The Absurdity of Atheism



So you’re an atheist. Mazel Tov, at least you aren’t wishy washy. As a former atheist myself, I won’t condemn you. How could I? Some atheists think they’ve taken a heroic stand, but could it be that they really don’t want to face up to the possibility that God is indeed there? I hope you’ll be intellectually honest enough to consider what I have to say and see if it makes sense.

No one who has prejudged an issue can be convinced of anything contrary to what he wants to believe. There are still those who insist the earth is flat and no one can convince them otherwise, no matter what the evidence. There are always folks, no matter if religious or atheistic, who stubbornly believe what they prefer, no matter if reason and fact show otherwise. Someone like this has the unspoken philosophy: Don’t confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made up. Ask yourself: Am I open-minded or narrow minded? Am I willing to change my mind if I can be shown atheism doesn’t make sense?

You might say, If God is there, let him prove it to me. I don’t want to take an irrational leap of faith. Fine. In Isaiah 2:18 God says: come let us reason together. He wants us to reason and He certainly wants us to be be rational, but He will not submit himself to human scrutiny; to do so he would need to stop being God! He will not bow to our perverse judgements. Ask yourself, Would I ever be willing to believe God is there, however strong the evidence? You see, your problem may not be in your head as much as in your heart. Perhaps you’ve already taken a leap of faith. To assert God cannot exist, despite the impossibility of proving that statement, is the ultimate irrational leap!1


Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. One cannot disprove God exists. To dogmatically assert something unprovable is hardly rational! You might reply: But I can t disprove a giant purple frog on Mars controls the universe, either. Granted, one can never disprove any given thing exists, but the existence of God is not only logically possible, it is philosophically essential. (We’ll get to that later.) The atheistic position, on the other hand, is logically impossible. Why do I say that? In order to prove the assertion No God exists, one would need to comprehensively know all of reality. Comprehensive knowledge of reality is called omniscience. One would need to be omniscient in order to prove there is no God, but if one were omniscient one would, by definition, already be God! So, logically, the only one capable of disproving the existence of God would be God himself! Atheism is inherently self-contradictory. The evidence for the existence of God is there for all to see, only we refuse to see it. King David wrote: The fool says in his heart there is no God. (Psalm 14:1)  In other words, Atheism is irrational. Apart from God there is no basis for truth or ethics. For the sake of brevity, let’s simply consider ethics.


Beyond dispute there are moral atheists. I ve known atheists who are more ethical than some people claiming to believe in a god. This is not the issue. The question is, why be ethical? Can an adequate basis for morality be found given atheistic premises? Think about it. Unless God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right and wrong. If God did not give the Ten Commandments to Moses at Sinai, thereby establishing a moral standard above human creation, we are merely left with humanly devised scruples. If humanity is left to create its own ethical standards, we are left with only three options to base ethics upon: 1) collective tradition, 2) human survival, or 3) personal preference.


Those who argue that morality is properly based upon what society as a whole deems moral have a big problem. What one society says is moral another says is immoral. Nazi Germany held that it was morally good and beneficial to exterminate the Jewish people. The Allies saw the Nazis as evil and fought against them. Who was right?  If one believes God gave the law You shall not murder, the answer is obvious. Any society that advocates murder is evil. How can an atheist respond? Most would admit the Nazis were evil, but according to what standard? Were the Nazis evil just because the Allies said they were evil or were they in fact evil? One can try to argue that it isn’t just what a few societies say that matters, but what the majority of human societies agree upon. This does provide a better basis, since God has given us a conscience, but it has been corrupted by rebellion. At one time most human societies placed less value on female offspring than on males. In many societies female infants were left to die. In some places this exists today. This is morally wrong, no matter if the whole of human society were to say otherwise! Basing morality on human society does not provide an adequate answer.


What of an evolutionary model for morality? Why not posit that whatever benefits human survival is moral? To some this may be appealing, but first ask some questions. Why, based upon atheistic assumptions, should we logically value human survival? What difference does it all make? Why is life valuable? Isn’t belief in human survival itself a moral assumption, a value judgement that has no basis in an atheistic world view? Furthermore, consider what an ethic based solely on survival could lead to: the elimination of those perceived to have less survival value. The Nazi movement, based upon an evolutionary eugenic ideal of developing a super race, destroyed those deemed by them inferior or unsuitable. Reproduction was to be limited to those deemed most fit. Mankind, when left to its own devices to develop its moral basis, commits systemized murder and oppression. Consider the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the horrible situations we have witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia. Both atheists and religious people so easily justify murder. Just because we have also seen horrors committed by those claiming to believe in some sort of god doesn’t disprove my point. I’m not advocating just any old god! It is still true that when any society abandons the God-given law, You shall not murder, horror results.


What of basing morality on one’s personal preferences? What of just saying you can know what is wrong by following your heart? What a dippy idea this is! Jeffrey Dahmer’s heart led him to murder and cannibalize his fellow humans! Basing morality on feelings is the ultimate in irrationality. This puts moral judgement on the level of personal taste. Dahmer might have thought you suitable to his taste!

I’ve met many atheists who are judgmental of religious people who have committed great atrocities, but upon what basis? Does this make any sense? Atheistic assumptions irresistibly lead to the conclusion that morality is nothing more than a matter of personal or societal preference. Based upon an atheistic philosophy, the very appropriate disdain for the despicable murderers of humanity makes about as much sense as a dog lover’s disdain of those who prefer cats! How silly. Unless there is a moral standard beyond individual or societal preference, there is no logical basis for condemning atrocity. I challenge any atheist to give me a basis for ethics beyond mere personal preference, social custom, or survival. They simply cannot do it. Post-modern philosophers have come to the conclusion that there is no hope of finding morality or meaning based on materialistic presuppositions. They are quite right. It is a good thing that many atheists are too decent and too inconsistent to live out the irresistible moral conclusions of their philosophy!

Another thought: we even transgress the scruples we ourselves invent. Is this logical? No, but this is consistent with the Biblical view of mankind, which says we are by our nature law-breakers and rebels who don’t want to believe in the true God. Thank God there is an amnesty program for rebels and atheists! (More on that later.)


A wise rabbi, the Apostle Paul, wrote:

The anger of God is being revealed from heaven against all the Godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise they became fools2

God’s existence is clearly seen in what He has made. The intricate brilliance of the created order reveals the mind of an infinitely intelligent Designer just as surely as a great work of architecture or a complex piece of technology reveals the mind of its designer. Furthermore, our own consciences and sense of justice, though corrupted by our rebellion, still tell us there is right and wrong and a God who has a perfect moral standard. The truth is, if you are an atheist, it is not because it makes sense, it is because you don’t want to face up to the fact that there is a God out there to whom you are accountable. You don’t like God and are trying to hide from Him. You need not feel this way. God has provided a way back for you.

How do we know God exists? Unless we begin with the assumption that he does, we can’t know anything else exists! Unless we presuppose that God created us with the ability to know things through sensory experience and reason, we have no philosophical basis for trusting either. Philosophically speaking, unless we know a wise God gave us our senses, how can we know everything isn’t an illusion? As for reason, we can’t prove the validity of reason without using reason! We must assume what we are trying to prove in order to prove it. All human reasoning is circular, but when we leave God out of the circle we are left like a dog chasing its tail without any hope of catching it! Without beginning with the philosophical presupposition that a God who has spoken to mankind exists, we are doomed to reason in circles with no way of knowing how to discern truth.

As for positive proof, there is the communication of God to mankind. Moses received the Law at Sinai. This was attested by great miracles witnessed by millions. The Hebrew prophets foretold the rise and fall of nations and spoke of the coming of a Messiah. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Jewish Bible.3 His resurrection is historically documented, having been witnessed by the early Messianic Jewish believers who recorded their testimonies and were willing to die for what they knew to be true.4

Many have asked: Does life have meaning? Why do I exist? There is abundant meaning to life when we know the Living God. Frankly, atheism is boring, but knowing, enjoying, and serving God gives life purpose and excitement. On what basis does human life have value? Each of us was created in God’s image and therefore each individual is of great value.


Good news! There is hope for atheists! After the Vietnam War there were many expatriate Americans living in Canada and other places. An amnesty program was established to welcome these people home. The message was: Come back home. All is forgiven. You will be received back with open arms. God also has an amnesty program. The true God is both just and loving. His justice demands that our rebellion be punished. His love provided a means to fulfill this justice and restore us to a right relationship with him. This is where the Messiah comes in. Out of love for us, God took on a human nature and visited earth to take upon himself the punishment we deserve for our lawbreaking. Jesus died as a substitute for rebels to pay the penalty of those who deserve it, whether religious or atheistic. There is a judgement day coming, and God has proven this to us by raising Jesus from the dead. You have this choice: let the Messiah take your punishment or take it yourself. The choice seems obvious to me! Why turn down a free gift? What a great amnesty program! God wants each of us to admit we are wrong, receive the payment He has provided, and come in with our hands up letting Him rule over our lives. He promises to renew us, to enable us to live a new life in His service, and to let us experience His presence forever. God calls atheists to come back home, spiritually speaking. All can be forgiven, even atheism. God calls atheists to turn from their rebellion and to trust the Living God through his Messiah, Jesus.


If you persist in your atheism, one day you will stand before God and you will have no doubt in your mind concerning His existence. His awesome reality will be undeniable to you, even though you won’t want to believe it! Are you still open-minded enough for more information? Maybe you’d like to get together with someone for a friendly and relaxed talk about these things. Maybe you are intrigued, but wish some more in-depth reading. We are happy to help.


  1. By the way, I do understand there are so called “Hard Atheists” and “Soft Atheists.”  It has been pointed out to me that while Hard Atheists say :”There is no God;” Soft Atheists say: “We simply do not believe in any God.”  Part of what I am saying only speaks to Hard Atheism, but much also speaks to so-called “Soft”Atheism.”  Atheist friends, if you don’t like the popular understanding of atheism, perhaps you need to get the best known atheist organization first to change their definition!  I found this statement by Madalyn Murray O’Hair on the American Atheists web page: “Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any.” (Emphasis mine.) Quoted from:
  2. Rom. 1:18-22
  3. Isaiah 53, Micah 5:1, Jeremiah 31:31-34
  4. For more on this ask for the pamphlet called The Easter Bunny Is Not Jewish.

Please feel free to call or write: Fred Klett (a former atheist)

c/o CHAIM, Box 133, Glenside, PA 19038, (215) 576-7325


Back to CHAIM Home Page 


13 Comments on “The Absurdity of Atheism”

  1. Can we really ever prove that God does or does not exist? I am not an atheist, but I would never tell an atheist that s/he is wrong. If we prove God’s existence based on the Bible, we’re forgetting that the Bible is a translated document passed down through generations – are we right to quote it as an assertion to the presence of God when its original language contained so many shades of meaning?
    If we must be as omniscient as God to disprove God’s existence, it seems unusual that we consider ourselves worthy of proclaiming God’s definite existence. If God cannot be judged by us, then shouldn’t we stop trying to say whether or not he exists? Do we love God less if we acknowledge that he might not be there?
    Furthermore, it seems unfair to present our atheist friends as frightened of God, or unwilling to face up to the full consequences of their actions. We all have our own energy and we shape our own destinies. From sheer self-interest, we should take this stance.
    I agree with you in many ways. The intricacy and beauty of the universe implies to me as well that there is indeed a higher power or force of organization behind it all.
    My only complaint about this article is presence of a demand for open-mindedness. This seems unfair in the face of your unrelenting belief that atheism is illogical. I believe you will win more atheists to your cause (which, I am assuming, is your purpose, although I have not read your entire site) by admitting the possibility of God not existing. It does seem absurd in many ways, but it also makes sense in many ways.

    Also, if you are indeed a Christian, then show kindness to your peers. Believe in their ability to reason, assume that they do have logic behind their beliefs, and show them you have faith that they will understand you.

    The common garden variety God-Hater is out to swipe the crosses off of your church and silence you forever, and attack Christianity at every turn. Haven’t they done enough damage to this country? Your pacifist attitude is almost as dangerous as theirs.I really think that you are clueless to the battle being waged.

  2. 😦 Nevermind, then, if you must persist with unkindness.

    Oh that’s fresh, I point out the logical fallacy of your belief AND YOU ASSUSE ME OF UNKINDNESS.I think you are an anti-theist in disguise.No…actually I’m sure of it now.I’ve seen this type of thread too many times to count and they all lead to one place…..anti-theism.
    Try it on someone else less viligant than myself.

  3. Neil..17 Says:

    Its not us that have to prove that God doesnt exist, it is your place to prove that he DOES. As of right now, your “evidence” is a 2000 year old book, and “what lies in peoples hearts” how touching….but it wouldnt win a court case.
    I see you are just another grossly uninformed God Hater.
    Stating that my argument is lacking in reason doesn’t make it so. I am simply using your position and your actions together to see if they are consistent. You tell me that you don’t believe in gods as an atheist and then you tell me that you defend your lack of belief. How can you defend a lack of belief? What IS a lack of belief? You see, if you defend yourself, you do so because you have a position. You don’t defend non-positions. But since defend yourself, you must have a position. It makes sense. I am simply working with the very basics of your position to see if it is consistent with your actions. I don’t think it is.
    Having non-beliefs and behaving that you have a belief by defending your position is the reality of your action. That is not consistent with having no belief about something. Also, it is very debatable about how logical it might or might not be to believe or not believe in the extraordinary. The whole topic is open to discussion.
    Thanks for the conversation. I am merely pointing out your inconsistency in your atheism position and actions.
    The burden of proof lies on you.

  4. Atheist Says:

    No, the burden of proof is on the one that makes a positive existential claim i.e. ‘God exists’. This is how our judicial system works; the prosecution must prove that a crime has been committed. The defense does NOT necessarily need to prove that the crime was not committed, only that there is insufficient evidence for the said crime.

    If i were to tell you that there existed a being even higher than your God, would the burden be on you to disprove her existence? (Ah, but you cannot, so she must exist.) No, obviously the burden would be on me to prove her existence.

    In the same token, it is up to you to prove God’s existence.

    And I haven’t been convinced yet.

  5. Wrong again Einstein.
    The burden of proof is on you.You make a positive assertion that God does not exist,now prove it.A 2000 year old book that has not only thrived but has flourished and is still the top selling book of all time.Beats anything you God-Haters can produce.To say God does not exist you must know all things.You are not omnipotent.To know all things you must be like God.Your claims are ridiculous and illogical.Chance
    Many scientists have overstepped their bounds, and wound up in the fantasy world of myth.
    Chance is a Soft pillow that only the ignorant, and disinterested can provide.
    Kant was motivated to write after reading Hume who was very big on chance.
    Chance has caused geniuses to fall asleep at the switch of science.
    It serves as a magic tool to scientists for making shabby philosophizing a most respectable attitude.
    As Arthur Kessler once said, “As long as chance rules God is an Anachronism.”
    I believe this to be an understatement.
    If chance rules God cannot be validated.
    For chance to make God irrelevant all it has to do is exist. It doesn’t even have to rule or be very strong. All it takes is an ounce of it, or even 1 milligram it. If chance exists then God ceases to exist. If there is such a thing as chance which has become a scientific law, then we have an unbridgeable chasm between science, and theology, and something has to give. Chance is central to the doctrine of creation principally. Is there such a thing as creation?
    Every atheist understands this,” If you can gainsay this concept then Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are finished.” The 3 great religions of the world all understand that God is the efficient, and sufficient cause of the entire Universe, and all agree on that. Where chance functions, mythology operates chiefly as a substitute for creation. It is a concept that is appealed to relentlessly to save the phenomena of the universe without an appeal to theology. That’s why some people welcome the entrance of chance into the world of scientific thought.
    I once heard a sermon where a minister tried to defend creation against these people who were saying that the world was created by chance. And he had read somewhere the odds against a universe being created by chance were astronomical, and stated that there was an infinite number of possibility against it. He stated that it was mathematically impossible for the universe to come into existence by chance. After the sermon he asked me what I thought, and I bluntly told him that he just gave away the store. He asked me what I meant and I told him 3 things.
    In the first place if there is 1 chance in 10 gazillion googolplexes that the universe took place by chance, and if the timeframe for this to happen was infinite it seems to me that one of these possibilities is going to come up sooner or later in eternity. It’s not like there’s only one shot for these things to happen.
    Second, it is not mathematically impossible when you’ve just given a mathematical possibility as remote as it may be in terms of 1 out of all of these zeros and it’s still mathematically possible for the universe to come into being by chance.
    Third question was the biggest one,” What are the chances that anything can happen by chance,” I asked him, and he said “I don’t know what you mean”, and I said “NOT A CHANCE.” I said nothing can happen by chance, and he said why not, and I said to him that chance cannot do anything. I once had a discussion with one of my professors in Grad school who said to me that the universe was created by chance. And I had pushed him a little bit on this, and I had a coin to illustrate the problem, and I said to him “if I take this .50 cent piece what are the chances that if I flip it up into the air that it comes up heads,” and he said” 50/50.” Then I asked him how much influence does chance exert on the flip of the coin, and he said, “what do you mean,” and I said, “well, the chance that it comes up heads or tails is determined by the how much pressure is exerted on it, what the density of the atmosphere is how many revolutions it takes and so on.”
    Those are all the variables so how much influence does chance have, and he still didn’t get it, and I said well look, if you’re using the term chance to talk about mathematical possibilities it’s a perfectly useful term. But when we ascribe to chance a power to something, we are saying that chance is something. “Now what is this mysterious X factor that causes this coin to come up heads,” and he still gave me that deer in the headlight look. And I told him, “chance cannot do anything because chance is not anything.” For something to act it must first be, and chance is not a thing, it’s nothing. And when you say to me that the universe was created by chance you are saying that the universe was created by nothing. And you’ve taken a perfectly good word, to describe mathematical possibilities, and now informed it with “magical power.” Giving it ontological status, and giving it power to do something when it is not anything. Chance has become the magic tool for making shabby philosophy respectable as stated earlier by Boethius the Roman philosopher. One of the basic axioms of philosophy, and science is ex nihilo (Out of nothing, nothing comes) in simple language it states that you cannot get something from nothing.
    If there was a time when there was nothing what would there be now? NOTHING ….if it’s true that out of nothing nothing comes. The soft pillow is this, “out of chance everything comes” which is saying “out of nothing something comes.” Or “ Out of nothing everything comes.” And that is the principle idea that is used as a substitute for creation. Now there are those of you that may say the universe is eternal and was always here, and that’s another question. But the vast majority of critics today who deny the creation of this world by a self existent eternal God appeal to some kind of beginning to all of reality that comes from nothing. It’s the rabbit out a hat without a hat without a rabbit without a magician. It’s worse than magic its pure mythology. If this mythology were not taken so seriously today we could be amused by it, but whats at stake is not just theology but science itself. Incidentally this professor went on to become a Christian.

  6. Anonymous Says:

    Interesting article. I hope there will come a day when humanity embraces rationality, and discards the superstitions of the past.

    As someone who intends to become a scientist, I fully expect to work towards that goal of bettering humanity.

    In the meantime, enjoy your magic god-wizards.

    • As an individual who already holds their PhD, I can state that science does not hold the answers to everything, and that we do not currently have a vocabulary for the science yet undiscovered.
      Keep hating your God.
      Your blindness is overwhelming.

  7. rey Says:

    “Can an adequate basis for morality be found given atheistic premises? Think about it. Unless God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right and wrong.”

    I am a Christian. But with respect to the god of Calvinism, I am an atheist. What I mean is, that if I believed that the Calvinists were right in their interpretation of the Bible, I would be an atheist. For now I will assume you are a Calvinist, because most bloggers seem to be. The god of Calvinism is termed a god, but he/it provides no real basis for morality. Here we have a god who is the author of evil and sin. That is, a god who sets up a certain law, and then decrees that people will break it. He makes people break his own moral law by an internal compulsion. IS this god a good basis for an eternal and transcendent standard for right and wrong? Not only does he decree people to break his law, i.e. pre-script them to do so, but he randomly, stochastically, capriciously determined who he would reward with heaven and who he would broil in hell, not based on anything foreseen in them such as faith or good works, but as I said, totally stochastically (i.e. randomly). Is this God a good basis for morality? Quite the contrary, this being is clearly more of a demon or a devil than a god!

    “Ok,” someone says, “you have shown that Calvinism is undesirable and that the free-will Christian belief that you believe in is better, especially for the argument that God is the basis of morality–but you can’t show that atheism can find a good basis for morality.” Not so fast, my friend, for I am not done yet.

    The facts of experience show that men know good and evil instinctually and have free-will. Morality is based on this instinctual knowledge. Whether a man believes in God or not, this knowledge is there. If you are a Christian you will locate the origin of this instinct in Adam eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Regardless, the knowledge is instinctual in all men. We just simply know what is right and what is wrong. The problem is when a philosophy or religion makes excuses for certain wrongs, as both Calvinism and Atheism do. Calvinism excuses all sin on the basis that it asserts man can’t do any better. This doctrine is Satanic. Islam is similar. Atheism excuses homosexuality on the same sort of Calvinistic basis, with the claim that people are born that way. Remove these philosophies that teach that men are born unable to do any better, and you will see the instinctual morality of man shine through.

    • I am not a Calvanist, and I do not believe in the Calvanist doctrine.
      I rank them right up there with preterists, mormons, and other fringe groups.

      • rey Says:

        Ok. Sorry. I hope you don’t take offence. Well, to summarize what I intended to say a bit better. Whether an atheist will be moral or not depends on their reason for atheism. There are the following types of atheists:

        (1) Atheists who simply are anti-moral antinomians who hate rules and therefore hate God. Nowadays this seems to manifest itself mostly in them wanting to make faggery normal when it is not. (A subset being those who say you are born that way and can’t do any better.)
        { Um… yea! No evidence that one is born homosexual}

        (2) There are the atheists who have just run into a kajillion Calvinists who made Christianity look bad, and who are so moral they can’t stand that system and thus became atheists thinking it was representative of Christianity. These same people might convert to Christianity if they ever heard the genuine article.

        {Another hit…. Calvanism is a fraud, much like mormanism and preterism.

        (3) Others who are atheists believe in the morality of the Bible but reject the miracles and such.

        {They refuse to see the evidence. The sun shines upon them but is unable to penetrate their darkness.}

        Now, the fact is that aside from those who believe in all the abstract doctrines of ‘orthodoxy,’ the Protestant churches can be divided into the same three groups:

        (1) Antinomian morality haters who are only Protestant because of the doctrine of faith alone which they can use to excuse their sin. Some of these may be particularly interested in homosexuality being overlooked by God on the basis of “faith alone.” (A subset being the Calvinists who who say you are born a sinner and forced to sin by an internal compulsion put there by God and that you can’t do any better.)

        (2) Those who have encountered so many immoral atheists or members of other religions that they became Protestant only because they perceive the morality is higher.

        (3) Those who believe that the morality of the Bible is right but don’t buy the miracles.

        {The Protestant chuch has gone thru many changes and has lost its way to a certain degree}
        I am a Bible literalist. I believe in the inerrency of the Bible,and I have examined it from three hundred and sixty degrees and have found no errors, and to this I say, “For the believer all evidence is present, and for the atheist no evidence is possible.
        Thank you for a great retrospect.

  8. Spencer Says:

    So far ive read that
    A) Youve hataed atheists since you were a small child

    I hated atheism since I was a child.

    B) You were once an atheist

    I was never an atheist.

    C) You think atheists deep down beleive in god but hate him.

    I believe there are differences between atheists and God Haters. But true atheists are as rare as a super nova sighting.
    They’ve proven this by their own subconcious actions.

    So from this we can conclude that you hated god at an extremely young age so you denied his existence then sometime (when you were knee height evidently) you decided to go the other way and stated hating the atheists who actually believe in god but hate him.

    Am i missing something here?

    Yes, an ability to comprehend what you’ve read.

  9. Spencer Says:

    Perhaps then, you shouldn’t take credit for things others have written.

    Perhaps then, you should learn how to read properly and stop being a dishonest bag of spam with nothing more important to do but sling erroneous accusations to waddle your insufficient time away.

  10. Spencer Says:

    I missed the part at the bottom where it says email so and so, mostly because of your websites awful layout making it hard to find the end of the article. Of course, i dont know why im posting this since itll be deleted anyways. A nice lession in annihilationism, thank you.

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: