes”, Karaji, Al-Kashi and many more.
    What I understand from studying the biography of these people is that these men also saw science as “a way of studying the mind of God”. Same as their Christian counterparts, many founders of modern science. Contemporary Muslim scientists like Abdus Salam, a practicing Muslim and a Nobel Laureate in physics, viewed science the same way Maxwell or Copernicus did.


    – Rastegar

  2. Mahmoud says:

    Dear Mr. Marshall,
    I’m not an English speaker (actually, I’m an Arabic defender of Islam on Arab atheist websites). However, I do know why “evil and mistakes” exist on this planet. Simply put, you can’t know what is right unless you know at least one example of how this “right thing” could go wrong. You can’t know the rightness of teeth, for example, unless you know of illnesses and mistakes that could lead to a person having no teeth at all. you can’t realize how beautifully and how rightly these teeth are aligned unless you have an experience with some maladies or genetic mistakes that make unpleasant spaces among those teeth. you can’t know the rightness of teeth length, unless you know of other organs (nails, hair, rodents’ teeth) that grow continuously (If teeth were growing continuously, like nails, it would of course pierce the skull!). Therefore, Mistakes are an epistemological need. You can’t know light unless you know darkness for some time. You can’t know how “genius” a building million-story high of cards unless you’ve experienced million failures at building only three-story-high building. You can’t know the genius that created man unless you know of the 50.000 maladies that exist on medical books. Every single mistake, malady, illness, mistake is therefore a necessary component of our epistemological experience in this life. Not only that, but you CAN NOT live and speak and practice you higher human faculties on this earth WITHOUT these mistakes!!!!! Why? Because these mistakes are what make our universe informative. The duality of (evil/good) and (right/wrong) are very needed components in our language, without which we can’t describe things like mature people. Also, without these mistakes, everything would seem natural and self-evident. If the we experience the same easiness in building computer processors like that we experience when making a broom, then there’s no point in defending God, since every thing is easy and mistakeless. Without them, we can no longer differentiate among things. SO, information theory requires the existence of mistakes. Without them, Our mental growth will halt at the age of six even if we lived for 100 years. Differentiation among things is what make us mature, and mistakes are what make this possible. So, the number of mistakes that could happen in a system is directly proportional to its high sensitivity and design. The more mistakes we can experience in a given system that statistically works fine, the more confident we are that this system is sensitively made and eloquently designed.

    Kind regards,
    Mahmoud Helmi (Muslim apologetic!)
    I can give you some other fascinating ideas if you like! I’m giving the atheists here hell!

    • Mahmoud,

      What an excellent and articulate explanation of why there is uncertainty in the universe.

      There is an information theory way of explaining this, which is simply that the laws of physics are inviolable but the laws of codes are violable. Because codes inherently involve choice and will, where pure physical laws do not.

      Thus there is contingency.

      Thanks for stopping by, you’re most welcome to stick around. I’m sure the atheist friends here will enjoy your participation :^>


  3. vachan k.v says:

    i wanted to ask u question
    1) According to you DNA is coded information.
    2) so you can call DNA as a language
    3) patterns are different from information
    4) we cannot find patterns which are similar to each other
    5) we can find information which are similar to each other
    let apply your theory and pattern theory to whole human population
    you cant find similar snowflakes in this world so snowflakes are patterns
    i wanted to ask can we find exactly similar humans in our planet
    according to me the answer is ‘ NO ‘
    so our whole human population shows some kind of pattern like snowflakes
    why this patterns exist
    its because of our DNA
    All don’t have exactly similar DNA
    Even DNA is a kind of pattern
    because you cant find humans who don’t have exactly similar DNA
    so after reading my post
    is DNA a pattern or language
    Patterns don’t need designer

  4. vachan k.v says:

    Also haven’t you heard about a software called avida
    you can use this software than your random mutation generator which you use
    its extensively used by evolutionary biologists
    you can try this software and see what happens to your google adds

    • Avida is designed. It can only operate when pre-established goals and parameters are set. It’s not proof of evolution through random mutation, it’s proof of design through teleology!

      I invite you to use Avida to improve Google ads, without designing anything or establishing a pre-determined goal.

  5. vachan k.v says:

    your theory is not theory of everything. Its not at all convincing to me. you just go on jumping. for example : u cannot compare amino acids and characters both have similar roles but behave differently. certain chemicals like to bond with certain chemicals it depends on their reactivity and bonding capability and also long chains of proteins can be formed because of self organization depending upon their differnce in molar mass and chemical reactivity.
    add salt and water don’t stir
    salt dissolves by itself
    i just gave you a simple explanation of self organization

  6. vachan k.v says:

    only 700 scientists in the whole world showed support to intelligent design and rest 99.9% supported evolution(info-wikipedia)

  7. vachan k.v says:

    You know how a bacteria reproduces its by self replication.
    it copies its parent cells DNA
    but still we cannot find bacteria with exactly similar DNA
    explain me why there are different strains of DNA in organisms which reproduces

    • Asexual reproduction life cycle

      In cases of asexual reproduction, the life cycle is complete in one generation, where an individual inherits all of its chromosomes from one parent and is genetically identical to its parents. Prokaryotes, such as bacteria, undergo binary fission, where each cell divides in half to form two cells with identical DNA to the original cell. In order for the original cell to divide, the prokaryotic chromosome that is a single DNA molecule must first replicate and then attach itself to a different part of the cell membrane. Most protists, unicellular eukaryotes, also reproduce asexually, except under stress they reproduce sexually.

      (From )

  8. vachan k.v says:

    Also evolution is not only caused by random mutation.
    there are many other factors which effect evolution
    3)genetic pressure
    you know why we evolved from apes after discovery of cooking our food got easier to digest so the size of our lower jaw bones decreased this gave room for our brain to expand
    is this caused by random mutation or diet?
    whatever example i have given is proven
    evolution is not theory its a fact

    • I believe in evolution. I just don’t believe it’s random. See

      I have a challenge for you, Vachan.

      See if you can find just ONE peer reviewed paper in all the biological literature that empirically demonstrates that evolutionary progress is driven by RANDOM mutations – and that said mutations are random and not algorithmic.

      I won’t have time for all your questions today but start with that one. Let me know what you come up with.

  9. vachan k.v says:

    its true that atheists attack a lot.
    main reason why a atheist recruits so that he wont be outnumbered
    see when i try to argive about the existence of god in my school
    its me against the whole class
    its 1 to 40
    surely i will recruit
    even atheists needs a company
    even you pupil recruit
    the country which i live in(india)
    its religious pupil who recruit the most
    forced religious conversion,bloodshed in name of religion
    i became a atheist because i had enough of this so called religion and god

    • Vachan,

      I can relate to your frustrations about religion and God. It’s a difficult subject.

      My experience is: Atheists try harder to recruit than religious people. You’re trying to convince me to be an atheist, are you not?

      I’ve got a book on my shelf called The Black Book Of Communism. It documents in excruciating detail the genocide of 160 million people under mostly atheist regimes — in the 20th century alone.

      That’s more people murdered, butchered, slaughtered, women and children sent to mass graves via atheism – during the 20th century – than because of all religious wars in all centuries combined. Is that a mere coincidence?

  10. vachan k.v says:

    i am not a pro biologist
    i am a 9th grade student who turned atheist this year

  11. vachan k.v says:

    blow to intelligent design
    An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
    Organisms have features that are suboptimal.
    Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

  12. vachan k.v says:

    If we were created by intelligent being then why on the earth we have design flaws??
    1)The existence of the blind spot in the human eye
    2)In the African locust, nerve cells start in the abdomen but connect to the wing. This leads to unnecessary use of materials.

    3)The human reproductive system includes the following:
    In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases, the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.
    In the human female, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. The prenatal skull will deform to a surprising extent. However, if the baby’s head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal.
    In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias including intestinal blockage, gangrene, etc., usually resulted in death

  13. vachan k.v says:

    i had enough of this pseudoscience.
    its not even a scientific theory
    this to be a scientific theory it must have the following
    Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations)
    Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
    Empirically testable and falsifiable
    Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
    Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
    Progressive (refines previous theories)
    Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

    • Vachan,

      1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
      2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.
      3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.

      This is the simplest argument for intelligent design that I am aware of.

      It is consistent; it is parsimonious; it is as useful as our knowledge of the genetic code and communication theory itself; it’s empirically testable. You can falsify it by producing an example of a naturally occurring code – all you need is one. It’s based on MANY observations and controlled repeated experiments. It’s correctable, it refines previous theories. it’s provisional because the door is wide open to you presenting an example of a naturally occurring code.

      I invite you to present one example of a naturally occurring code. It needs to conform to the requirements laid out in

  14. vachan k.v says:

    see friend
    you pupil can ask
    how DNA came into existence on its own?
    hoe evolution occur?
    now question from our side
    how did god create organisms?is there any observable experiment by which you
    can prove intelligent design?
    actually you pupil attack not us
    we try to attack your theory
    if we question your theories
    it will be worse than our theory

    • Vachan,

      Proof of design:

      1. The pattern in DNA is a code.

      2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.

      3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.

  15. vachan k.v says:


  16. vachan k.v says:

    why snowflake is a code?
    we can’t find DNA which are exactly similar to each other.
    we can’t find snowflakes which are exactly similar to each other
    why we don’t find exactly similar DNA?
    its because of sexual reproduction and natural selections
    why we don’t find snowflakes which are exactly similar?
    it’s because of temperature,wind,altitude,droplet size
    in case of DNA u say right now we have 6.7 billion unique designs
    but in case of snowflakes it’s not a code
    but even a snowflake contains information
    by studying its structure we can say what
    !)temperature 2)altitude 3)wind speed 4)droplet size
    it was created
    so even a snow flake has some encoded information in it
    then how can you call it a pattern
    snowflakes don’t need a creator
    but still it has information in it
    also when you recreate this information you can get exactly similar snowflake
    when you recreate the structure of DNA with information you got from the DNA which you can create a similar copy right
    even this applies to snowflakes which don’t need a creator but still it has information in it
    My theory applies to tornadoes,south china storms,formation of soil
    everything has a some or the other kind of information in it
    you just forgot to mention it
    you have just dig deep

    • A snowflake is not a code. It’s not a communication system according to the definitions in Claude Shannon’s paper. See If you disagree then draw a Shannon communication system and label the components – encoder, decoder, communication channel, table of symbols – for the snowflake.

      When a cell replicates, it makes an exact copy of DNA.

      Non-living, non-intelligent processes do not make copies because they do not process information.

  17. vachan k.v says:

    don’t tell me that even snow flakes need a creator thats total non- sense

    • Vachan,

      Name the place where I said “snowflakes need a creator.” Where did I say that?

      You are just proving that you are neither reading nor listening.

      I instruct you to stop obsessively posting poorly-thought out MISrepresentations of what I have said and READ and LISTEN to the material on my website.

  18. vachan k.v says:

    pick up a rock or pebble
    by studying its structure
    u can say
    what kind of factors are responsible for its unique shape?
    how old it is?
    what its made of?
    from where it came?
    i guess even this can be considered information
    so even a rock or a pebble has encoded information in it which can be decoded
    does this information need creator???
    encoded information is its structure
    decoded information is our explanation for its structure
    so i guess my theory is proven with flying colours

  19. vachan k.v says:

    also you know many pupils were sacrificed in name of god
    400000 to 500000 pupil were sacrificed in name of god by aztecs and mayans
    how many pupils were killed by nazis?
    i think nazis were theists
    u can say in recorded history there were more pupil killed by atheists??
    but humans history goes way back!!!!!!
    ad also religious pupil were not direct cause in many scenarios
    lets take example of dark ages were there was a tax called church tax which drained lives out of helpless peasents and all the structures built in name of god have bloody trail behind it !!!!!!!!
    reason of french revolution
    in main causes of french revolution
    even church play a major role
    also 18th century uprising in india
    happened because of a religious cause
    2 weeks ago in place where i leave
    8 churches were attacked because they were trying to forcefully convert hindus to deir religion
    friend religion has more indirect coz dan the direct cause
    countless revolutions in europe were caused because untold misery bought upon by pupil because of church and also what muslims call jihad how many pupils were lost
    9/11 and 26/11 terrorist attack
    motivated in name of god
    some things will be hidden
    you know what happened in my country when a muslim emporer invaded our country called timur who slaughtered 100000 natives in 1 day
    but history calls him a saviour
    history can mislead from real fact
    what about the witch hunts?
    you might cleanse yourself by saying they are bad guyz who misunderstood religion
    even i can tell those pupil who took countless lives were bad atheists misunderstood humanity so dey are not 1 of us
    i accept the fact which is kept in front of me

    • Vachan,

      I humbly apologize for all those abused and murdered by religion and religious zealots.

      The fact is, atheism in the 20th century alone has claimed more lives than all religious wars in all centuries combined. By a factor of 2-4.

      That is the fact.

      I fully understand your frustrations with religion. I fully relate. Oh, I could tell you stories, believe me.

      But atheism is even worse.

  20. vachan k.v says:

    i guess even you are a rational theist

Leave a Reply

You must use your real first and last name. Anonymity is not allowed.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *