Portrait of Mark Twain taken in Istanbul in 1867, during his historic trip.

New film on Mark Twain highlights his religious doubts

Portrait of Mark Twain taken in Istanbul in 1867, during his historic trip.

 This image is available for web and print publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

(RNS) — Mark Twain, a.k.a. Samuel Clemens, didn't have much of anything good to say about religion, at least the organized kind.

"I have a religion — but you will call it blasphemy," he wrote in a letter in 1865. "It is that there is a God for the rich man but none for the poor ... Perhaps your religion will sustain you, will feed you — I place no dependence in mine. Our religions are alike, though, in one respect — neither can make a man happy when he is out of luck."

But it was a trip to the Holy Land in 1867 that launched him from local journalist to international satirist with "Innocents Abroad: Or, the New Pilgrim's Progress," a book based on the journey. That pivotal trip, and its impact on Twain's views on religion, are the subject of "Mark Twain's Journey to Jerusalem: Dreamland," which begins airing this month on PBS stations.

"Samuel Clemens had a constant, life-long sort of jilted love affair with the Bible," Twain biographer and historian Ron Powers says in the introduction to the hour-long film. "He wanted to believe, but he couldn't believe."

Twain's journey to Jerusalem started with a demand. "Send me $1,200 at once," he telegraphed his editors at the Alta California, a San Francisco newspaper. "I want to go abroad."

Amazingly, the editors did and Twain booked passage on The Quaker City, America's first cruise ship. The other passengers were religious pilgrims and rich young men looking to acquire a little sophistication before settling down. Twain embedded himself in both groups and began sending back to the paper what would be more than 50 "dispatches."

[ad number=“1”]

The five-month trip was a disappointment to Twain from the start. In Europe, he lamented the fatness of the priests and the scrawniness of the poor, marveled at the shabbiness of religious attractions like DaVinci's "The Last Supper" and wondered at the dullness of the locals.

He found the religious pilgrims he traveled with — men and women from small town America who had never been abroad before — narrow-minded and hypocritical. They held nightly prayer meetings on board the ship but ignored the suffering they saw among the poor everywhere they went.

Actor Jeffrey Weissman portrays Mark Twain in "Mark Twain's Journey to Jerusalem: Dreamland."

 This image is available for web and print publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

None of that changed when the travelers entered the Holy Land, the last stop on their 8,000 mile journey. The pilgrims cry crocodile tears at the supposed site of the crucifixion, they chisel off souvenirs from the walls of temples, they haggle with impoverished locals charging a few dollars for a boat ride on the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus is supposed to have walked on water.

"What fascinates Mark Twain most as he enters the Holy Land is not so much the Holy land itself, and its various relics and temples," Ann M. Ryan, a Twain scholar, says in the film, "but the hugely artificial response of the pilgrims he is traveling with ... He sees it as a desecration."

Twain, a Presbyterian steeped in the bare bones approach of Calvinism, was also scandalized by the amount of decoration — crosses, candlesticks, mosaics, statues, etc. — found in Jerusalem.

"He sees it as a kind of theme park," Powers says.

He is especially critical of the Holy Sepulchre, a fourth-century site that is supposed to contain the "tombs" of both Adam and Jesus.

[ad number=“2”]

"How touching it was, here in a land of strangers," Twain wrote of Adam's tomb, "thus to discover the grave of a blood relation. True a distant one, but still a relation."

But Twain had at least one experience that seems to have genuinely affected him. The last stop in the Holy Sepulchre is the site where the crucifixion is supposed to have taken place.

"I could not believe the three holes in the top of the rock were the actual ones the crosses stood in," he wrote. "But I felt satisfied that those crosses had stood so near the place now occupied by them that the few feet of possible difference were a matter of no consequence."

[ad number=“3”]

Laura Skandera Trombley, former president of the Huntington Library, hones in on this moment. "The experience Twain has at the site of the crucifixion is really profound for him and meaningful," she says. "He recognizes that this may have happened and gains some understanding into why religion is so powerful."

Twain put all of his disdain and disappointment — leavened with a hearty dose of humor — into "The Innocents Abroad." It was the most successful of his works during his lifetime.

Twain’s skepticism about religion lasted all of his life. He had a personal faith — he said he believed in God, attended church and donated money for the construction of a church. But he skewered religious hypocrisy wherever he found it.

“Man is without any doubt the most interesting fool there is,” he wrote in "Letters from the Earth," a commentary on Bible stories written in 1909, one year before his death.

“Also the most eccentric," Twain added.

"He hasn't a single written law, in his Bible or out of it, which has any but just one purpose and intention — to limit or defeat the law of God.”


  1. Mark Twain made it very clear that he thought religion was bunk. He wrote the Innocents Abroad when he was 30. His opinions of religion only went downhill from there.

  2. “Innocents Abroad” is a masterpiece; skeptics will nod sagely as it confirms their firmest convictions about religious flummery and hypocrisy. Sincere believers will be thoughtful, moved to greater circumspection about the manner in which they communicate their faith, and troubled by the testimony of a man who very much wanted to believe, but could not square an honest belief with what he observed from those around him who professed faith. Would that he had been exposed to kinder, gentler and more mature examples of Christian conduct. I would not presume to guess what his final determination was, however, I think heaven would be the less without him.

  3. Don’t tell the religious conservatives, but…a Mark Twain couldn’t be possible if USA were truly a Christian nation.

  4. “Man is a Religious Animal.
    Man is the only Religious Animal.
    He is the only animal that has the True Religion — several of them.
    He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight.
    He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven….
    The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why?
    It seems questionable taste.”
    Mark Twain

  5. “He found the religious pilgrims he traveled with — men and women from small town America who had never been abroad before — narrow-minded and hypocritical. They held nightly prayer meetings on board the ship but ignored the suffering they saw among the poor everywhere they went.”

    Since he thought Christians were hypocritical I thought I was going to find in his biography great things he did for poor. However, this is what is highlighted in a short biography of Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain.

    In 1873‚ Sam’s focus turned toward social criticism. He and Hartford Courant publisher Charles Dudley Warner co-wrote The Gilded Age‚ a novel that attacked political corruption‚ big business and the American obsession with getting rich that seemed to dominate the era. Ironically‚ a year after its publication‚ the Clemenses’ elaborate 25-room house on Farmington Avenue‚ which had cost the then-huge sum of $40‚000-$45‚000‚ was completed.

  6. Interesting quotation there. Mark Twain directly refuted the Theory of Evolution simply by using empirical observation, and noticing a universal disconnect between all humans and all animals.

    Humans are not a product of evolution. Whatever label you currently profess, (even if it is just “None Of The Above”), your existence is NOT explainable via natural laws and processes.

  7. Twain said nothing here about evolution. He observed that man and animals are different. This is consistent with evolutionary theory.

  8. The hypocrisy he’s describing was that the religious pilgrims were devout followers of a savior whose main message was about caring for “the least of these.” And they did less than nothing for those folks. Twain made no such pronouncements so it doesn’t apply in this case.

  9. Mark Twain, along with such other great writers of yesteryear like Ambrose Bierce and Thomas Paine, would today be called humanists or secular humanists. Those three in particular are well worth reading today. — Edd Doerr

  10. No, Twain’s simple quotation goes much farther, even paradigm- crashing farther, than a mere “humans and animals are different.”

    Sure, Twain never **meant** to take a dagger to evolution via what he said. But that’s exactly what he did.

    Evolution is supposed to have originated us humans via Random Mutation & Natural Selection.
    But humans like you (and me) keep producing all these huge, unbridgeable chasms (both physical AND non-physical), that RM & NS is totally unable to explain at all. Totally unable to provide ANY evolutionary linkage with animals past or present.

    Do you pray often? Post often? You’re into Judaism? Well, you are killing the Theory of Evolution with every prayer, every service, every post. No wonder Twain said what he said.

  11. It applies to his own situation. He is attacking the obsession to get rich, he was a critic of societal problems. Even this short biography finds it ironical that he is spending so much money on luxurious 25 room house.

  12. No, I pray often and post sometimes. And none of that, and none of what Twain said, disproves evolution. The supposed fact that evolution has not explained higher thought does not disprove the theory.

  13. The theory of evolution is actually a mixture or family of theories, hypotheses, claims, (and in some cases, just raw empty speculations.) They are all subsumed under the label “the Theory of Evolution.”

    It’s not possible to attack the entire theory, all the various evo-claims, in a small, keep-it-brief discussion forum like RNS.

    So I only focus on one specific evo-claim — the one where you and I come in — and I urge all readers to start disbelieving that one evo-claim, based on science, Scripture, and simple observations like those of Mark Twain.

  14. Even if you claim to have proven evolution false (which you haven’t), that still doesn’t mean your idea is true. You have to prove it first.

  15. Your statement that evolution is not scientifically support is false.
    As I said above, even if you claim to have proven evolution false (which you haven’t), that still doesn’t mean your idea is true. You have to prove it first.

  16. Nonsense – he did no such thing.

    Mark Twain was clever, successful, literate, a humourist (he did stand-up) and capable of understanding the tricks and nuances of language. He was fascinated with science and scientific inquiry, one of his closest friends was Nikola Tesla and he spent a lot of time with him in his laboratory.

    Having said that – even had he meant to disparage the Scientific Theory of Evolution, and that quotation cannot be interpreted to do so, so what. The evidence is clear, overwhelming and incapable of any other rational interpretation.

    I get that you don’t like that – but making irrational arguments in a vain attempt to fling some mud that might stick is not helpful to your position – though in truth nothing carefully considered can be.

  17. Well, sure. Many people are asking what you’re asking, Zappa. (Just to be clear, I’m again saying that the most important claim of the theory of evolution — that humans originated via evolving naturalistically from “an ape-like common ancestor” of humans and primates — is flat-out wrong.)

    But how does one prove that wrongness? By doing like Mark Twain did — you start observing humans for yourself. So, let me offer you a little something. It’s an easy-to-read, short list of physical differences that Modern Science has observed about humans. (There’s other VERY unbridgeable stuff, like human linguistics and human religion, but let’s just start here.)


    (1) The feet of chimpanzees are prehensile, in other words, their feet can grab anything their hands can. Not so for humans.

    (2) Humans have a chin, apes do not.

    (3) Human females experience menopause; no other primates do (the only known mammal besides humans to experience menopause is the pilot whale).

    (4) Humans have a fatty inner layer of skin as do aquatic mammals like whales and hippopotamuses; apes do not.

    (5) Humans are the only primate whose breasts are apparent when not nursing.

    (6) Apes have a bone in their penis called a baculum (10 millimeters in chimpanzees); humans do not.

    (7) Humans have a protruding nose.

    (8) Humans sweat; apes do not.

    (9) Humans can consciously hold their breath; apes cannot.

    (10) Humans are the only primate to weep.

    “These are just a few of the more obvious physical differences between humans and chimpanzees. But the key difference, of course, resides in the intellectual, linguistic, and moral capacities of humans.”

    — Dr. William Dembski, “Human Origins” (v2.0) , 2004

  18. “Capable of understanding the tricks and nuances of language” — Strike One.

    “One of his closest friends was Nikola Tesla” — a genius whose understanding of the tricks and nuances of electrical power and radio transmission was as amazing as Twain’s understanding of the nuances of the English language. Strike Two.

    These two guys (and women such as the pre-Apollo black math-wizards of NASA), are essentially living disproofs of the Theory of Evolution regarding humans. Totally unbridgeable, totally impossible chasms (for evolution’s RM & NS mechanism) between these genius’s abilities and ANY animal past or present. No evolutionary bridges. Strike Three.

    (Evolution has struck out.)

  19. Again you attempted to disprove evolution. That doesn’t matter. You need to prove some kind of supernatural creation which you haven’t. Just tearing down evolution doesn’t make your argument true.

  20. “These two guys are essentially living disproofs of the Theory of Evolution regarding humans”

    No they’re not. You are wrong. Your lack of rational argument is complete.

    There are only three reasons for claiming to doubt the validity of The Scientific Theory of Evolution.

    1 – You are unaware of the evidence

    2 – You don’t understand the evidence

    3 – You have a reason for appearing foolish that over-rides your intellect.

    Based on your history on this site I’m leaning toward 3.

  21. Quoting a creationist with no credentials to speak on the subject is not support for your statement. It is much like asking a mechanic their opinion on brain surgery. They may have an opinion and talk at length on the subject, but it doesn’t require one take them seriously as an expert or even adequately knowledgeable on it.

    Of course your quote is without online attribution because you know the source of your cut and paste is not even remotely credible in of itself.

  22. So far you have not attacked the theory at all. Not in any way which requires being taken seriously. You have mischaracterized it, quoted people with no working knowledge of it, and made spurious arguments showing a basic ignorance of its concepts.

  23. Please feel free to show from any scientific source of your choosing, that ANY of the 10 specified physical differences between humans and primates are false or incorrect.

    You won’t be able to. But please, take thine best shot.

  24. How about you provide evidence FOR your position. I’ve already asked twice. I assume you don’t have any.

  25. Hey, don’t forget Reason #4 —

    —You empirically observe actual and compelling, living counter-examples against the application of naturalistic Random Mutation and Natural Selection to human origins.

    Indeed, the grammar and syntax conventions displayed in your post there, is more than sufficient to falsify evolution’s major claim of “ape-like common ancestor” human origins.

    Admittedly I like the big-name examples, but YOUR OWN unbridgeable, zero-RM-&-NS genius ability, destroys evolution nicely.
    I commend you.

  26. I was reading about the discovery of “gravitational waves” produced by the collision of two neutron stars 100m light years away and wondering how the deniers would spin that when, just like that, your post arrived.

    I’m going back to reading things produced by people who understand what they’re writing about – bye.

  27. The old-time grouping and differentiating of physical traits is today’s canard — compare the genomes.

  28. Actually, Twain was an early critic of intelligent design: “Evolution is a blind giant who rolls a snowball down a hill. The ball is made of flakes–circumstances. They contribute to the mass without knowing it. They adhere without intention, and without foreseeing what is to result. When they see the result they marvel at the monster ball and wonder how the contriving of it came to be originally thought out and planned. Whereas there was no such planning, there was only a law: the ball once started, all the circumstances that happened to lie in its path would help to build it, in spite of themselves. – “The Secret History of Eddypus”

  29. Since your 10 specified physical differences didn’t come from a biologist, you haven’t established a case to be refuted yet. Much like the mechanic discussing brain surgery, the basis of expertise is not established. Therefore there is no need to consider such writings to be from someone with sufficient knowledge in the field to upend experts.

    Here are peer reviewed scientific journal in the field of biology which supports the notion and application of the theory of evolution in various writings and research on the subject of biology


  30. What? Science doesn’t pay attention to morphology (physical traits) anymore? Really?

    That’s kinda messy, folks — sure makes it look like evolutionists are openly ignoring any physical evidences (and don’t forget non-physical evidences), that count **against** the evolutionist claim of human origins.

    (I’m sure Twain wouldn’t be pleased about this.)

  31. Its always funny when you use the word “naturalistic”. All science is naturalism in a philosophical sense.

    The proper term for evidence outside of naturalism is “voodoo bullcrap”.

  32. Here’s a great observation, which I made by starting to observe humans myself.
    “Religion makes people moral.”
    The facts are in. No, it doesn’t make people moral. It doesn’t make them even truthful, let alone nice.

  33. The theory of evolution is billions of facts and observations from dozens of disparate disciplines, all of which has held up remarkably well. when it hasn’t, it has been revised. It has produced repeatable and useful results.
    Creationism and bible-believing are based upon the particular and peculiar readings of one ancient tome that was one of the sole literary products of people living a universe away from us in time, language, culture, knowledge, and morals. The only useful results produced are a lot of swell buildings and jobs for the people who work in them.

  34. “It’s not possible to attack the entire theory, all the various evo-claims, in a small, keep-it-brief discussion forum like RNS.”

    Then I suggest you attack the entire theory in Nature magazine instead. Prove your case to the scientists, and the whole pesky idea will just go away.

  35. Floydlee seems unaware that he is out of sync with about 99.99% of biologists.

  36. “(Evolution has struck out.)”

    Congratulations. You have proven that if you appoint yourself to simultaneously be batter, pitcher, catcher, umpire, and rule-maker, you can strike yourself out.

  37. I enjoy both Bierce and Twain, but while Paine admittedly made a lot of “Common Sense,” I find his antitheism to be disturbing.

  38. Actually, Paine made it very clear in The Age of Reason that he was a Deist, not an atheist. — Edd Doerr

  39. I so agree with what you write. I am a Priest in the Episcopal Church AND Innocents Abroad is one of my favorite books. Hypocrisy especially when wedded with hate and a judgmental attitude is the greatest enemy of a faith that is hopeful and helpful. And, who would not laugh at the constant question about whether the departed greats, especially of Italy, are still alive? To the great consternation of numerous guides.

  40. I haven’t read Paine widely, I’m prepared to admit. Though I have read historical assessments of him that affirm precisely what you declare, but I can’t help but wonder whether his stated position in The Age of Reason was a shift from a previously held atheism. Some have argued it so.

  41. So, since neither evolutionist Bill Nye nor creationist Ken Ham have any biology degrees, I take it you skipped the entire historic Ham-Nye origins debate that over 3 million Internet viewers watched, along with media outlets.

    Is that right? You didn’t watch, listen to, or read ANY of either guy’s debate comments, right? Tell us.

  42. See recent response above. Also, fwiw, you could never pass a philosophy of science 101 course, if your teacher saw that first sentence of yours. Ya gotta do better.

  43. You’ve provided nothing so far. At least I’m providing something.

  44. I already took one in college. That first sentence establishes that your source can’t even come up with a legal standard of expertise on the subject.

    Legal standards are useful because they represent how one can examine scientific expertise and knowledge in a setting for a lay audience. An expert whose opinions can be considered the presentation of facts requires one lay a groundwork for the basis of their knowledge. In the field of biology, one would need credentials in said field that are objectively accepted.

    What you stump for is better known as “mad science”. Something more plausible in a B-movie than real life.

  45. Bill Nye is not the one challenging the established scientific theory in the field. So all he has to do is repeat what those experts state. Ken Ham however, seeking to upend said established scientific theory has the burden of establishing he understands it first. Then he has to demonstrate the expertise necessary to present an objectively credible challenge to said established scientific theory.

    Debate implies an equality of viewpoints and quality of evidence which reality here does not present here. BTW Ham lost it in the initial few minutes by stating that nothing could possibly shake his opinions. Not even evidence presented (unlike Nye). At that point he conceded any notion of a rational basis to his view.

  46. Can’t blame the evolutionists for turning to genomes, since the physical traits have turned **against** them, as well as the fossils.

    But the genomes haven’t saved evolutionists either, have they? Here’s some factoids to consider. General preliminary responses to your link:

    Differences between humans/apes not specified by name. Plus they are played down. Plus “bipedalism” is brought up as an excuse, without pointing out that bipedalism creates DOUBTS on evolution, not supports it.

    “Natural selection preserves beneficial changes and eliminates disadvantageous ones, so there would be no justification for bipedalism in an animal that can already move faster and more efficiently on all fours.” — theistic evolutionist Michael Chabarek, quoted in creationist Journal of Creation (2017)

    Plus physical evidence of intelligent decision-making and intelligent goal-directedness, which evolutionists say evolution does NOT do) is directly ascribed to an inanimate non-intelligent source in your link. (“Nature very likely selected for longer legs with powerful muscles and spring-like tendons in humans because it is more efficient for walking and especially running bipedally.”)

    How can inanimate, non-living, non-intelligent”nature” engage in an actual intelligent willful selection for a specifically worded, specifically beneficial purpose when evolution isn’t supposed to have either intelligence or purposefulness? (There’s a known logical fallacy called “reification.” This mess fits the bill.)

    Plus the chimp genome is NOWHERE near any kind of complete mapping like human genome. It’s like barnyard chicken-scratches compared to an AAA roadmap. So genomes aren’t a free ticket to saying humans evolved from primates.

    But now this is where the posts get long, or laden with dueling links, and readers’ eyes (on all sides) tend to glaze over, unless they really ARE interested in discussing creation, evolution and design. But it’s still important to point all these things out, for the sake of those who are interested. Evolution is in TROUBLE.

  47. The Theory of Evolution IS torn down for humans, it’s just that it’s a long laundry list of torn places when you include the specific details.

    The presence of positive evidence for human creation — biological examples of engineering design / intelligent design in the human body — is the other half of the picture that you’re calling for.

    But there’s a zillion examples of such extreme engineering design already. You already disprove evolution.

  48. Ken Ham and Bill Nye disproved your suggestion. Just speak out wherever you happen to be at, be willing to keep hammering away at it and work on your arguments, and you’ll eventually get a few evolutionary scientists’ attention online, no matter what. Trust me, it works.

  49. No, that’s another super-vulnerable evolution scam. Philosopher of science Dr. Stephen Meyer destroyed this one in “Methodological Equivalence of Design & Descent.”

    It’s online, I believe. He wipes it out near the end of his essay.

  50. Evolution is in genuine trouble. Modern Science has stopped giving evolution free passes on everything. How will you stop the bleeding?

  51. Dr. Stephen Meyer another non-expert whose opinion on the subject does not rise to the level where it has to be taken seriously. A guy whose entire philosophy and work is boiled down to the cretinous assertion, “Whatever I do not know, means God of the Bible did it”


    “Meyer, not a paleontologist nor a molecular biologist,
    does not understand these scientific disciplines, therefore he
    misinterprets, distorts and confuses the data, all for the purpose of
    promoting the ‘God of the gaps’
    argument: ‘anything that is currently not easily explained by science
    is automatically attributed to supernatural causes’, i.e. intelligent

  52. Yeah, as long as you’re an atheist you don’t have to actually live by the moral imperatives you criticize other people for not practicing. Living in a 25 room crib, while busting religious folks for not doing more to help the poor.

    Sheesh. No wonder atheism (or variants thereof) are out of gas on any given day.

  53. You’re not even telling me which folks from you’re preaching for naturalism. At least I’m letting you know who’s specifically preaching against it.

    And now I’ll give the readers the exact link where they can find Dr. Meyer’s specific dissecting and destruction of naturalism:


    Just scroll way down to the section that says, “Naturalism — the only game in town?”. You’ll get all the good information.

  54. Umm, ***did you*** actually watch or listen to or read the Ham-Nye debate, or did you not? Did you skip both guys because neither one has a biology degree and neither one is an expert?

    There was no court lawsuit there or school classroom controversy, so your phrase “legal standard” doesn’t mean anything this time. Just two non-experts relaying information from experts to the general public. Did you listen to both? None? Did you require a biology degree or not?

    (Indeed, Ham virtually wiped out Nye during the first half by springing a PhD microbiologist and also the inventor of the MRI machine on him. Nye’s own blind evolutionist prejudices totally set him up for Ham’s attack.)

  55. How about this, when you cite to someone who is an actual expert in the field they discuss, then I can take their opinions on said subject seriously as those who know what they are talking about. Dr. Meyers opinion carried no weight here.

    A creationist criticizing naturalism isn’t worth a pile of fertilizer. They already make it clear they will l!e in service of their voodoo beliefs. If you have to upend the entire basis of scientific and rational study to shoehorn in your concept, you are talking crazy voodoo nonsense.

    How does one study non naturalistic phenomena? One doesn’t. It’s just mythology, superstition and faith.

  56. Yep, Ham player to an uncritical crowd. He lost the debate early and didn’t realize it.v

  57. But that last little 0.01 percent, are surely ripping big holes in the religion of evolution.

  58. Remember, I don’t have to convince you of any of this. All I have to do, is just provide the information for the readers. The ones who are interested, will see the information and remember something of it.

    The topic of naturalism is the automatic province of philosophers of science, and Dr. Meyer is a PhD (otherwise known as “an expert”) in philosophy of science.

    You DO want to hear from experts in the relevant field, right? Well now you got one, and worse yet, he explains it all in a way that us non-experts can understand it.

    So now your beloved naturalism is all in trouble too, just like evolution.

  59. Good, because you are doing a lousy job of it.

    The credibility of creationists is zero. Their entire stance is ly!ng in service of religious beliefs. All done because they have no trust in faith to convey their belief.

    You can’t try to appropriate the credibility of science and rational thought and attack it at the same time. That credibility only comes from following a narrow set of rules to ensure a credible outcome. You ignore them as an inconvenience.

    You have never represented evolution honestly (or much of anything else).

    Dr. Meyer is a geologist. Judging by the reaction within the scientific community, not one respected for his expertise on subjects he discusses.

    If you forgo naturalism, you forgo scientific study and rational discussion. Only a dishonest creationist can pretend glorified voodoo needs to be taken as seriously as science.

  60. Evolution and Biology is not about soul as you call it, but for physical manifestations, which are exact, and proven to be. If you observe animals, you can see.

  61. More irrational thinking – just because you don’t understand arithmetic doesn’t mean that two is half of seven hundred and twenty three. Trying doing joined-up thinking – it’ll get you out of this religion loop.

    With cause and effect so hopelessly disconnected no wonder your variety of religion is haemorrhaging membership.

Leave a Comment