Philipp Markolin
Jul 26, 2017 · 1 min read

Thank you for elaborately explaining to the original poster that his post has no rational substance, I just wanted to second that.

I was really disappointed, at first I thought this article might contain some psychological insights or studies why some people do not feel as compelled to believe in anything when there is no evidence for it.

Instead, it was about a whacky bullshit comparison of 100 year-dead’s pseudoscientific metaphors and an even more ludicrous “Christian” psychologist who takes them for full in order to charge an assault on atheism as if it was no better than theism.

I am not a trained armchair philosopher, I am a scientist, but even I can come up with a better social science-based explanatory framework for why humans created god than those dimwit closet theologians.

Philipp Markolin

Written by

Researcher, PhD in cancer biology. Occupied with communicating science and scientific ideas to a broader audience. Editor of Advances in biological science.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade