Skip to content

Do you get the atheist joke?

July 10, 2013

I’ve noticed with interest the discussion a recent opinion piece John Dickson began yesterday on the ABC Religion and Ethics page concerning the ‘atheist joke’. The ‘joke’ is when an atheist suggests to a theist (usually a Christian) – “There have been 10,000 gods through history, You reject 9,999 of them. I just go one god further!”

The thing I’ve noticed is how many people have misunderstood not only the original joke, but what John Dickson was actually saying. A case in point is a response to this from Jonathan Meddings at the Young Australian Skeptics (I know Jonathan, and I’m sure he would appreciate engagement with his opinions). Meddings critiques and criticises Dickson’s post and suggests that Dickson has conflated deism with theism in a non sequitur.

Unfortunately Meddings has misunderstood both what Dickson has said and what he has not said. I’ve outlined some responses and further discussion in 5 points here.

1. The fundamental problem with the ‘joke/argument’. The ‘argument’ that Dickson is responding to is not really an argument for atheism at all. The heart of the problem with the ‘joke’, this ‘argument’, is that there is a massive difference between relative atheism and absolute atheism. I am a Christian and it’s true that I reject the god Zeus, Ra, Mithras and the pantheon of other gods, all 9,999 of them. In this sense I am a relative atheist – I am atheist regarding these alternative gods. Yet I am a theist – I am not an absolute atheist. I do believe in some supernatural intelligence overseeing our universe. This is why there is an enormous difference between removing one last god. All theistic (monotheistic and polytheistic) say that there is this supernatural intelligence(s), atheism does not. Theistic claims suggest that our universe had it’s origin in this ‘unmoved mover’, atheism suggests that the universe itself was the ‘unmoved mover’. Theism in it’s various manifestations implies a certain metaphysical structure of the universe which is fundamentally different from atheism. This is why this argument/joke is false – you can’t move from polytheism to atheism by simply doing subtraction.

2. Dickson was not arguing (in this case) for the truth of the particular god he believes in, he was demonstrating the falsity of this ‘atheist joke’. Meddings claims that ‘Dickson has just argued that because believers believe in a god of sorts, the fact they reject all other gods is irrelevant to an argument about belief in a specific god.’ This isn’t true. Contrary to Meddings’ claims, Dickson was not attempting to “provide evidence for why his god (the God of Abraham) is the one true God”, he was demonstrating the weaknesses of the atheist ‘joke/argument’ presented to him (as I outlined above in point 1). He was trying to demonstrate that through a form of natural theology the instinct that the worshipers of Zeus had to worship something greater than themselves, their ‘idea of divine power and intelligence’ was correct.

3. There is evidence for a god from natural theology, but this is insufficient to make an exclusive claim as to the truth of a ‘particular’ god. Further Meddings’ claim that “the argument is simply that the religious don’t believe in all other gods because there is not sufficient evidence supporting their existence.” is spurious. Dickson’s point was that “the rational order of the universe is best explained by the existence of an almighty Mind (or Minds) behind it all.” Dickson’s point, which correct, is that through some form of natural theology, one can come to an understanding that there is a ‘god/supreme power’ in the universe. Dickson has used ‘natural theology (i.e. theology without revelation). Dickson’s argument is a combination of the philosophical arguments of causation and rationality. Note that this isn’t an exclusive claim at this point, Dickson hasn’t presented an argument for his particular ‘god’. He has used natural theology to demonstrate that there is ‘something there’, which those who worship Zeus etc have also realised. This illustrates the fundamental weakness with natural theology – it can give you a clue in a general sense that there is a god, but it doesn’t give you enough information to distinguish between various ‘god claims’. Is it Zeus, Jesus, Yahweh, Ra? We can’t tell, unless we receive special revelation (see point 5).

4. Deism is a form of theism not atheism. Meddings makes a confusing claim when he says, “Deists are atheists regarding all the gods of religion, because deists believe in a god that created the universe and left it alone. They do not believe in a god that intervenes in the Universe […} that is what theists believe” Yet this confuses the nature of the original ‘joke’  and he also implies that deists are in fact atheists! Deists are theists, they simply don’t believe in a personal or knowable god. Hence by conflating deism with atheism, he creates s very confusing situation. Deism is the end result of natural theology, i.e. that you can only know that there is something there, you can never be certain who or what that ‘god’ is.

5. The only way to determine the ‘truth’ and exclusivity of a particular ‘god’ is through special revelation. To make a judgement about which ‘god’ claim is true, requires special revelation. i.e that if there is a god, that if he is a personal god, he will reveal himself. If this god fails to reveal himself (or if he is not there), we must remain in the rut of deism and/or agnosticism. This last point was something that Dickson did not argue for (and hence is unfair to criticise him on). Yet, to add to Dickson’s case, the claim that god has revealed himself in the person and works of Jesus Christ is the reason that I believe the God of the Bible is the true and real God and why I reject the other 9,999 god claims.


From → New atheism, News

  1. the “I just believe in one less…” fails the reason test. For example, I am married, and the bachelor could say “you and me are just about the same. Youre a bachelor as it relates to the 3.5 women in the world youre not married to, I’m just married to one less woman than you.”

    I realize it’s not an argument or anything other than a slogan, but it should at least make a legitimate point, no?

  2. servant516 permalink

    Great thoughts.

  3. Paul M. permalink

    Gosh, this “one god further” joke seems to have really touched a nerve in the Christian community.
    Yes – it’s a glib, throw-away line used by non-theists to quickly illustrate a point about supernatural beliefs. Go ahead and poke holes in the semantic logic of it, it makes you feel better.
    The real issue here is that you’ve taken the “one god further” punchline – in the same way you take much of the Bible (or the Quran, or whatever holy scriptures you prefer) – way too literally.
    “One god further” is actually shorthand for any collection of beliefs based on supernatural, unfalsifiable claims. Read it instead as “one religion further”, or “one set of supernatural beliefs further”, and you might be more sympathetic to it.
    Example: Most atheists don’t believe in homeopathy, crystal healing, or the teachings of Deepak Chopra or L. Ron Hubbard, as well not believing in the teachings of Muhammad or Jesus Christ.
    I suggest most Christians don’t accept homeopathy either, along with their non-acceptance of Ra, Odin and Vishnu.
    Don’t get me wrong – I don’t care what you or anyone else believes, provided you don’t try to convert me, lie to my children, or hurt anyone else with those beliefs. And I’m not interested in trying to change those beliefs, with “one god further”, or any other argument based on logic for that matter. But frankly, suggesting it fails as an argument on the grounds of logic is disingenuous and hypocritical.

  4. Hi Paul, I think Dickson and co are simply pushing against that joke being used as an argument for the truth of atheism.
    A joke is a joke, right? And as a Christian I can certainly take a joke and maybe even tell a good one now and then. The concern is really that some atheists (and even some theists) like to use rhetoric rather than substance to make their point, which is essentially question begging. Stating *that* something is true rather than demonstrating *why* you think it’s true is the problem.

    It’s the use of rhetoric rather than substance that Christians are reacting to, because it actually quashes healthy debate and leaves onlookers with the sense that a case has been made when it really hasn’t – a sleight of mind if you will.

    I wondered if you could elaborate your thoughts that this reaction is disingenuous and hypocritical? I’m trying to understand the ways in which you think it is either of those.

    Also, on your point about falsifiability, I thought you might find this article of interest:
    I disagree with it’s authors in that I do see some atheists trying to make a case for naturalism, but I also see other atheists with a pre-commitment to it who simply hold it as an axiom.

    • Paul M. permalink

      Thanks for making a considered response, Marty, as well as the challenge, which I will take at face value as genuine rather than cynical. Perhaps to understand my statement – about “one god further” being a shorthand for any collection of supernatural beliefs – it might make sense to understand my position as an atheist. It’s difficult to be reasonably brief about it without skipping a lot of important stuff, but I’ll try.
      Everything in my experience leads me question assertions of the supernatural and claims of the bizarre. While not all supernatural assertions and bizarre claims have been debunked, every single one of them that has been explained, ever, in history, has been shown to be exactly not supernatural, and exactly natural. It is overwhelmingly likely that if something apparently ‘miraculous’ is observed, then the explanation for that may be either fascinating or prosaic, but definitely not miraculous.
      It is also my experience that humans tend to like finding, or assuming, the ‘miraculous’ or supernatural to account for observations they don’t fully understand. Furthermore, given that we now live in the most enlightened time of human history ever, it is probable, in fact a given, that this tendency to assuming the supernatural was even more prevalent the further back you go in history.
      The fact that there is plenty of independent documentation about the historical figure known as Jesus Christ, does not move me one iota to accepting bronze-age accounts of miraculous healing, walking on water, or that a dead man, ie., actually dead and not perhaps, very badly injured, can show signs of life again. These things are as plausible as, say, a thousand observers in modern-day New Mexico spotting UFOs in the desert and asserting aliens have arrived, when some other reason for a flying metal object can be proposed.
      Let’s extend the line of questioning to the nature of reality and universal creation. I cannot claim at all to have any reasonable or convincing clue about what made the Bing Bang happen. I have vague notions of elusive sub-atomic particles zipping into and out of existence and forced together (or apart) by physical mechanisms I can’t begin to understand. But the point is, I can easier accept the notion that those mechanisms are truly physical, and maybe stochastic and random, rather than intended and designed and orchestrated. The fact that the universe and Earth and fungi and caterpillars and humans are so astonishing is… astonishing. But none of this, at least in my own reductionist mind, requires a design, an intelligence, or even a purpose, in order to arise. Assuming that a design, and intelligence, and a purpose is required is, to me, a particularly ego-centric thing to do. God is not self-evident. God is retro-fitted to a phenomenon that none of us comprehend.

      I suggest that most modern civilised people are, to varying degrees and at varying times, also reductionist and sceptical. Most folks with an education dismiss leprechauns and unicorns as fantasy. Most also dismiss homeopathy and iridology as pseudo-sciences born from active imaginations. And most dismiss ancient legends of Poseidon, Ra, Odin and Zeus, as imaginative and fantastical deities that never really existed. What one cannot dismiss, however, is that there are or were, in each of these cases, collections of people that have believed passionately and dogmatically in these supernatural things. Those passionate and dogmatic people too have called upon all of their own experience, inner-knowing, and even ‘evidence’ to their various dogmas. We can all challenge their sophistication, but there’s no reason to doubt the strengths of their convictions about their own truths.

      To repeat: “…one god further” is a shorthand for not believing in any supernatural stories or religions. It is disingenuous for a religious person of any faith to deny that they don’t accept as true the conflicting religious beliefs of others. The implication that people of different religions do actually believe in the same purposeful creator, but they just have different names and mythologies surrounding it, is bullshit. You do not believe in the same god(s). You reject them. Rejecting other gods is a rule written into each of your holy books.
      The rejection of the “one god further” argument on the basis that it is illogical, is hypocrisy, not just for the same reason above, but because a lack of logic is replete throughout religious teachings.

      Regarding the article cited, I actually accept the argument that Christianity is probably the world’s most falsifiable religion on the basis of written evidence of historical characters. However, that does not, in my mind, make it any more “true” in terms of having the answers for divine creation than, say, Islam, or even Roman legends. It doesn’t matter to me that Christianity may well have the greatest collection of supporting independent documentary evidence as to the existence of every historical figure mentioned in the bible. I don’t care if a thousand independent historians witnessed Jesus stand up and walk around after he’d been dead for 3 days. In my mind, it’s far more likely that each of these witnesses saw something they didn’t understand. Perhaps one, or even a few, called it ‘rising from the dead’, and then somehow the idea was compelling enough to take hold. Independent accounts of rising from the dead. That’s not falsifiable evidence. That’s hearsay.

      • Paul and Marty,

        Many thanks for your thoughtful and intelligent responses to the article. Your exchange in many ways captures the essence of what this ‘atheist forum’ is designed to achieve – i.e. thoughtful engagement on topics pertaining to atheism.

        Paul – You’ve mentioned many things and there isn’t time to discuss them all here now. Yet, one thing that I want to hone in on is your rationale for rejecting the evidence concerning Jesus.

        “I don’t care if a thousand independent historians witnessed Jesus stand up and walk around after he’d been dead for 3 days. In my mind, it’s far more likely that each of these witnesses saw something they didn’t understand.”

        It seems that you have rejected ‘a priori’ any possibility of this miracle occurring? i.e. you have assumed your conclusion. Would that be fair? What would convince you that this ‘miracle’ actually occurred? Or have you assumed that miracles can’t happen, therefore it didn’t happen.

        (also, a minor quibble, but I’m sure you realise that Jesus lived in the Iron Age, not the Bronze age! 😉

        Look forward to your response.


      • Paul M. permalink

        Rob – fair enough on bronze age vs iron age. It’s OT that’s all that bronze age stuff, right…?

        * “It seems that you have rejected ‘a priori’ any possibility of this miracle occurring? i.e. you have assumed your conclusion. Would that be fair? What would convince you that this ‘miracle’ actually occurred? Or have you assumed that miracles can’t happen, therefore it didn’t happen.”

        No, Rob. I cannot deny all that such a miracle occurred, because it is unfalsifiable.
        The claim of a miracle is an extraordinary claim. It requires significant and compelling evidence for it to be accepted. The burden of proof is on the claimant, and that is scientific rationalism.

        As to what would convince me that the miracle occurred, a start would be to repeat it for me.
        In fact, it is such an extraordinary claim that merely repeating the event in front of my own eyes probably would not be enough to convince me absolutely of its truth.
        To get to this point would likely require repeating it a number of times, in the presence of independent trained observers with relevant equipment and the freedom to take measurements, followed by extensive analysis and peer review, with the respected observers and analysers coming to the same conclusions and communicating those conclusions in a way that made sense.

        Until that happens, a far easier explanation to accept is:
        1. That the people who witnessed the event saw something that was outside their normal experience.
        2. Being from an environment and a time in which superstition was commonplace in the attitudes of most people, it was normal, dare I say ‘natural’, to overlay some supernatural explanation to the unusual events seen.
        3. Re-telling and propagation of the account added further supernatural significance and embellishment to the original event.

      • Paul,

        Thanks again for the comment. I have had this conversation with other atheists at various times – i.e. that they probably wouldn’t believe a miracle even if they saw it themselves. I don’t even think you’d believe the test you’ve constructed for there is always an element of doubt in the ‘experiment’ e.g. how well trained are the observers (what would they be trained in???) Perhaps there was a measurement problem, bias of the observers.

        What if the miracle occurred once in history? How can you establish that? Your method precludes that, which means that you adopt a practical a-priori disposition against miracles. I think that’s unfortunate.

        Your 3 points are helpful (and maybe even the source of another blog post – I’ll keep you posted) but inadequate, particularly point 2 – consider the miracle narratives of the Bible, not everyone believed them unreservedly. The ancients could distinguish between miracles and superstition. If the miracles were false, why did the people constantly bring their sick to Jesus to be healed??

        Further thougts? Maybe I’ll put together another blog post on your 3 points and we can continue the discussion on miracles there?

        Thanks again,


      • Paul M. permalink

        Thanks Rob – I suspect this line of discussion is probably exhausted because there’s nothing additional in it on either side. But, to the specific points:

        “I don’t even think you’d believe the test you’ve constructed for there is always an element of doubt in the ‘experiment…”
        Yes – in every science experiment there is an element of doubt. Indeed, this is one of the fundamentals of science. We form a hypothesis, then test it, gather data, strengthen the hypotheses, and eventually build well-formed scientific theories.
        Eventually someone will come along with a new hypothesis and test that with different techniques, etc., and the results might lead to a minor modification – or even a wholesale change – to the scientific theory.
        Science produces solid world views that fit our observations and behaviour. Science works.
        And science adapts when new evidence appears. It’s a simple, beautiful truth.

        In the case of a divine resurrection: You’re right in assuming that it would be very difficult to convince me (and many other sceptics) with one or a few simple successful repetitions. The claim is so remarkably extraordinary and fantastical that the robustness of the evidence would have to be extremely compelling…

        “…What if the miracle occurred once in history?”
        Then that’s convenient for Christians because it’s unfalsiable.
        Also inconvenient if you’re trying to convince reasonable people that it was real.

        ” How can you establish that?”
        If it occurred only once, and conveniently at a time in human history when record-keeping wasn’t as good as it is now, then you cannot.

        “Your method precludes that, which means that you adopt a practical a-priori disposition against miracles.”

        “If the miracles were false, why did the people constantly bring their sick to Jesus to be healed??”
        Desperation, probably.

        “Further thougts? Maybe I’ll put together another blog post on your 3 points and we can continue the discussion on miracles there?”
        That’s fine with me. Just a warning though – If you plan to dip deeply into the specific pieces of historical reporting on Christianity, it won’t be of any particular interest to me, because I’m not familiar with any them (ie., Tacitus and the like.)
        Basically my position is that I don’t know what independent historical evidence for Jesus (and his exploits) is out there, and I don’t care.
        *Prove* to me that miracles occur, or as far as I’m concerned the resurrection has as much veracity as the miracles of say, stigmata, or the Virgin Mary appearing in a toasted cheese sandwich.

      • I think we’re exhausting the miracles thread as it appears there is no test we could possibly devise that would convince you that a once-off miracle occurred in history. Is this correct?

      • Paul M. permalink

        Rob, I sense that is correct – an exhausted point!

        Just for fun, another analogy that comes to mind is how we consider homeopathy – now widely accepted by most folks as quackery. I won’t say I fully understand all the claims of homeopathy, but part of it might be summarised as:
        “Water can hold a
        memory of various molecules that once were dissolved in it but are now no longer detectable. Depending on what those molecules were, that water can have the power to heal various diseases, etc…”

        To any mature person with a modern Western education, the claim as described sounds like nonsense. But just because it sounds like nonsense doesn’t necessarily mean that it is. The claims can be tested. Let’s see…

        A bunch of folks go away and test, and come back and say, “it’s true – this works!” It later turns out that some of those folks had a vested interest in the outcome of the experiments. But we don’t know all the details because they weren’t that well documented. (Does that sound familiar?)

        Later, other researchers do more rigorous experiments and discover some patients do indeed improve after taking memory water.
        But, hold on… the placebo effect is now a well-recognised (and quantified) phenomenon. Bummer: The size of the positive effect is no better than placebo. Homeopathy still shows no verifiable evidence of working.

        Even more recently – and this is an actual case, not a hypothetical one (in the late 80s or early 90s; I think they guy’s name was Beneviste, but I could be mis-remembering) – this well-respected scientist with a fully-equipped modern chemistry lab is doing his biochemistry work. He’s not especially interested in homeopathy, but discovers that when he serially dilutes out his reagent “to extinction”, ie., no molecules left: zero… their effects appear in his assay!
        Wha…? Can’t be. Let’s repeat.
        Same thing! No way!! Can’t be!!!
        And again… same thing!!
        So extraordinary that it manages to get published in a respected scientific journal.

        “Rejoice!”, cry the homeopathists, “For thou hast shown us the memory of water…!”

        So extraordinary a finding that it warrants further investigation by independent researchers. This could lead to some fundamental scientific breakthrough…

        But guess what?
        The independent biochemists couldn’t repeat his results, and discovered that what was happening, was that some small traces of the reagent molecules were “sticking” to the plastic walls of the test tubes. The original serial dilutions to extinction… weren’t. It was just an artefact of the method used.

        The moral of the story is about scepticism and how we respond to remarkable claims.
        Everyone else now dismisses it as quackery, but there are still lots of people that cling to the truth of homeopathy. This is despite science debunking it and demonstrating that there are a number of ways to account for weird observations. All of these have been shown to be ‘natural’ effects – including the apparent bias/vested interests/mistaken observations of the very first documentors of the phenomenon.

        As an aside, note that there is no claim that “there is definitely no such thing as the memory of water”. This would require some proof of that statement, and the fact that no-one has demonstrated water memory, doesn’t mean the same thing as “it isn’t there”.
        It’s conceivable that one day someone might indeed demonstrate water memory. But until they do, there is no practical, plausible truth to it, and the superstitious nature of belief in it deserves no respect.

      • Paul,

        Sorry for the delay in responding. Hopefully can get up to date now. Whilst interesting and showing the rigour and importance of the scientific method, I’m not entirely sure what your story of homeopathy has to do with our discussion. I’m suggesting that there are very good reasons to believe in God/miracles etc, which do stand up to rigorous enquiry. Remember the key test with determining the miracles of the Bible is historical, not scientific. But perhaps for another day.

        Thanks for the story, I think I’ll use it some time.


      • Tim faraos permalink

        As in regard to a veryfied miracle, (miracle=something caused by divine-supernatural intervention), i will bring your attention to the three hours of darkness that enveloped the earth at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, recorded in the new testament. This three hour darkness was even recorded by non-christian historians, who lived at the time, in egypt and greece…. And a judge of the supreme court of athens, Dionysius, was quoted saying: either a God is suffering, or the end of everything has come.( he later became a christian through Paul, and a saint of the church). And please don’t tell me that it was a solar eclipse, because scientists know that an eclipse only lasts for about 6 minutes. And also, that it is impossible for an eclipse to happen around a full moon (during the pascha feast of the Jews, when the crucifixion happened). So there you have it, historical proof of a true miracle! And if you want further historical evidence of Jesus being the awaited Messiah, look up on the internet: ‘messianic prophesies.’ these were written hundreds of years before jesus was born, by Jewish prophets, and were fullfilled in minute detail in the person of jesus…. One example is that the prophet Daniel, in chapter 9, explicitly wrote that the Messiah would come in 490 years, ( 7×70). Which came true! But the scribes and pharisees who studied the old testament, refused to acknowledge the facts, because the people would stop following them, and would follow Jesus….. So we plainly see that a person can willingly DENY THE TRUTH, if it contradicts his self-centered, perverted life style…. There’s a saying in Greece:’ you can keep spitting at the sun, but the spit will only fall on your face’ and the sun will keep on shining in all it’s glory…’let lying dogs lie’. Contact me:

  5. spitz permalink

    The “joke” should just refer to item #5; ie: religious claims rely on special pleading, and that pleading can be applied to every magic being equally; yet despite the positions being equal, favoritism still exists. Hearing that the claims are equal stop people from picking favorites, of course, so the real issue is demonstrated when you square two equal claims against each other and try to figure out which is valid. With religion, that option doesn’t exist for the most part; what you’re more likely to get is an explanation of why they can’t support their claims(revelation), why the claims can’t be investigated(they’re beyond reason), or why they don’t understand what they’re making claims about(beyond human understanding).

    The desire for the claim to be special doesn’t match up with reality. How specific the claim is isn’t really relevant, honestly, whether its a vague feeling of providence or providence specifically provided by Steve, it works out about the same. You can always come up with a new list of equal claims the person doesn’t adopt before you make their belief the “one extra”.

    • Thanks for the comment. Yet I’d suggest that the Christian claim can be supported through revelation, reason and understanding. These claims revolve around the resurrection of Jesus. This means that the Christian faith is falsifiable.

  6. nomis permalink

    As a Christian, I wouldn’t say it’s touched a nerve in the Christian community, Paul. I always took it as a joke. But then I realised that some atheists thought it was a good argument, and so it was appropriate that someone pointed out that it actually isn’t very clever.

    I think atheism is nuts, but I love my atheist friends.

    • Thanks Nomis. Yes, this is the reason I responded to this ‘argument’ because some do take it seriously – as did Jonathan Meddings, and the reason I responded to his response.

  7. Dale permalink

    Sadly, it does not surprise me that even a board member of the Rationalist Society of Australia has a problem with use of logic and reading comprehension. I think he (like many of the new atheists) may have spent too long marinating in his own group-think.

  8. Tim faraos permalink

    It is easier to believe in a God creator, than to believe that all life originated from one cell (protozoa), that was floating around in space after the ‘supposed’ big bang… And i ask: who put the intricate genetic code- DNA- in it?? As to who might be the true God, you are right that we need a divine revelation…and we already have one! On the internet we have thousands of testimonies of the existance of angels, demons and miracles. Also, that spirits posing as ‘dead relatives’, or benevolent ‘spirit guides’ and ‘aliens’, are really demons in disguise, which nevertheless blow their cover and flee, whenever the victim of their attack pronounces a prayer or exclamation in the name of Jesus!! Why don’t these spirits go away when we pray over them in the name of Allah, or Buddha, or vishnu or zeus?? Which proves nothing other than the divinity of Jesus as supreme Master of the universe, who said, ‘no one goes to the Father except through Me’. And ‘every knee will bend before the name of Jesus, on earth,below earth and in heaven’. Because ‘to Me, ALL power is given’. But if we want to dispute the evidence that these testimonies give us, i tell you that even if 99.9% were false, and only 0.1% were true, that would prove that Jesus is the name of the God of the universe, and that life continues after death ( see http://www.ndestories). Hallelujah! Contact me:

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. A Case in Point: The Deism-Theism Non Sequitur | Young Australian Skeptics
  2. Deists are atheists!!! – the strange claim of Jonathan Meddings | Atheist Forum
  3. Were the ancients gullible concerning miracles? | Atheist Forum
  4. Revisiting the “one god further” joke | Skept in the Loop

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: