# Attention: Atheists. You do not "Know the Truth". **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 22, 2009, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708 "2009-10-22T03:42:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![SecondJudith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@SecondJudith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SecondJudith)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/161 "2009-10-23T11:37:00Z")
And if that works for you, that’s great! ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/162 "2009-10-23T11:58:23Z")
Yes, but what questions are you asking that require something other than that. ‘Should I buy a lottery ticket?’, ‘Will I die when I go to sleep?’, what? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/163 "2009-10-23T13:06:18Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > No, there is no difference. Saying that there is “something” you can’t see, touch, or feel, and that makes no difference if it exists or not, and can never be determined to exist or not, is effectively the same thing as saying it does not exist, if reality is to have any meaning at all. There’s a _world_ of difference between those positions. One is skeptical, the other’s just being an asshole. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/164 "2009-10-23T13:07:05Z")
> [@SecondJudith](#): > > OK. I have seen this be true for people. More broadly, I think customs like sitting shiva, holding a wake and/or having funerals are a helpful way to grieve in a healing way (feeling better in time) instead of a harmful way (falling into depression). But you feel lousy and feel better in time, regardless of the religious activities you may or may not indulge in. > [@](#): > > If it doesn’t help, then you shouldn’t do it, obviously, but I think people continue to do these things because they do help. They may have been conditioned to think that the religious rituals “help” but you still have to grieve and you still have to hurt, and you will most likely get over it in time. Religious rituals or not. > [@](#): > > I don’t think this is necessarily true; humans are pattern-matching. We want the world to make sense. However, the world doesn’t make easy sense. Sometimes it doesn’t make easy sense in a way that science can explain, which is most of the time, but sometimes it doesn’t make easy sense in a non-scientifically-testable way. People created god-ideas to try to make the world consistent, it’s not like some Babylonian women got in a huddle and decided it would be _hilarious_ to see if they could get everyone to sing songs to a made-up woman who lives in the sky. I understand why people create the things they create (consistency and all) but it really doesn’t change anything. People are born, people die. Sometimes they die horrible deaths. Loss will always be painful and the mind lessens that pain over time. We all do our processes – with or without “official” ritual. > [@](#): > > I think science now has found the answer to most of the questions that most early religions were dealing with, because that’s the way social progress works. But I also think religion can be a useful framework for dealing with personal questions that science can’t reach (yet?). Without the preconditioning, you would make it through grief and loss the same as the rest of us. I still don’t see the advantage. It’s just a preference. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/165 "2009-10-23T13:07:25Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > No it’s not. There are plenty of plausible supreme beings that are entirely provable. (For instance, a God who cares for people who believe in said God, intervening when they’re in trouble. Angels swooping down to carry me out of the path of an onrushing car, and handing me a lovely card inscribed, “Dear Megan, Please watch out for drunk drivers! Love, God”? That would be some pretty nice proof.) None of them, however, exists in this universe. How fortunate we’re not talking about any of those. > [@](#): > > I say again: nonfalsifiable positions are **useless**. I don’t disagree. I pretty much said exactly the same thing myself. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/166 "2009-10-23T13:09:08Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > Mostly the point was simply that there’s no such thing as a freaking gravity-defying apple. You know it and I know it. We know this, not because we’ve disproved it’s existence, but because people have been dropping apples since the dawn of time and they ALL drop downwards. Same way we know there’s no god. Believe what you want, man. But there’s no evidence to support you. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/167 "2009-10-23T13:14:48Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > First, if the default hypothesis that god does not exist is incorrect, what should it be. As John mentioned, there are many gods. Is it reasonable to say that Zeus may exist, and Jehovah may exist, and that Krishna may exist etc., etc.? The null hypothesis is not that we don’t know for sure, it is that the hypothesis being tested is incorrect, and that we have confidence that it is correct only by getting evidence that the null hypothesis is wrong. Even then, there is a probability assigned that the positive results are due to chance only. > > Doing lots of experiments with negative results still doesn’t prove the null hypothesis about anything, but it certainly gives you evidence that it is correct - enough in fact for a provisional belief. If there is a drug that you really want to see work, but many clinical trials find no effect above that of a placebo, does it make sense to have faith in the drug or to believe that the null hypothesis of the drug not having an effect is correct? Why do people keep trying to relate this discussion to the proof/disproof of the existence of _specific_ gods? You can assume the Norse, Greek, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Hindi gods don’t exist, and it doesn’t move you any closer to an answer to the question at the crux of this thread - the existence of a generic divine entity. Just because Thor doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean (for instance) that Yahweh doesn’t exist, and just because Yahweh doesn’t exist (as detailed in the Bible) doesn’t mean that Yahweh-Prime doesn’t exist. As soon as you target a specific deity with specific properties and say “We can prove that person doesn’t exist as described” you’re looking at the wrong question. ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/168 "2009-10-23T13:17:50Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Believe what you want, man. But there’s no evidence to support you. There’s no evidence for gravity? Are you insane? ---
**Author:** ![Mindfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mindfield/32/19759_2.png) [@Mindfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mindfield)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/169 "2009-10-23T13:26:33Z")
> [@SecondJudith](#): > > I don’t think this is necessarily true; humans are pattern-matching. We want the world to make sense. However, the world doesn’t make easy sense. Sometimes it doesn’t make easy sense in a way that science can explain, which is most of the time, but sometimes it doesn’t make easy sense in a non-scientifically-testable way. People created god-ideas to try to make the world consistent, it’s not like some Babylonian women got in a huddle and decided it would be _hilarious_ to see if they could get everyone to sing songs to a made-up woman who lives in the sky. > > I think science now has found the answer to most of the questions that most early religions were dealing with, because that’s the way social progress works. But I also think religion can be a useful framework for dealing with personal questions that science can’t reach (yet?). This is kind of the crux of it right here though: Religion is a coping mechanism. It provides easy, convenient “answers” to questions that science ether cannot answer yet (what makes people do crazy things), or cannot answer at all because the question needing an answer isn’t scientific in nature (why isn’t life fair?). Humans don’t like randomness and chaos because it isn’t predictable and sometimes makes bad things happen for no good reason. So, in order to create the illusion of some sort of structure, humans construct hypothetical situations that could give them the answers they need to cope with that which is otherwise inexplicable. Since there was a hell of a lot of things about this world that made little or no sense or didn’t fit into some sort of neat, organized structure, it became necessary to construct sentient, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent gestalt that is the reason for everything. An unknowable deity whose reasonings and movements were inscrutable and beyond the ken of mere mortals, but whom surely had good reasons for doing things, for such a deity was concerned only with the long-term well-being of mankind and one should not question His means or motives. But as we evolve, science provides answers to those questions we couldn’t answer before, and thus more and more people are able to let go the crutch of religion as they begin to understand that maybe the answers they sought aren’t so mysterious after all. To me, that’s what religion is, why it exists, and why it is still so prevalent. As much as science has discovered, it is still evolving and constantly learning more about how the world works, so many humans still need religion to provide such answers and reasons as science cannot yet provide. But it is still, as far as I am concerned, a construct. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/170 "2009-10-23T13:26:42Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > This sounds like a straw man to me. I don’t really know anyone who goes around saying “there is not possibly an intelligent entity beyond our current understanding” - there’s a lot of mystery yet in our understanding of the universe. It’s not a straw man, it’s an explanation to help bring some clarity to this discussion. DanBlather just above said he things agnosticism is the stupidest of all positions on the god issue, so I think that demonstrates the necessity of the clarification, don’t you? He’s clearly a #2. > [@](#): > > When it comes to the specific idea of “people in my culture hundreds or thousands of years ago gave me this information about a magic guy who sits in the clouds and made the earth the center of the universe” then it’s easier to dismiss. Can I prove that’s not the case? Well, you might be able to make a logical case out of the inconsistent beliefs of the religion, or examine the logical implications of those beliefs like “God created us to worship him, but refuses to show himself or give us any evidence of his existance” - but in a hard, conclusive way, no, you can’t really disprove it. > > When you look at why religions start, that people need some sense of purpose in life, and some prescientific explanation about the mysteries of the world, and from the perspective of the higher ups, a way to control your society, it becomes obvious why religious have sprung up across all of humanity. It’s a psychological phoenomina that would crop up over and over again even if God didn’t exist. So there’s no reason to assume that any religion has any truth to it. They would exist even without the presnce of god. Religions live and die, expand and contract, based on the power of the culture that created them, rather than any analysis of which is more likely to be correct. > > So, without any evidence, are any of them at all likely to be true? I can’t say for sure that Greek polytheism or Aztec batshittery or modern religions are untrue, in the same way that I can’t say that an invisible unicorn isn’t giving me a psychic hoofjob right now, but it’s exceedingly unlikely that any of those belief systems are true. We can fully explain their existance without the need of any god or anything supernatural, there’s no evidence that they have any substance to them, and their gods take no detectable actions in our world. > > So I can’t say “no intelligent entity that we don’t undestand exists”, but it’s almost certainly true that you can say “no particular religion’s beliefs about a bearded guy in the sky, or an array of battling invisible gods has any reasonable chance of being right.” I absolutely agree with you. > [@](#): > > Agnostics are just people who don’t want to call themselves atheists because the term atheism is so reviled in our society and agnostic sounds somehow nicer. Or I’ve also seen the term used to describe people who don’t belong to a major religion but have silly supernatural beliefs anyway. > > The agnostic you describe is effectively an atheist. You may wanna tell Dan that, I don’t think he got the memo. > [@](#): > > Yeah, no, I can’t buy this. You can make this stupid argument about anything. “We can’t know anything for sure, therefore every possibility is equally valid!” is just a philosophical circle jerk. All of metaphysics is a circle jerk. Why should this be any different? > [@](#): > > In the absense of evidence, isn’t the logical course of action to not make shit up and then believe it? Well, it’s certainly the unimaginative course of action. But there’s the well-worn maxim that absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. I maintain that my distinction between agnostics and atheists is valid, though, and it’s my contention that atheists (as distinguished in my post) have ignored that maxim. Agnostics have the most logical position. > [@](#): > > Yeah, this a cop out. This is the equivelant of just saying “NO U” or “WRONG” or something at the end of the post. Explain why I was wrong, or even explain why my thinking here resembles in any way a fundamentalist. My post was quite the opposite of what you accuse me of - but of course if you consider atheism “just another religion” then you’d say atheism advocacy is preaching the same way as anyone else. But it’s a stupid position to be working from. You’re engaging in the same kind of close-minded proselytizing that fundamentalists do, and your assertion that it’s a stupid position to be working from is just as equivalent to “WRONG” or “NO U”. You’re starting with assumptions as givens that have not been conceded. ---
**Author:** ![SecondJudith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@SecondJudith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SecondJudith)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/171 "2009-10-23T13:30:45Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > But you feel lousy and feel better in time, regardless of the religious activities you may or may not indulge in. > > They may have been conditioned to think that the religious rituals “help” but you still have to grieve and you still have to hurt, and you will most likely get over it in time. Religious rituals or not. > > I understand why people create the things they create (consistency and all) but it really doesn’t change anything. People are born, people die. Sometimes they die horrible deaths. Loss will always be painful and the mind lessens that pain over time. We all do our processes – with or without “official” ritual. > > Without the preconditioning, you would make it through grief and loss the same as the rest of us. I still don’t see the advantage. It’s just a preference. I agree 100%. Like I said, religion is a tool. It’s not the only tool by any means, but it’s not a “belief system”, like **gonzomax** asserted in post 135. And if it’s not a useful tool for (generic) you, then you should absolutely drop it and look for another one. But it is a useful one for some people, many of whom (like myself) are science-loving atheists. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/172 "2009-10-23T13:33:43Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > I think I’m somewhat confused about what you’re actually arguing for. That last sentence sounds pretty much like what I’ve been trying to get across so far – that disbelief is the default option (disbelief, if that’s where we clash, doesn’t constitute belief in the opposite, to me). However, previously you seemed to be saying that it doesn’t matter whether one believes or not, that both belief and disbelief are on equal footing, that the only possible answer is a non-committal ‘maybe’. That’s pretty much the exact opposite, and a position that, to me, precludes any kind of scientific reasoning at all. I don’t know how to be any clearer than the post with the numbered list. There are three positions. Two of them involve having come to actual conclusions about the existence of god, and one of them doesn’t. “A god exists.” - Conclusion. Not supported by evidence. “No gods exist.” - Conclusion. Not supported by evidence. “There’s no way to analyze the existence of a generic, invisible, omnipotent supreme being, and it’s irrelevant to try.” - No conclusion. Best position. Note that the above are distinct from : “The Judeo-Christian God exists.” - Conclusion, supported only by weak, circumstantial and often contradictory evidence. and : “The Judeo-Christian God does not exist.” Conclusion, supported by the weaknesses of the aforementioned evidence. These latter points aren’t really of interest to me, nor are they on point to this discussion, I think. Though that’s Oakminster’s call. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/173 "2009-10-23T13:39:33Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Bollocks. Let’s say the question is whether there is an elephant in my garage. One person concludes there is on the basis of pure assumption. Another person looks in there and finds no evidence of one and concludes there is not. You would say that neither came to their conclusion by examination of the evidence because there was none. > > Do you want to think about that some more or should I save time and start laughing at you now? Do I need to explain how gloriously faulty that analogy is, or do you want more time to think about it? > [@](#): > > Your position only makes a skerrick of sense if you shift the goalposts so that we are not engaging in a practical debate but rather indulging in a sophomoric gabfest about theoretical irrelevancies. There’s nothing practical about metaphysics. It’s all irrelevant. It’s also, sometimes, interesting. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/174 "2009-10-23T13:41:29Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > There’s no evidence for gravity? Are you insane? I was referring to your last sentence, but was too lazy to trim down the quote box. But you knew that. ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/175 "2009-10-23T13:49:41Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > I was referring to your last sentence, but was too lazy to trim down the quote box. But you knew that. Sorry, I was replying only to words 8 and 9, but was too lazy to trim down the quote box. It was hard to know what you meant with just two words completely out of context. ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/176 "2009-10-23T13:52:37Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > I don’t know how to be any clearer than the post with the numbered list. There are three positions. Two of them involve having come to actual conclusions about the existence of god, and one of them doesn’t. > > “A god exists.” - Conclusion. Not supported by evidence. > > “No gods exist.” - Conclusion. Not supported by evidence. > > “There’s no way to analyze the existence of a generic, invisible, omnipotent supreme being, and it’s irrelevant to try.” - No conclusion. Best position. > Note that the above are distinct from : > > “The Judeo-Christian God exists.” - Conclusion, supported only by weak, circumstantial and often contradictory evidence. > > and : > > “The Judeo-Christian God does not exist.” Conclusion, supported by the weaknesses of the aforementioned evidence. > > These latter points aren’t really of interest to me, nor are they on point to this discussion, I think. Though that’s Oakminster’s call. But who the hell believes in this prime mover god that does not interact with the universe in any way? This God that you are so determined to be agnostic about which is completely unfalsifiable? No one I know who is a theist does. Are there many deists left around? I suppose they would have a point. 99.999999% of theists however do not believe in that god: they have a very specific, entirely falsifiable, deity in mind. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/177 "2009-10-23T13:55:22Z")
Yea - but at least we’re not making shit up. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/178 "2009-10-23T14:05:12Z")
> [@Kinthalis](#): > > But who the hell believes in this prime mover god that does not interact with the universe in any way? This God that you are so determined to be agnostic about which is completely unfalsifiable? > > No one I know who is a theist does. Are there many deists left around? I suppose they would have a point. 99.999999% of theists however do not believe in that god: they have a very specific, entirely falsifiable, deity in mind. Who cares how many people believe in such a god? Your fellow atheists are rejecting arguments with appeal to popularity. 😉 I’m addressing the OP, not the statistical distribution of beliefs in specific flavors of god. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/179 "2009-10-23T14:06:31Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > “A god exists.” - Conclusion. Not supported by evidence. > > “No gods exist.” - Conclusion. Not supported by evidence. > > “There’s no way to analyze the existence of a generic, invisible, omnipotent supreme being, and it’s irrelevant to try.” - No conclusion. Best position. Regarding point 2. It should read: “No gods exist”. - Conclusion. Those making the claim have no verifiable evidence to support their claims. I don’t know why you insist on point 3. As others have pointed out there is no proof, thus no reason to think that such a thing ever existed. A stranger walks up to you and asks to change a $100 he has in his pocket for 5 $20’s. You pull out the $20s and he holds out his hand. Do you hand him the $20s? Of course not. You ask to see the $100. He says it is an invisible $100. You put your $20s back in your pocket and walk away. You don’t think there is an option 3. And even if he did have a real $100 bill in his pocket, you’re never going to see it, so what does it matter? ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708/180 "2009-10-23T14:07:21Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Who cares how many people believe in such a god? Your fellow atheists are rejecting arguments with appeal to popularity. 😉 > > I’m addressing the OP, not the statistical distribution of beliefs in specific flavors of god. But you do agree that we CAN state “there is no god” with certainty as long as we’re specifically only talking about every god except the “invisible, immaterial and impotent” ones? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-atheists-you-do-not-know-the-truth/514708.md?page=10)