I’m thoroughly enjoying the tennis match with my friend Captain Cassidy 😀 I really do hope the feeling is mutual — she seems to be pretty sporting about it all so far, so I think I’m not overstepping my bounds to hope that she’s also getting something out of our exchange.  Thanks also to others who have weighed in on the matter — I’ve gotten to meet several new people so far, which is always a good thing!  Y’all are very welcome, make yourselves at home 🙂

This time, I must thank the good Captain for introducing me to a new term: PRATT, which stands for “Point Refuted A Thousand Times.”  In her recent article, she establishes the groundwork for this term and then outlines a list of examples of such that I am supposed to have employed against her.  (The points she made therein seemed very similar to those she made in her first response.)  Some are fair points, others I’m pretty sure are not so fair — and some are more addressed at my tactics than my points themselves.  (If you’re interested in my answer to some of these points, feel welcome to check out my response article and my direct response to her comment.)  All, however, seem to come with a hefty dose of caricature, to the point where even I can’t find much about them to take seriously (even though I am supposed to have said them myself).

However, the article the Captain cited on RationalWiki that dealt with PRATTs had a few examples of its own — and, since they seem to be the authority on the matter, I figure I’ll go right to the source.

Now, call me old-fashioned, but I’m somewhat less concerned with the number of times a point has been refuted, and am more concerned with the quality of said refutation.  A good refutation, in my experience, must contain at least the following three elements:

  1. A demonstrated, thorough understanding of the point being answered (i.e. no straw men);
  2. A demonstrated, thorough understanding of the contextual framework in which the point operates (i.e. no recontextualizations or quoting out of context); and
  3. A direct refutation of the point consistent with the two aforementioned elements, usually either by demonstrating how the point is internally inconsistent within its contextual framework, or externally inconsistent with regard to logic or evidence.

In other words, it doesn’t impress me if something is designated a PRATT — if a point is refuted poorly to begin with, the thousand-fold repetition of this faulty refutation doesn’t make it any less compelling.  I’d rather have PAWs (Points Answered Well), even if they’re stated only once.  And not all that have been categorized within the former necessarily belong in the latter.

To hear some opponents to Christianity talk, you’d think these PRATTs have been so thoroughly refuted and utterly debunked that there’s really no point to discussing these topics any further.  If that’s the case, then I think they should easily be able to stand up to the three criteria given above — if they’ve really been around the block so many times, I imagine that any laziness in execution or logic would have had ample time to be scrubbed away, corrected, perfected.

If not, perhaps this is another case of the “Mission Accomplished” banner being unfurled just a little too early.

Below are all three points provided under “Religious examples” from the aforementioned article:

Religious PRATT #1

Religion is required in order for a person to be moral/There is no morality without God.

If this were anywhere near true, the world would be in chaos as a fairly sizable 16% of the world’s population has no religion. That’s nearly 1 in 6 people who would happily murder you because they lacked any form of morality — this just doesn’t stack up to observed evidence. Secular humanism has established several non-religious moral codes, and biologists and psychologists have tracked various evolutionary pathways for why we act in (what we define as) a moral manner. Perhaps most importantly, statistical analysis (rates of murder, adultery, rape, theft, etc.) shows that non-religious folks behave no less morally than those who have found religion (or had it hammered into them since childhood).

My first observation is that the PRATT contains two distinct questions, and yet the refutation only addresses the first one — which I’d consider a sort of straw man representation of of the second.  I’d certainly not listen to anyone who makes the argument that one must be a Christian in order to be moral — it’s ridiculous, both evidentially and within the context of Christian belief.  No one should make this argument.

The second statement, however — “There is no morality without God” — is one that, perhaps, deserves to be taken a little more seriously, at least in the cosmic sense.  Simply demonstrating that the non-religious can be just as moral (even more so) than religious doesn’t answer this point, because if the Christian God exists, then we would expect Christians and non-Christians alike to be driven by a moral compass — for all were created in God’s image, not just the Christians.

I haven’t yet presented anything close to a definitive case in favor of the Christian worldview with respect to morality, but hopefully I have shown that perhaps there is something of a discussion that could be had, apart from the presented refutation — which, I think, fails most notably in criteria #2, by failing to take into account the context of Christianity.

Religious PRATT #2

Atheism is a direct cause of lawless behavior.

This is similarly untrue for almost all beliefs, with the notable exceptions of illegalism and nihilism. Of course, even illegalists could be said to follow a law of their own devising: that society is bad and should be destroyed.

If this was true, most of Scandinavia would be well-known as a hotbed of insane, godless violence. As it currently stands, it isn’t. Neither is there much obvious correlation between lawlessness and religion as most causes of crime are attributed to social and economic conditions. Religion, or lack of it, isn’t often viewed as a contributing factor.

This ties in somewhat with the first PRATT — it is, in a way, a sort of corollary to the first statement.  And, in like manner, I don’t think the point as stated is a very good argument, so it might be guilty of straw-manning the issue — especially since I think there is a more engaging point behind it that is not being addressed.

I cringe a little when I skim over this old article of mine (it’s amazing how one’s perceptions can change over the course of a year), but I brush up against this idea a little in discussing the end-game implications of secular morality.  In short, if we have nothing but our evolution to thank for the moral sense we possess, then the same could be said of the kinds of personal experiences and perceptions that cause people to believe in God — and I see no authoritative framework by which we can conclude that the latter should be rejected and the former upheld.  In other words, you can personally disagree with the nihilist and the illegalists — but there’s no legitimate authority you could cite, under secularism, by which you could judge your moral framework to be any better than theirs.  Secular moral theories postulate why we are moral — they cannot authoritatively declare that we ought to be moral.

Religious PRATT #3

Atheism is a religion.

While it’s pretty certain some people can be quite passionate and organised about atheism — and even issue out religious-like edicts about what atheists should and shouldn’t do — atheism, itself is not a religion by its very definition. It has no dogma to follow and is a completely non-prescriptive belief system. As proof of this, there have been quite a number of (often mutually exclusive) dogmas, philosophies, and prescriptive belief systems bolted onto atheism, of which the three best known are secular humanism, Marxism, and Objectivism.

While you could alter the “definition” of religion to include atheism, the practical result is really that the term “religion” loses a lot of its value as a category (except in the context of constitutional law, where classifying atheism as a “religion” greatly simplifies things conceptually), and the point would lose any power as an argument — becoming not only readily ridiculous but also self-defeating.

The simplest way to explain this is that “Atheism” is as much a religion as “Monotheism” or “Polytheism”. There are Monotheistic religions, but Monotheism itself is not the religion. There are at least two well known ancient Atheistic religions, Confucianism and Buddhism (though some versions incorporate the supernatural). It’s entirely possible to believe in the existance [sic] of one or multiple gods without deriving any morality from them, in much the same way you could believe that life on Earth originated in a different star system without joining any alien-worshipping [sic] cult.

This one is a fair point — but it falls, I think, more to semantics than to pragmatism.  In other words, it’s technically true that “atheism is not a religion” because atheism as a term is narrowly defined in such a way as to excuse it from having to have any position at all.  It’s a nothing, and that easily qualifies is as “not religion”.

However, again, the way the point is stated misses the more engaging point behind it, which comes in two parts: 1) most rational people who consider themselves atheists probably ascribe to a worldview philosophy that probably does make some positive assertions, and 2) is there, perhaps, a level of faith required to believe in these worldview assertions?  These, I think, are relevant questions that are worthy of discussion and that are not addressed in the refutation.


So, again, I haven’t provided enough meat to make a proof-positive case for my worldview — however, hopefully I’ve shown that just because someone believes a point to have been refuted countless times before, it does not necessarily mean that the refutation is any more compelling than the original point being made.  Both the point and the refutation must stand or fall on their own merit, not on the number of times they have been discussed or the number of people one can persuade to roll their eyes.  (Incidentally, like parroting, eye-rolling requires no critical thought whatsoever.)

To call something a PRATT and dismiss it (and the proponent of it) as unworthy of your time is just as much a “Thought Stopper” as the use of a PRATT itself is supposed to be — perhaps even more so.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, as the saying goes.

Along those lines:  In a lovely discussion I’ve been having with kelpie98 on this very subject, I mentioned that both sides have their own PRATTs — it’s not a vice exclusive to the religious.  Anyone, regardless of belief or creed, can resort to “tired old arguments” to support their point of view — it’s human nature, it seems, to be prone to allow poor reasoning to creep into our worldviews.  Maybe someday soon I’ll provide my own list of anti-religious PRATTs 😉

In my view, though, what it really comes down to is this:  There seems to be a lot of unnecessary “us vs. them” attitudes surrounding this debate in the world (from both sides) that I find neither is warranted nor effective, where one or the other group is categorized and caricatured in such a way that they are positively dehumanized.  I certainly feel the brunt of this attitude pretty often, as it seem the Captain feels similarly since her very first PRATT example uses the following language on behalf of Christians:

Poor widdle things, bless their cotton socks, gosh, it’d suck so much to be an atheist–are they really even human at all? They can’t be if they’re that lacking in the loftier aspects of being human, aspects which WE automatically get upon conversion.

This should be enough for show that, on the whole, both groups feel they are being treated similarly by the other.  Which is more important:  Being right (and asserting, unequivocally, that rightness), or connecting with someone and taking the time to share respective viewpoints?  Do we buy into the caricatures, or do we get real and just acknowledge that we’re all human beings stuck on this rock together, warts and biases and poor reasoning and all — and can’t we just all get into the same boat of trying to figure out what in the hell is actually true?  Because that’s a boat I’d willingly board — even if Cassidy is the captain.



  1. can’t we just all get into the same boat of trying to figure out what in the hell is actually true? Because that’s a boat I’d willingly board

    Seth, this simply is not true. If it were, you wouldn’t still be relying on PRATTs to try to justify your anti-evolutionary beliefs.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Do we buy into the caricatures, or do we get real and just acknowledge that we’re all human beings stuck on this rock together, warts and biases and poor reasoning and all — and can’t we just all get into the same boat of trying to figure out what in the hell is actually true?

    If you could do that, Seth, then you wouldn’t be writing post after post filled with talking points, PRATTs, and ridiculously irrational, long-debunked fallacious arguments. I wish that were the case, though. I wish that you really did care about what’s true. I care, and that’s why I’m no longer Christian. I challenged you twice on the various points you’ve tried (unsuccessfully) to make, and all you’re doing is drilling down harder on them. I understand though. What I say doesn’t make sense to a thoroughly-indoctrinated mind. You don’t use the same definition of “true” that people living in reality-land use. You don’t know how to assess truth claims or understand what constitutes objective truth or falseness.

    If all you did was use your religion to be a better person and help others, that’d be one thing, but this is another post filled with examples of why you really are in this religion–and you actually think a thing you wrote here is compelling to someone who cares about the truth. All you’ve done is demonstrate what an excellent absorber of indoctrination you are. But.. maybe one day you’ll understand better.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I wish that you really did care about what’s true.

      The problem here is that what’s true (i.e., reality) will ALWAYS take a back seat to the true believer’s fantasies. A devout Christian has created a fantasy in his mind that includes all-powerful beings and that declares that reality operates a specific way – he is so enamored of this delusion that his mind protects him from facts that would upset his little applecart:

      his mental “shields” are given primacy over other concerns (such as the search for truth)

      Because the most important goal for Seth is protecting his religious belief, everything else will be sacrificed in that pursuit. Of course, since Seth is intelligent, his mental shields are likewise complex and specious; his casuistry can sound reasonable until you realize it’s entirely based on assumptions that can’t be proven. Saying everything rests on his feelings and opinions just doesn’t carry the same weight, I’m afraid.

      Liked by 3 people

  3. if the Christian God exists, then we would expect Christians and non-Christians alike to be driven by a moral compass — for all were created in God’s image, not just the Christians.

    You’re really reaching for the entire pantry here, Seth. You’re requiring us to accept not only that the Christian god exists (evidence, please), but also that it is as YOU have chosen to define it, that your religion is the best representation of this being’s intent, and that your religion is absolutely accurate.

    You’re asking for an awful lot on the basis of nothing more than wishful thinking, Seth.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. To hear some opponents to Christianity talk, you’d think these PRATTs have been so thoroughly refuted and utterly debunked that there’s really no point to discussing these topics any further.

    Seth, if you Christians had any idea how nonbelievers react to your group’s PRATTs, they would not be PRATTs. But you lot tell each other in those echo chambers you call church that these techniques are super-effective and can shut down those nasty atheists in record time!

    The fact that they can’t is ignored by your tribe because they want the delusion to be true. See this all the time among Christians.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. I haven’t yet presented anything close to a definitive case in favor of the Christian worldview with respect to morality, but hopefully I have shown that perhaps there is something of a discussion that could be had, apart from the presented refutation — which, I think, fails most notably in criteria #2, by failing to take into account the context of Christianity.

    What are you saying here, Seth? That we must presume Christianity (as you define it, as you imagine it to be) is factually true and everything must be weighed against the fantasies of Christianity being considered factually true when there is no evidence that is the case?

    You’re asking for an awful lot of indulgence here, Seth, and we don’t owe you that. We are under no obligation to entertain arguments that begin with “GIVEN that Christianity is true…”, you see. You have to first establish that Christianity’s claims are true, and you can’t do that because they demonstrably are not.

    When you approach others with a claim such as “Since the Christian god created everything and everyone, that’s why everyone has similar morality”, you should expect nothing other than to be laughed at. FIRST prove that 1) the Christian god exists, 2) the Christian god has the characteristics you want to assign to it, 3) that anything was “created” as you toss out there, and finally, 4) the mechanisms by which such “creation” happened. Remember, if at any time you must resort to “by magic, essentially” or “faith means believing without any evidence at all” (Hebrews 11:1), you have lost any right to expect anyone else to listen to you. Also, keep in mind that it is only through listening to others that you earn the right to be heard, and it appears that your antiprocess is determinedly making sure you won’t hear. You Christians expect so much indulgence from the rest of us…it’s quite offensive.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. because that’s a boat I’d willingly board — even if Cassidy is the captain.


    Nice backhand slap to Cassidy there. Oh, you ARE one of those “Nice Christians”, aren’t you?

    Newsflash: That ship has sailed – you have repeatedly, deliberately chosen to NOT get on. And Cassidy IS the captain, not you.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Secular moral theories postulate *why* we are moral — they cannot authoritatively declare that we *ought* to be moral.

    Of course they can – don’t play dumb. There are more species of social mammal than solitary in the world, because living together in groups is an extremely successful survival strategy. And aaaaaalllll these different species that live together in groups have rules and norms their members must follow, or they will be punished, driven off, or killed. These rules and norms are taught to their young.

    Sound familiar yet? This holds true whether we’re talking swans, wild horses, wolves, chickens, pigeons, cichlid fish, guppies, tuna, dolfins, whales, zebras, sheep, goats, wildebeests, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, howler monkeys, naked mole rats – or human beings. They ALL have norms and rules that the members of the group are expected to obey.

    Things that are considered “moral” in Saudi Arabia are not considered “moral” over here, you’ll notice – child brides, amputations as punishment, floggings, high numbers of executions, executions by beheading, etc. etc. Same “God”, you claim, so how is it that “God’s” morality turns out so differently depending on which culture we’re talking about??

    This is the problem with relying on a casuistic approach to present your side in a debate – that sort of nonsense is easily shot down with a shot of observed reality.

    The correct answer is that different groups decide which rules and norms they feel are right and want to embrace for the sake of creating a stable society, and these are perpetuated within these societies by teaching them to the young. It’s the most basic social animal socialization strategy – no gods required.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Seth, I admire your tenacity and congeniality, but I fear you’re wasting your time. As bloggers, we need to know when to “answer a fool according to his folly” and when to “answer not.”


    1. Caroline, I trust you are a believer by your comment about a “fool’s folly.” Assuming this is correct, can you offer solid reasoning (not platitudes and clichés taken from a centuries old book) on why what has been presented is “folly”?

      Liked by 3 people

    2. Nothing says “loving your neighbor” like insulting them, condescending to them, and calling them names. I guess the “Great Commission” only counts until you get a bit of pushback. Then suddenly those who challenge your inane ideas are “fools.”

      Really, Caroline, who wouldn’t want to join a whole religion full of people exactly like you, who treat people like you just did, and whose god apparently is totally on board with you doing it? Talking that way about non-tribemates might give you that little thrill of smugness that fundagelicals love to feel, but it actively works against your stated purpose–and shows us that your real purpose is something else entirely.

      In other words, when you use your out-loud voice to insult those who have serious concerns and questions about your claims instead of engaging with them honestly and with the evidence they have requested, you show us that we were totally right to push back. You can’t even take your Savior’s words seriously–so why should anybody else? You have no idea what “love” even is or looks like, and no desire whatsoever to do it–so why should anybody listen to a thing you have to say about a God of Love?

      I’m so glad to be out of such a hateful and dishonest religion! Thank you for reminding me of that again.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. @Caroline.

      ” answer a fool according to her folly”

      Well, I’ll give it a go …

      Sheesh, this is harder than I thought I really am trying my best to come up with the most inane reply to this most inane comment of yours, Caroline.

      It may take a while …. as you were.

      Oooh, hold on. How does one write the sound of donkey braying? I think that would be most fitting.


  9. Seth, you seem like a nice person. I think you and Cassidy are working at cross purposes here. See, the point of the PRATT is not that we don’t understand the point – we do – and it’s not that we think the point is not appealing to Christians – it obviously is, or they wouldn’t keep trotting them out thousands of times. What Cassidy could be helping you to understand, if you were to perceive her intent, is that, while these points sound just wunnerful and convincing to Christians, they do not sound that way to nonbelievers. So each PRATT is a species of “preaching to the choir”, and I don’t think that’s your goal, Seth, is it? You Christians already believe what you believe – YOU don’t need to be convinced some more, do you?

    So if you want to engage nonbelievers and explain why your beliefs are persuasive to you and (gods forbid) help them, you need to figure out what is compelling to them, and to do so, you need some minimal understanding of their worldview and what sorts of arguments are (and aren’t) convincing to them. Cassidy is attempting to provide you with some insider intel about the former Christian nonbeliever demographic. The fact that there are topics known as PRATTs shows that Christians have a habit of not doing their own due diligence. The first rule for any speaker or salesperson is know your audience. Christians speak to themselves, not to nonbelievers, and, frankly, this comes across somewhat, “Watch me masturbate!”-ish. The Christian comes across as self-centered and narcissistic, and, worse, given that this is a PRATT (meaning that the topic is entirely unpersuasive and laughable in its inanity), the nonbeliever feels condescended to and insulted and likely feels his/her time is being wasted by a Christian who’s obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed.

    Too many Christians seem to fall into the trap of thinking that the whole problem with the PRATT is that it hasn’t been explained fully/properly/”MY special way with MY special insight”. That’s not the problem. Nope. Each PRATT has already been explained in every possible way, to every possible nuance, via ever possible metaphor and analogy, and there is simply no stone left unturned that could possibly make the PRATT anything else. The solution? Do not use them. Ever. Unless your goal is to annoy and offend nonbelievers and leave them filled with questions about your apparent lack of intelligence, sensitivity, and sensibility. Cassidy is trying to help you here, not to play tennis with you.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Hello Ralph, thank you for this comment, I appreciate your perspective! Your point is well-taken — I’ve actually been trying to illustrate this very issue, though the way I see it it’s coming from both sides. Unfortunately, no one else seems to get what I was really saying, and have been instead taking my points at face value without seeing the irony.

      So, it seems to me at least that both sides are largely guilty of the error of not knowing their audience. And until that is addressed, no fruitful discussion can be had — which largely seems to be the case, in most discussions such as this. I’m proposing a different discussion model, one where the mud-slinging can stop and we can all give one another the benefit of the doubt. Most people generally don’t seem interested in doing this, I’ve found — most are only concerned with shouting their points of view the loudest — but I’ve found that there are a few people who seem to be on board with the model I’m proposing on this blog. And I’m having a blast discussing with these people 🙂

      In my experience, the only fruitful discussion that can be had is where parties from both sides take your advice to heart. It has to be a two-way street, otherwise it doesn’t work — right?

      I’ve been purposefully holding back talking about the evidence, for I wanted to establish the groundwork for the nature of the discussion itself before going down that road, so as not to get the cart before the horse. I’ll get into that in my next post.

      Thanks for your many comments! I’ll try to address some of them in my next article.


      1. @Seth

        As has been mentioned on many occasions, I am sure, no one really cares what you believe, as this is your right.

        It becomes an issue when those that have a more literal understanding or more fervent belief in their religion,(and the texts they (slavishly) adhere to,) and in this case Christianity, wish to indoctrinate others, beginning with children.
        And let’s be mindful that indoctrination can be as innocuous as having something like ‘In God We Trust” on currency or insisting on a prayer before opening a meeting of some description.

        And the level of tolerance you would like to see extended to your religion ( as does every other religious person I’m sure) will only truly come to fruition when the religious keep it to themselves and stop believing they have some gods-given mission/ divine right to spread their belief to everyone else.

        Do you now perhaps appreciate the non-believers perspective?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Howdy Ark, welcome back 🙂 Yes, I appreciate your perspective. Personally, I have no desire to indoctrinate anyone — I much prefer respectful discussion about it. My ability to do that — engage in discussion with people who are willing and who have open minds — isn’t affected by whether or not “In God We Trust” is on my money.

          Indoctrination, though, is one of those terms that’s difficult to nail down, especially when we’re talking about children (who are more susceptible to influence than adults). It’s also, it must be pointed out, a charge that is not exclusive to the religious — a positive non-theist, for instance, could just as easily indoctrinate a child against belief in God, right?


        2. Very true. However, a genuine, rational non-believer would be sensitive to the child’s development and would teach the child about religion as they would any historical subject, and be mindful of the fact that the supernatural crap holds as much credibility as Santa Claus.
          Under those circumstances the child should grow up well rounded and without any need whatsoever for religion.
          Almost every adult conversion I have encountered or read about involves some degree of emotional problem/issues.
          Wouldn’t you agree?

          So do I understand then that you will not teach/ preach your kid about Christianity,any more than you would say Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism?


        3. If I didn’t, I’d be a fool at best and a hypocrite at worst — why wouldn’t I teach my child about the faith that I have come to believe to be true, and that has brought me and my family so much blessing and identity? Surely you wouldn’t expect me to deprive my child of the opportunity to know the faith of his father, just because you happen to disagree, right? 🙂

          I will, however, encourage my child to think for himself, and will make it clear that I will love him my whole life, regardless of his choices.


        4. Why should you not teach your child that what you believe is truth?
          Because it is based on untenable supernatural doctrine that includes the heinous doctrine of hell.

          However, I would expect any loving parent to allow their child the opportunity to grow up free from the gag-awful lies of christianity (or any religion for that matter) Original Sin and all that goes with it.
          Only a callous and somewhat ignorant parent would raise their child any other way.


        5. I am curious about something: I have a post running at the moment asking why on earth anyone would worship Yahweh.
          Why don’t you pop over and give us your reasons?
          I know that everyone will be very interested to read you answer.
          You might get ”crucified” but that’s okay.
          Don’t be shy – come across.

          Liked by 1 person

        6. You are on the internet right now. It’ wouldn’t take more than a couple of minutes. Why so reticent?
          I am assuming you do have a reason, yes?
          Two minutes, that’s all it would take.


        7. You underestimate the number of reasons I have 😉 Actually, your question will probably be addressed at the completion of my current project, which will be my next article. Stay tuned!


        8. Haven’t you got a short version you could quickly share with my readers?
          If you are scared/nervous of a hostile reaction( quite understandable) write it here.
          How difficult could than be?
          Let me tee you up:
          Why I worship Yahweh in 100 words or less.


        9. The shortness of a response is not necessarily proportional to its simplicity to write — as a writer, you should know this 🙂 Keep your shirt on, mate! I’ll give you plenty of cannon fodder in the next couple days, LOL.


        10. I always keep my shirt on at appropriate times.
          I am just surprised you need time to marshal your thoughts to come up with an answer and why I get the impression this is going to be an apologetic tome without actually offering a straight forward answer.

          I could give you an answer why I DON’T in a heartbeat.

          Believe me, I have all the cannon fodder I could ever dream of, but I am really interested in why you
          worship a deity that by all accounts is a pretty shady kind of character.
          But you obviously don’t agree with this opinion so what is it that you find so awkward to express?


        11. You will notice we do have one supposed xian, Colorstorm ,

          who never addresses a question with any degree of honesty. Now he is fun to keep around for shits and giggles to show just how cruddish some Christians really are.
          On the face of it you seem a more level-headed bloke ( believing in the supernatural notwithstanding) so an POV from one who is not a complete dipstick would be a refreshing change.


        12. Well, someone has to defend what are regarded as normal christians ( not by me) so it might as well be you, Seth.
          My blog door is always open.
          Let’s see wotcha got?


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