Stephen King: If You Don’t Believe in God, You’re Missing Out on Sunrises, Sunsets, and the Stars

Author Stephen King was recently interviewed on NPR’s Fresh Air and the conversation at one point turned to his views on God. While King referred to organized religion as “a theological insurance scam,” he wasn’t quite so dismissive of God in general.

Here’s what he said to host Terry Gross (around the 15:45 mark):

“I choose to believe [in God]. … I mean, there’s no downside to that. If you say, ‘Well, OK, I don’t believe in God. There’s no evidence of God,’ then you’re missing the stars in the sky and you’re missing the sunrises and sunsets and you’re missing the fact that bees pollinate all these crops and keep us alive and the way that everything seems to work together. Everything is sort of built in a way that to me suggests intelligent design. But, at the same time, there’s a lot of things in life where you say to yourself, ‘Well, if this is God’s plan, it’s very peculiar,’ and you have to wonder about that guy’s personality — the big guy’s personality. And the thing is — I may have told you last time that I believe in God — what I’m saying now is I choose to believe in God, but I have serious doubts and I refuse to be pinned down to something that I said 10 or 12 years ago. I’m totally inconsistent.”

… the hell? There’s only one appropriate reaction to that:

King is merely echoing Bill O’Reilly‘s “Tide goes in, tide goes out” line. He doesn’t understand it, so it must be the work of a higher power, right?!

That’s entirely backwards. Losing your belief in God in favor of more rational, scientific explanations allows you to enjoy sunrises, sunsets, and the way nature works. Letting God take credit for all of that just cheapens it all — it makes everything just a part of someone’s blueprint instead of something that turned up naturally yet came together beautifully. Even if King is speaking metaphorically and talking about us missing the “big picture,” he’s still wrong.

We may be atheists but we’re not missing out on anything that matters.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • C Peterson

    King sounds like a deist. Relatively harmless, outside of encouraging an irrational way of thinking (and I do see that as a “downside” to belief).

    But I wonder who that “you” is that he is talking about. I’m an atheist, and I don’t find myself missing out on sunrises or sunsets (although I prefer to be asleep for the former). And the stars? Well, I’m a professional astronomer, so I enjoy those on so many levels, from their sublime aesthetics to their profound window on the Universe. And all that without a god. In fact, tossing a god into the mix would rather ruin the beauty of it all, I think.

    • JET

      King sounds like he is trying to continue to sell books. “Let’s see… I’ll profess to some belief in God so that my books don’t get banned by churches. But I’ll make that belief so nebulous (deism) that the non-believers will continue buying them as well.” I’m not a fan of King’s novels, but I must admit he has a way with words.

      • C Peterson

        I don’t think King worries about how his personal beliefs might impact book sales. It think he was honestly presenting his views, which are typical of many casual deists and theists who haven’t invested a lot of effort in actual reflection on their own beliefs.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          Indeed. If he had started writing twenty or thirty years later he might be cautious. Now, though, he’s set. The dude got a $300,000 contract for that very thin novel Carrie. In the 1970s. He has nothing to fear.

      • chicago dyke

        he’s a fucking hack. talk about lowering the bar. it’s sad to me that he’s so popular, but then again, when i was 14, i thought he was awesome. but i agree with you. this man lives to make money, like so many others. how does he do so? by selling books about monsters, gods, and fairy tales. he’s a leech upon the collective reserve of ignorance. and anyway, i care about what he says, why?

        • Miss_Beara

          “but then again, when i was 14, i thought he was awesome.”

          I felt this way with John Grisham when I was 14. About the time i started to read more “grown up” books. Now I see he is another book churning hack.

          • JET

            That’s how I feel about James Patterson, although I don’t even think he writes his own books any more. Regardless of who’s writing them, they’re garbage.

            • Sile Skelley

              And Patterson makes weird, embarrassing commercials for his books.

            • allein

              Patterson cracks me up. I used to work in bookstores and every other month we’d have a brick wall of cases of his latest book, 2-3 weeks ahead of the sale date (because we were in the same state as the distribution center so we always got stuff early) just taking up space against a wall in the back. His name in big letters on the cover with “and [Other Author]” in relatively tiny letters below. Yeah, sure, I believe he still writes his own books. ;)

        • Tom

          Hey, hacks serve a social purpose, just like fast food restaurants (a very similar one, in fact, hence why they’re both commonly found in airports, rail stations and holiday spots). Even a fussy gourmet can feel like having a burger sometimes. Also just like fast food restaurants, however, going there every day won’t do you much good. But to strain the metaphor to breaking point, I guess interviewing a hack writer about philosophical matters might be like having McDonalds do a cookery show.

          • WallofSleep

            “I guess interviewing a hack writer about philosophical matters might be like having McDonalds do a cookery show.”

            Oh no. I swear to Darwin if this becomes the next big “Reality TV” show, I am taking away all your internets.

          • Tom

            I should clarify: this is not to say a hack writer is automatically stupid, or might have no deep thoughts. I’m sure plenty of intelligent, well read people have resorted to hack writing over the years to pay the bills, especially if they’ve hit a block on writing something deeper. Moreover, I’m sure the ability to just pour out readable text on demand is a skill in itself, which is what hack writing is. But to treat someone as worth listening to regarding deeper matters based *only* on popularity they acquired from hackwork is asinine.

            • Space Cadet

              I love hack writing. Sometimes I just want a well paced book that I can devour in an afternoon.

        • C Peterson

          I’d call him an extremely good writer, whose body of work ranges from pure pulp to richly complex (I consider the Dark Tower series brilliant, and it remains one of my favorite pieces of literature).

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            MOST of that series is great. Some verges on dumb, I think, but the balance is overwhelmingly towards the good.

            Heh, my jaw dropped towards the end of one book when he implied that the guy who ran him over in real life was one of the Low Men.

          • wmdkitty

            What’s even more brilliant is, if you pay attention, a lot of his other work feeds into the Dark Tower series. (i.e. the boy that was saved from the Big Bad in “Insomnia” is, in universe, the creator of the Dark Tower world. And the Crimson King shows up all over the damn place, by many names.)

          • Space Cadet

            I was happy he continued and finished the Dark Tower series, which is easily my favorite of his. I remember him saying he didn’t think he was going to finish the series, and that was after the 2nd or 3rd book, if I recall correctly.

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              Did you see why he didn’t think he’d finish it? He wrote a huge outline during his drinking days, put it in storage, and lost it. He still has no idea how he originally intended it to go.

              • SphericalBunny

                One wonders whether it would’ve included slightly more or less pomposity? (Yeah, I get the irony of including the words ‘one’ and ‘pomposity’ in that sentence). We shall never know, nor care, right up until the last book…

              • Space Cadet

                No, never heard that as the reason. All I remember was him saying something along the lines of the story being too big to finish in his lifetime, which does sound like something he might say after realizing he lost the outline. I wonder if he would make that outline available to the public if he ever finds it. It would be interesting to see how the story diverged from what he originally intended.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          Writing and reading fiction about the supernatural does not make people more susceptible to magical belief, much as playing video games doesn’t make people think that they’re S.T.A.R.S. members.

        • Drew M.

          i care about what he says, why?

          I know the feeling, but not about him…

    • WillBell

      He’s a theist – you cannot believe in intelligent design and be a deist.

      • WallofSleep

        It’s possible that King is not aware that ID is a euphemism for creationism.

        • WillBell

          Even “evolutionary creationism”/”theistic evolution” is theistic, deism implies no interference at all.

          • WallofSleep

            I’m not saying I disagree, I’m just saying that it’s possible King doesn’t really know wtf “intelligent design” really means when it comes to the subject of creationism v. evolution.

      • C Peterson

        I disagree. “Intelligent design” can range from “creating the Universe and setting it in motion”, which is the fundamentally deist viewpoint, to “micromanaged every aspect of evolution”, which is not. I see the lower-case usage in his comment to be closer to the former.

        • WillBell

          The bees-pollinate-crops seems closer the the theistic notion of evolutionary micromanaging.

          • Guest

            The bee is there to collect food, and pollen gets stuck to it. How does an insect seeking food, or plant spreading pollen to reproduce seem like god micromanaging evolution?

            • WillBell

              (what I said to the other person) Because god supposedly *designed* it that way.

          • wmdkitty

            Which sounds to me more like “all life is intertwined”.

            • WillBell

              Because god supposedly *designed* it that way.

              • wmdkitty

                And yet it doesn’t necessarily require a god, as all life is intertwined, and we have no solid evidence of a god setting it all in motion.

                • WillBell

                  I never said it was, I’m saying that because he said that it would seem he believes in a version of intelligent design that involves interference.

      • AxeGrrl

        Unless you’re going with the basic definition of theism, which makes deism a subset of theism.

        • WillBell

          That would still make him a theist and he would still not be a deist.


      Well my friend, if you would trust and love God with all your heart you would not express yourself or state; “In fact, tossing a god into the mix…”. it’s clear you are missing the most wonderful, enjoyable (JOY), beautiful, liberating and peaceful way of life, which man can’t even imagine when they don’t know or trust God with all their Heart. The Joy is so much, that its radiates through my skin, my eyes and my heart want to explode because of such joy, to the point that when trials come my way they are confronted with that same Joy, peace, strength, that only God provides to those that love and trust him with no reservation, doubt, question. His grace is so unimaginable or not understandable to humans, that in occasions he even takes over a specific situation and speaks through me with words that I could have never imagined. It even surprises me the words he speak through me. When you trust and let him take over or let him take control, his way not our worldly way or time, you have nothing to worry, he is your protector and everything will work according to his will and his will is always with you, we are his creation and his children, no father once any harm for their children, of course, if it’s a loving father like God. Only when you trust and love GOD with all your heart, have no doubts by faith, and you are ready to let go of this earthly life and let him guide and direct you without making questions, will you truly experience this marvelous GRACE that only he love can shed.
      I know it hard for some to understand, but those that have this special relation with GOD that has taken 5, 10, 15 or 20 years to establish, know what I am talking about. Those that have doubts and have not open their hearts because they keep questioning and wanting it their way, are egocentric, etc, do not understand what I am referring to.

  • C.L. Honeycutt

    And even he can’t believe in gods without being douchey and making things up about people who don’t. Until one minute ago, I had a lot of respect for King. His being a deist or agnostic or Christian wouldn’t have changed that, but the need to snipe from a position of complete ignorance of even the basic arguments, from a man as well-read as himself, is going to make his writing taste like ashes.

  • Space Cadet

    and you’re missing the fact that bees pollinate all these crops and keep
    us alive and the way that everything seems to work together

    Yeah, we call that evolution. Species adapting to their environments. Which is as beautiful and grandiose as the stars and the sky, sunrises and sunsets.


    I choose to believe [in God]. … I mean, there’s no downside to that

    Check your zipper, Mr. King, your Pascal’s Wager is showing.

    • John

      I’m tempted to start using “Pascal’s Wager” as a euphemism now.

    • Kevin_Of_Bangor

      And he is missing the fact that millions of bees have to be brought into Maine to pollinate our blueberry fields. If they where not trucked in a lot of people would go without blueberries because 1 in every 4 is grown in Maine.

  • ErinneTheAuthor

    Wonderfully put.

  • Jasper

    If he thinks sunrises are good while believing in God, he simply doesn’t know what he’s missing by watching a sunrise while believing in unicorns, leprechauns AND the Loch Ness monster! Man, oh man!

    • Jasper

      And Zeus

      • ZenDruid

        And the holy trinity of Owsley, Kesey, and Leary.

    • MarkTemporis

      You cannot properly appreciate the sun until you become a devotee of the living and sentient sun god, who communicates in visions given his faithful after they have gazed at his countenance until their unbelief has been burned from their very eyes!

    • Sile Skelley

      And LSD! ;)

  • Baby_Raptor

    *walks outside and looks at sunrise*

    Nope, I can see it. It doesn’t convince me that there’s an invisible being in the sky. Maybe if I try the flowers…

    Nope. that didn’t work either.

    And besides, bees are an argument AGAINST god. Ever been stung by one?

    • Space Cadet

      That’s the stinging love of god. Argumentum ad stingum.

      • Baby_Raptor


        I’m allergic to ants, which obviously are another type of stinging mean insect-thing. Does this mean that I’m also allergic to Zod’s love?

        • Space Cadet

          The allergic reaction is clear proof of you being possessed by demons, with whom the stinging love of god is doing battle.

        • Feminerd

          Nuh uh! Ants bite you, they don’t sting you. Clearly they are Satan’s minions instead of God’s loving agents; demons bite, angels sting.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Yellowjacket nests hidden in yards until you mow over them, however, are a prime example of the Old Testament God in action. Random lingering punishment for my thin-skinned neighbor for the crimes of being elderly, easily injured and unable to run? That’s Yahweh alright. At least he didn’t call the yellowjackets “bald-heads”, or else he’d really be in for the shit.

  • MsC

    I am an atheist, but am not scientific. I don’t need a god, or science, to appreciate the beauty of a sunrise, or to marvel at the stars. They offer, as Anne Shirley would say, “scope for the imagination.”

    • Bryan Burgess

      If you appreciate beauty, then it is worth reading a few popular science books. Knowledge expands your access to beautiful things.

  • Thomas J. Lawson

    Sounds like a “Pascalian Christian.” Believer when necessary, but most of the time quite disinterested. AKA: Bet hedger. But if this is the type of mental gymnastics that King needs to write entertaining books, I don’t think I want to break that. ALTHOUGH, what if he suddenly started seeing the world as it is? Maybe his writing, grounded in fantastical reality, would be even better? I know King is a voracious reader, but someone should really slip him a non-fiction book every so often, and not one about baseball!

    • MarkTemporis

      His earliest and most prominent influence is HP Lovecraft, an atheist, which can be seen most obviously in “Salem’s Lot”, so I’d think he’d write just fine if he gave up god.

      Of his post (during) accident work I think “On Writing” is the best thing he did. However, I really loved his short stories and think his work gets worse as it gets longer. Which apparently means I am the mirror-universe version of his agent.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        That’s a point. When he keeps it short and simple, he’s much more effective. Among other things, he might induce exhaustion from suspense in his readers.

        • wmdkitty

          He’s certainly induced many a late night (or is that early morning?) in me, because I just. can’t. put. the book. down.

  • Richard Wade

    I heard this when it was first broadcast, and I was one of those drivers you see talking angrily to himself on the freeway. Mr. King had several intelligent, interesting, and sensitive things to say about other matters during the rest of the interview, but that remark about missing out on sunsets, stars, etc. was so disappointingly cliche´ and ignorant. He’s posturing that he can read others’ minds, knowing what they can and cannot think and emotionally appreciate, and he’s posturing that he experiences something special and esoteric that others cannot.

    Excuse me Mr. King, but the rich appreciation of beauty, wonder, romance, awe, and joy are all there available for any human being who takes the time to reflect into himself or herself. I easily allow sunsets, stars, babies’ laughs, mountain passes, my wife’s steady breathing while she sleeps, and 10,000 other daily wonders to wash over me and through me, cleansing me of anger and anxiety, and it does not require believing in something that is no more real than any of the spooks that you write about in your stories.

  • Jasper

    I’d also point out that many of us were believers. When I believed in God, if you had suggested to me that I appreciate things like stars and sunrises more because I believe in God, that would have been gibberish to me. What exactly does believing in a magical sky wizard add to a sunrise?

  • DougI

    If King didn’t believe in gods then maybe the ending to The Stand wouldn’t have sucked so much.

    • Miss_Beara

      100 likes for this comment. The entire book was pretty good, but the end? Ruined the 1000 pages that proceeded it.

      • Space Cadet

        M-O-O-N, that spells ‘suck’.

      • LisaMaxey

        I often wonder if he wrote the entire story just so that he could somewhat legitimately execute the deus ex machina ending.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Yes, this. I’ve enjoyed a lot of his work, but The Stand is an example of how NOT to plot a novel. I don’t get why people keep pushing it at me.

      • Miss_Beara

        Did you like any of it? That was my first King novel, so I didn’t really know what to expect. I didn’t mind the God/Satan characters and I thought that a good portion of the story was rather good. However, when I got to the end, my face looked like David Silverman’s face. I had to read it a couple of times to make sure I read it correctly.

        I still liked The Stand (minus the ending) more than The Shining.

        • WallofSleep

          The first of his I read was Different Seasons. I completely lost interest in his writing after Gerald’s Game. Still, I have to give him credit for inspiring me to read more as a young teen.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            Oh, Different Seasons had some freaky stuff in it. The last story was a throwaway, but most of the other three was golden.

            He has written some good stuff relatively recently, but it’s too hit-or-miss for me to buy any of it. Usually it’s only part of a book that is worth enjoying. Friends keep handing me his novels though. :P

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          I think he can write compelling characters (although he can drag them out until they’re more irritating than anything else) and is great at creating suspense through repetition. I don’t remember much about The Stand besides liking a lot of characters as heroes or villains but thinking there were too many characters, and being flabbergasted at how poorly thought-out the house bombing scene was (not even the end.)

      • benanov

        M O O N, that spells deism.

        The plot’s a little silly at the end, and you hate Stu and Fran, and the metaphysical belief-in-god stuff gets heavy…other than that I enjoyed reading it….and I am SO glad they cut The Kid out of the movie version. Do you believe that happy crappy?

        • chicago dyke

          respectfully, i disagree.

          the movie version sucked, all the way round. The Kid was one of the few actual “real” characters in the book. a gun loving, engine worshipping closet case who rapes the developmentally disabled?

          these are the people who rule our world. King gets credit for identifying them. TV loses points for taking that out.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          The part where he suddenly blows up a large chunk of his developed characters in the middle for shock value. This is the sort of thing that would happen if it were “real”, but it is awful for a story. He was writing without thinking ahead, and it showed. Thinking back, I believe he’s actually said that he wrote it without planning, as it came to him.

          This can be done as a way to untether the protagonists and force them to venture outside their safe zones, but either that wasn’t what he was going for, or he was very bad at it.

    • PersephoneK

      i actually loved the ending although I was a Christian when I read it so maybe that’s why. perhaps I should avoid rereading one of my all time favorite books to avoid ruining it for myself now that I’m an atheist.

  • Houndentenor

    More hackery from the king of hack writers. Sunrise happens way too early for me, but I love a good sunset, especially at the beach. And stars? I missed them so when I lived in NYC (light pollution, although if you are on the roof of a building at least 12 stories high you can see them again). What does believing in gods have to do with any of that? We are all capable of appreciating beauty and experiencing a sense of wonder. I never respected King as a writer and now I respect him even less.

  • Fentwin

    I don’t understand internal combustion engines. I mean, there’s plenty of literature out there with explanations concerning the mysteries of internal combustion, but then the mystery is removed. Where’s the fun in understanding if it removes the mystery (which seems to be a requirement for belief)?

    • allein

      Yes, I just pray to the god of cars and appreciate the mystery when it starts up every day.

  • LutherW

    I do not understand any of these guys. I conclude; There must NOT be a god.

  • Donalbain
    • Michael Harrison

      And then there’s this xkcd:

  • Artor

    This is disappointing; I thought King was more rational than that. I guess after a lifetime of writing about things that go bump in the night, he’s convinced himself they’re real?

    • Kir (Politicoid)

      His thinking is actually rather rational. I don’t remember which philosopher stated the argument, but basically the idea is that given two competing ideas, for which there is no evidence either way [like god, which is outside of the realm of science] you pick the one that gives the most subjective satisfaction.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        It isn’t rational to claim that people who want evidence before believing things are broken. By the way, there’s plenty of evidence for a naturalistic universe.

        • Kir (Politicoid)

          Evidence? Such as?

      • Nate Frein

        Translation: “Go ahead and play the lottery. You either win or you lose so it’s 50/50″.

        • Kir (Politicoid)

          Incorrect. We have data for the lottery. We don’t for god. The first is in the realm of science, the second is philosophy.

          • Sile Skelley

            Not so much philosophy as divine delusion… King’s statement doesn’t reflect any sort of philosophy just an, admittedly, benign belief in a deity but not in any overarching rules of life, the universe etc. he hasn’t put enough thought into it to call it philosophy… Furthermore, philosophy doesn’t hinge on insulting other beliefs (or non beliefs in this case), philosophy is an assembly of rational arguments based on observation and logic. It is literally the pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means. Deism and further expanses of religion require none of this and, in fact, eschew critical thought.

            • Kir (Politicoid)

              I think you might be confusing philosophy and “a philosophy”. Questions regarding that which existed before the universe, why the universe came into being, what will exist after it ends, life, death, etc are not questions that can be answered by science and thus are in the realm of pure philosophy.

              To say that the universe is so complex and so beautiful and so unlikely that it is the reason why one believes in god is not inappropriate in the discussion of philosophy.

              • SphericalBunny

                I suspect you did the confusing though… it is commonplace for a personal philosophy to include, or even hinge upon, the argument from ignorance. To claim that this is *philosophy* is misleading at best, spitting upon vast realms of time, energy and scholarship at un-intellectual worst.

                There is the argument that ‘no-one knows, therefore we can’t know’. This is commonly known as agnosticism. However, many religions (and certainly Xtianity) make positive claims about an intercessory deity. In these cases, weighing the lack of evidence for positive claims is entirely within the scientific realm, and thus far, entirely lacking. Philosophy is not independent of science, and, in fact, reliant on evidence to evaluate hypotheses. Where no evidence is available, logical reasoning is all there is. So far, any facts reliant on evidence have not shown favour to the god/s hypotheses, and there is no incontestable argument in favour either.

                In summary, the physical universe has not been shown to be an appropriate reason for god belief, and nor has philosophy, whichever way you choose to contort the word.

                • Kir (Politicoid)

                  No. I am most certainly not confusing anything here. I spent quite a bit of time reading the works of various philosophers and discussing philosophy. As to your statement of “here is the argument that ‘no-one knows, therefore we can’t know’” is not being used here.

                  What’s being used here is the universe came into being. The universe has an incredible amount of order to it. Why? And the answer that provides the most subjective satisfaction for Stephen King is the existence of a God.

                  Philosophy is not independent from science because science is a subset of philosophy. However science is only the philosophy of the falsifiable.

                  Observations, hypothesis, testing, theory is science, not general philosophy. If god can somehow be falsifiable then it would fall in the realm of science; for now it does not.

          • Nate Frein

            Since when is a truth claim about the origin of the universe not in the realm of science?

            • Kir (Politicoid)

              Because we have no way to falsify ideas about how the universe itself came into being or what existed before hand.

              Science is specifically the philosophy of the falsifiable.

              • Nate Frein

                Because, of course, our understanding of the early universe isn’t growing.

                Because, of course, our current knowledge didn’t come from people who refused to just say “goddidit” and started looking for answers.

                • Kir (Politicoid)

                  I’m not talking about our understanding of the early universe. I am talking about our understanding of what was before it. When there was “nothing”. How there was “nothing”. Why “nothing” became something.

                  Do not confuse the philosophy of the falsifiable with philosophy in general. You keep trying to apply scientific processes to that which is, currently, outside the realm of science and that’s not healthy for either philosophy in general or science specifically.

                • Nate Frein

                  We have no evidence that there was “nothing”.

                  Why complicate that with “god”?

                  Every question we’ve answered has failed to include a god. Why would this one magically start to include one?

                • Kir (Politicoid)

                  The idea of nothingness is about as complicated as one can get. What is nothingness? We’re not talking about a vacuum here. We’re talking about nothing. No space, no time, nothing.

                • Kir (Politicoid)

                  To answer your updated question separately, the reason why every question we’ve answered [in science] has failed to include a god is because god is outside the realm of science.

                  Please read some of the works of the great philosophers.

                • Nate Frein

                  I prefer not to waste my time with mental masturbation.

                  Philosophy with no connection to reality has no bearing on reality and is useless.

                  If “god” is outside science then it has no ability to impact me and therefore can be safely disregarded. If it is outside science then it certainly is not in any way responsible for my existence, the existence of bees and flowers, or the existence of sunsets.

                • Kir (Politicoid)

                  That’s actually one view point within philosophy: practical philosophy. Though one can argue that whether or not a god exists has a practical impact on life, but perhaps it does not. That’s another discussion within itself.

                • wmdkitty

                  Please put down the bong.

                • Feminerd

                  If God affects the real world (does miracles, breaks the laws of physics), he is exactly within the realm of science. Anything that interacts with the world must have a physical component and therefore be measurable and testable, ie, within the realm of science. Thus, the fact that the answer has never been “Goddidit” is actually a fairly compelling argument for the nonexistence of such a deity.

                • Kir (Politicoid)

                  That’s an incorrect assertion. Just because something has an affect on the real world does not mean that it’s falsifiable.

                  If god is a component of the universe, and works as god intends, it may very well indeed be impossible to analyze god.

                  In some ways you could say that this is similar to how a turning machine can not self analyze.

                  One could also argue that we are a component of such a god being and therefore can not view the whole in such a way that it would make sense to us, any more than a cell can sell the entirety of our body.

                  So instead we continue to question and wonder.

      • Isilzha

        Well, there’s no evidence that the Flying Pink Unicorn cures cancer, but I’ll just believe it because it gives me the most subjective satisfaction.

  • compl3x

    Life sucks if you don’t attributed everything awesome in life to a higher power… got it.

  • Candee Bell

    Yeah, he got super religious after his car accident. Most of his books translated as such. :/

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      He probably got approached by a lot of religious vultures during his many months of convalescence. King was pretty fucked up and vulnerable. After being run over, he had to write his next book one-handed on legal pads from a hospital bed.

      • SphericalBunny

        Plus, there was that crazy fucker banging on about how he could resurrect Misery Chastain. Kinda like another zombie we all know…

  • Ton_Chrysoprase

    Argument from ignorance is one thing – argument from “I’m too lazy to take out my smartphone and look up how stuff works” is entirely different.

  • Maggie

    I’m not really sure what the problem is here. It sounds like he shared his belief in a respectful way, not pushing it on anyone else and you are ridiculing him for not believing exactly as you do? Doesn’t that sound familiar? I’m a person who recently left the church but I also choose to maintain a belief in a higher power. Atheists telling people they should believe a certain thing is just as bad as the fundamentalists doing the same.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Nobody is doing any of the things that you imagine and attribute to us, thanks. Feel free to reread the piece and comments. While rereading, please pay attention to the

      quoted, bold-faced part that the blogger made sure to draw your attention to and that you have to ignore to make your claims of respectfulness, wherein King asserts that people who don’t bow to his wisdom about the universe are broken and unable to experience joy as well as he does from his lofty perch,

      because that’s the actual issue here.

      While you’re at it, please look up “false equivalency” to start to learn what is amazingly wrong with your last sentence.

  • cute

    I think I can ‘feel’ where he is at – he is at the stage of looking at the box and saying it can no longer stand the scrutiny of inspection – but Its a present so as long as I don’t look any closer at remains a present… so I choose to just let it be in this fragile state of unexplored ‘promise’ ….he hints at the magics deflation in his observations and experience and is making a choice to just say let the christmas spirit be and call santa and the reindeer real and don’t go to that place of genuine consideration for authenticity because it’s not useful… and for just being a deist it’s not such a concern but for the part of the brain left open to ghosts and superstition…but certainly better than extending it to legislation and justification for the subjugation of others…

  • Sven2547

    This is one of the dumber statements I see from time to time. Some variation of “atheists have no sense of wonder”. It’s bullshit!

    Douglas Adams said it best: “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”

    • Miss_Beara

      They must think we all walk around like zombies.

      “Oh look, a sky full of stars. Meh…”
      “There are a lot of flowers. Boring…”
      “The sun is rising/setting. Yawn…”

      All the while having a blank look on our faces.

      • wmdkitty

        Eh, more like, “There are a lot of flowe- flowe- *sneeze*”

      • Octoberfurst

        That’s all a part of the silly belief that we atheists spend our days being miserable and finding no joy in anything because we don’t believe in the Big Daddy in the Sky. I have no idea where theists get that absurd notion but a lot of them believe it. I happen to get great joy out of seeing sunsets, hearing birds sing and looking at stars. My disbelief in God does not detract from those experiences one bit.

  • TLMW

    Most atheists tend to be shallow, egotistical beings. It takes a certain humility to say “I don’t know”, agnostic-ignostic perspective. King, like his writing, has a certain irritating simplicity about him, just like Dawkins and Gervais.

    • JanetMermaid

      You obviously don’t personally know very many atheists. The atheists I know (and I know many) are intelligent, articulate, well-educated, thoughtful, insightful, discerning, have high moral and ethical standards, and have great empathy for others.

      • Ron Marotto

        Janet nailed it and the so called people of god …the “christians” hate more than any group I know. They tend to not like anyone who isn’t exactly like them. They have no problem putting up with pedophile priests, tens of thousands who’ll wait hours in line at Chick Fil A on gay hate day, and throwing gay children out of their homes at an alarming clip. A lot of them are truly horrible people…

    • Julie

      I see you are no stranger to ignorant stereotypes. TLMW.

    • John

      You clearly don’t know how atheists think, then. I have never heard of a true strong atheist (i.e. someone who claims to *know* there is no god, hell, even Dawkins has specifically said that he could be wrong), in contrast to to the countless strong theists you can see in the media every day.

      There’s nothing humble about being agnostic, all atheists (that I know of) and many theists are agnostic to some extent, and the only people I’ve talked to who claimed to be exactly in the middle were very unpleasant to talk to and seemingly just wanted to take the most “superior” position.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Remember, it’s strip #774 :P

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      I have this link memorized because of a certain type of obnoxious person with a certain type of obnoxious non-argument. In your case, I’ll have to add ignorant, bigoted, narcissistic and ESPECIALLY projecting to those qualities.

      It takes a complete lack of humility to claim that people who don’t agree with your claims of spiritual superiority are broken, and that just because you are ignorant, everyone else must also be ignorant. Good thing you have no humility, eh?

  • Kris Thompson

    Wow, how disappointing. I mean seriously disappointing. I have to buy into some silly mythology about a ghost in the sky in order to appreciate a bee pollinating or a sunrise? What a painfully stupid thing to say. “I believe because there’s no downside?” Pascal might be proud, but I’m embarrassed for you–out here in the grownup world, we accept that which is reasonable and demonstrable and save the fairy tales for the under-five crowd. And intelligent design? Oh, Steve. Oh, no.

  • James Greene

    I, personally, have a problem with people that take a dogmatic approach to their beliefs. Contrary to what atheist seem to claim, the lack of religion or belief in God is still a belief. Belief in science is still a belief. Science has many aspects where we just take other’s word for how things work. For instance, we have a belief for how atoms work. We can’t see them, so we can’t know for sure. We only have to believe that what other’s have said to us is true. There are many things in this world that can’t be explained by either science or religion. I think to take a definitive stance is to base your point of view of what you want to believe in. As for me, I think that there are many things out there we don’t understand or may never understand. Stephen King seems to understand that there is some element of not knowing to any point of view and that to definitively say there is a God or isn’t on is to choose how you want to believe, not whether you believe or not.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Contrary to what you claim, there is more than one kind of “belief”, and they come in different levels of validity. Your argument that believing in leprechauns is as justifiable as believing in a proven method of testing information and understanding the universe demands far more mocking than I feel like engaging in this weekend.

      Lack of belief is not a belief. Please Google how many times and ways this has been refuted as an argument. While you’re at it, please Google Tim Minchin’s “Storm”.

      Anyone can learn how to test Atomic Theory. Please try again.

    • WallofSleep

      “Contrary to what atheist seem to claim, the lack of religion or belief in God is still a belief.”

      This Just In: “Bald” is now a hair color, not collecting stamps is now a hobby, and not playing golf is now a sport.

      And no one “believes” in science. It’s either demonstrable or it’s not. And atoms? Really? Ever heard of the atomic microscope? The Hadron Collider?

      • Feminerd

        I’ve seen atoms! Granted, they looked like fuzzy balls in a grid pattern. But I have seen them. My dad has access to an electron microscope, and this was a flawless silicon wafer, so it wasn’t amazingly interesting except that they were atoms and I could see them. That made it super-squee time.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      For added context, I read an article about an hour ago containing pictures of molecules where the individual atoms and bonds can be seen.

    • Baby_Raptor

      This is a typical theist argument. It also fails from the word go. I do not believe in god because I have been shown no proof he exists and plenty of proof to the opposite. There is nothing there to believe in, therefore I do not believe in anything.

      There is no believing going on. It cannot be a “belief.”

      Further, you deliberately choose words that make it sound like Atheists treat science as a religion. This is another typical theist trope, and it’s another base lie.

      Your comment about atoms is proven wrong with a simple glance over the Wikipedia page. *You* might not know much about atoms or how they work, but that is your issue. Not science’s overall. Don’t project your educational flaws onto entire groups of people.

      And, no. You are not limited to believing what others say is true about science. You can educate yourself, look at the proof, do the experiments yourself. The fact that you choose not to for whatever reason does not mean that nobody can, and that everyone has to take everything science says on “faith” or “belief.”

      I have no real desire either way on God’s existence. To be 100% honest, I think the world would be a better place if there actually was some truly just, merciful being up there who actively punished assholes and bigots and other people who commit huge wrongs. But there’s no proof for that, and I have no real desire for it to be true. Wanting it to be true just wastes the time and energy I can use actually trying to fix the problem.

      You can pontificate all you want on what you personally think, but you really need to limit it to you yourself. You have a very not fact based view here, and you do yourself a disservice when you stubbornly insist that you speak for everyone.

  • Roxee

    Sounds like he’s on a journey. Hopefully he’ll see it through to the end.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Unfortunately, he seems to be walking in the direction of religiosity, which is common among people who have serious physical trauma and/or who are feeling their age.

      • Mario Strada

        Judging from what he said, sounds like he is doing the opposite journey:

        “I may have told you last time that I believe in God — what I’m saying now is I choose to believe in God, but I have serious doubts and I refuse to be pinned down to something that I said 10 or 12 years ago. “

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          *rereads that and Googles King and religion* I think you’re right.

  • NG

    I don’t like King’s writing; the fact he can’t even properly explain his weird views is consistant.

  • Kevin_Of_Bangor

    I’m going to go throw an egg at his house, at least the one in Bangor that is and that is a joke folks but in all honesty he has given a lot of money to the city I live in. We have a fantastic library because of him and to this day he still continues to give millions to little ole Bangor, Maine.

    So I will give him a pass on this one for providing me with some great services.

    • Isilzha

      Really? He gets a pass because he has lots of money?

      • Kevin_Of_Bangor

        Not because he has lots of money, because he has donated millions to the city I live in and he still continues to donate. They are going to donate 3 million to the library to help cover the cost of renovations that are badly needed. I don’t have to agree with his views to appreciate what he has done for my city.

  • Felix

    King has been two eggs short of a dozen since his horrible accident. Poor guy.

    As an aside, It’s always funny when theists claim atheists are egotistic when the theists are the ones who always pretend they have a personal relationship with a sentient being. “He’s looking out for ME, he loves ME.” Hypocrite much?

  • Rain

    and you have to wonder about that guy’s personality — the big guy’s personality.

    Heeeereee’s JOHNNY!

  • Robert Scalzi

    wow , getting your panties in a bunch over Nothing on this one – I am Agnostic – ie; I don’t know – whether there is or isn’t , but what King said isn’t all that controversial – HE CHOSE to believe – not you didn’t and are idiots and are damned – I think you are grasping at straws on this one – he chose – that’s about it – he’s not proselytizing or going all Pat Robertson or Focus on the Family on people who choose otherwise. Give it a rest on this blip and go after the real demagogues.

    • Isilzha

      Except that he’s promoting the idea that people who don’t believe in some sort of nasty god are incapable of appreciating beauty in the natural world.

      Also, “panties in a bunch” is sexist.

      • wmdkitty

        How about “don’t get your tail in knot”?

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Your childish, dismissive sexism is noted, as is the lack of an argument that forces you to be childish and dismissive.

      Is it really that hard to read and grasp the quoted, bold-faced part where he demeans anyone who doesn’t agree with his take on spirituality? Is it really?

  • wmdkitty


    I still enjoy his writing.

  • Greg G.

    How can a theist appreciate beauty and attribute it to an omnipotence? If you look at the most beautiful sunset or sunrise, you would have ask, “Is that the best an omnipotent being could do?” Big whoop. I like them better as natural refractions of light.

  • Qp83

    Why stop at one god with a deranged personality when you can have many gods with different personalities? Me > King

  • Jo Hargis

    Eh. He can believe as he likes, as can everyone. To me, all that sunset and stars stuff is what I call science =) And it’s pretty dang amazing!

  • Hucklenator

    His comment is offensive. People who don’t believe in God cannot appreciate beauty and complexity? That’s like saying they’re all monsters with no feeling at all. Then he tries to backpedal for the rest of his readership. In his book “On Writing” he says he has never written a word based on selling books. I don’t believe him after this NPR comment.

    • Houndentenor

      I can’t say I’m offended. In order to be offended I’d need to have some respect for King in the first place, which I do not. I find most of his “horror” righting to be laughably absurd. He’s certainly good at promoting himself and giving the public what it wants but he’s still a hack.

      • SphericalBunny

        He is absolutely a hack. But one I love. His early work consisted of re-interpreting old clichés in a new light – ‘Carrie’ (ESP) ‘TommyKnockers’ (UFO’s) ‘Christine/The Shining’ (Haunted house/object), ‘Needful Things’ (vampires); to following his own real life events – car smack down – Misery, Kingdom Hospital, Dark Tower, etc. to some decent titles mixed in with the schlock (Duma Key, Bag of Bones, Cell). The one thing he has been consistent on is being a hack – the man is awesome at spinning a listenable yarn, ASAI’m concerned.

        Hack? Undoubtedly. Readable? Fuck yeah. I don’t give a shit about his gods or demons as long as he doesn’t vote on their behalf, and keeps it to the fine print.

        • SphericalBunny

          Probably got my genealogy wrong. Whoops and shit?!

        • Houndentenor

          I have to admit that one of my all time favorite movies (Stand by Me) is based on one of King’s short stories. Of course that’s also one that doesn’t include any supernatural stories. It’s not that I don’t find the supernatural useful as a plot device (Harry Potter, etc.) but I don’t find it particularly frightening to think that there are monsters under my bed. Carjackers? That scares me. things that go bump in the night? Not so much. Chacun a son gout.

  • Dan Fincke Camels With Hammers

    It is so funny Stephen King said this because for years I have told people that if you don’t believe in that monster from It, you’re missing out on clowns and spiders.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      There is so much backwash in my soda right now after reading that.

    • Sile Skelley

      Ack! Penny wise! Now I’m gonna have night terrors…

  • jamex

    “IT” was brilliant, but have you read “Cell”?

    i rest my case…

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      It is easily the scariest novel I’ve read, but Cell is, I think, an example of King writing the same book over and over again, trying to perfect it.

    • wmdkitty

      Ah, but have you read “Dreamcatcher”? Or “Insomnia”?

  • lynn

    I like Tim Minchin’s take on it: “Isn’t *this* *enough*???”

    Isn’t a sunset enough without having to involve something all-powerful? Isn’t it enough that the ecosystem works so well? And actually, I’d go further than Minchin: It’s MORE incredible to me that all of this exists *without* something directing it. IMO it’s the theists that are missing out.

  • WallofSleep

    Hello, my name is WallofSleep, I’m an atheist, and I can’t see the stars in the sky. Not a one.

  • SeekerLancer

    How exactly does not believing in god make any of those things less amazing, Mr. King? They only became more amazing to me when I stopped believing in god personally.

  • busterggi

    Its 4:09 PM as i write this. The sun ‘came up’ this morning.
    Mr. King, you’re wrong.

  • WallofSleep

    “I’m totally inconsistent.”

    Having read some of his work over the years, I can confirm this with certainty.

  • Ross Gibson

    As an atheist I find beauty in science. I find beauty in the parallel evolution of vastly different species, growing up together and evolving in such a way that they will both succeed with less effort. The fact that random chance led us to be here, and how evolution, as a giant unintelligent unfeeling hand, has guided us, not as a god or deity, but as a set of loose rules on how a species will survive.

  • Wesley Da’Nomad

    Whether or not you believe in god or know the science behind X, doesn’t make it less beautiful. A sunset is still just as pretty. A flower just as beautiful. A star just as distant.

  • Muercurio

    Simply seems like a basic deist response. No big deal. People understand things in different ways, and I’d wager you’d find he agrees more with atheists than he disagrees. Like most people, how we personally define things may be the biggest difference in the perspectives and once questioned on specifics things tend to come into better focus. Regardless, we’re making a bigger deal of it here than necessary.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      The deism isn’t the issue. The attitude that people who aren’t deists like him aren’t able to see things as well as he does is the issue.

  • acyinks

    This is an extremely ignorant statement by Mr. King.
    Not believing in God and observing a sunrise, sunset, or the stars gives me a much deeper understanding and appreciation of our magnificent universe.

    Although I do have issue with Mr. King’s statement, “I choose to believe [in God]. … I mean, there’s no downside to that.” So you choose to believe in God because because you are “covered” whether there is a God or not? If there is no God then no harm, if there is a God you covered your back and get to go to Heaven. You obviously don’t have a very high opinion of the God you choose to “believe in” if you believe an all knowing, all powerful God doesn’t know your motivations for ‘believing’.

  • Trevor

    That headline is wrong. It should be “If you believe in God, you’re missing out on…” Putting “don’t” in there makes him a theist, and he most definitely is not.

    • Trevor

      Scratch that. I could have sworn he was openly atheistic. Yet he seems to be straddling the fence again. So cowardly, in my opinion. “I have serious doubts, but I’m gonna hedge my bets.” Ugh.
      Somebody else needs to use the bathroom. Make up your mind.

      • cal promo

        I think you folks are being awfully hard on the guy. Do you not spend any time with agnostics or people still wrestling with this question? It’s a pretty big deal, believe it or not, to those who might not have already descended into smug certitude.

  • Sile Skelley

    Hmm. Good for him. As for me, my eyeglasses are as thick as his yet I can see all of those things without divine assistance.

  • ladydreamgirl

    Well color me surprised. I managed to not only SEE but also ENJOY a rather spectacular sunset this evening. It is good to know that I was actually MISSING OUT on that sunset the whole time I was looking at it, I never would have known that without Mr. King’s enlightened words.

  • Paddyswurds

    Now I know why Kings books are so crap. The man is an ignorant intellectually bereft moron…..

  • Jack Rawlinson

    How sad to hear that Mr. King is going senile.

  • David Faulkner

    Hey Atheist’s. Mankind sucks. Always changing and making up shit. Guess what though???? Every major religion on the planet has basically the same core beliefs. Dont murder, steal, bone your guy wife/wives…its kinda wierd that so many people would have nothing in common would all come to the same conclusion. I mean with no geographic contact….different languages different INTERPRITATIONS. So i believe yes there is or was a god like thing/or a god at some point. That made all of us, Not human’s, but whatever it is we evolved’s message somehow coded into our dna. I believe even more so that since every major religion took what it said it’s own way the message was some how lost. Eroded by time and forgotten by culture. i mean, theres places where there is no religion at all yea. Most of those places will eat you as well. I dont give a fuck about what King’s babbling on about. He prolly smokes as much as i do.

    • Carmelita Spats

      People can figure out how to live in society WITHOUT a Sky Wizard just like you can figure out that raping children is wrong without the need of a freaky book of magic spells written in the Bronze Age! Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, and the Czech Republic have a VERY low count of “true” believers. No one will eat you if you travel to any of those countries. They also have low teen pregnancy rates, better healthcare, better schools, higher literacy rates and SERIOUS science education. I live in Texas among TRUE Christians. The wide-eyed natives WILL cannibalize you down here and when they get a hankerin’ for Jesus, they become two sandwiches short of a picnic, as confused as a cow on Astroturf and crazier than an acre of snakes. A “god-like-thing-that-made-us-all? You mean like those talking, lava-eating, sea clams that came to planet Earth in a spaceship? No? Are you a Raelian?

      • TCC

        Ignore the troll. Anyone who starts a comment with “Hey Atheist’s” is not worth engaging.

  • Heathen Mike

    I enjoy Terry Gross’ “Fresh Air” program on NPR, so I often have it on while I’m getting dinner in the kitchen. That’s why I happened to hear King’s entire interview. I wasn’t at all surprised to hear him say that whole “missing out on sunsets…” nonsense. Are any of us actually surprised, though? Come on, he’s made his fortune writing superstitious nonsense that he himself said was motivated by a love of being scared. Why on Earth would we expect him to have Atheist views?

    He only talked about his vague sense of god-wonder because Terry Gross asked him if he believes in God. And as has already been pointed out repeatedly on this blog, he is a “commercial” writer, which means that even though he’s made it successfully now, he’s done so by paying attention to how he markets himself, so we can’t ever know for sure what motivations are behind his words. It would make sense that he thinks a sense of supernatural mystery is important for people to want to read his work. Again, big deal.

    The more interesting bit for me in the whole interview was when he turned the tables on Terry Gross by asking her what her own beliefs are, and she flatly refused to answer. Hmm…, again, a public figure concerned about alientating her listeners. Disappointing, because I think she’s really smart and insightful, but again, hardly surprising.

    but self-confession time: Honestly, I can’t say I’ve been intellectually pure in this regard, either. I work in mental health, and in my profession, the code of ethics that I’m required to follow to keep my license in good standing clearly states that clinicians are to avoid trying to influence client’s religious belief systems. This is tricky, because often people come to me with their fairytale belief systems tightly wrapped up with their emotional problems. So I have to address it. I have to find some way to maintain a basic level of respect for differing perspectives, even as I try to help clients use reason to untangle and work through their emotional issues. I usually avoid stating my own beliefs, because they are not directly relevant to the client’s work. But, if they ask me, rather than lie and say I believe something I don’t, I hedge and point out that I believe nobody fully understands what all makes the universe tick, that even the Bible states no one can every fully understand the mind of God, that therefore we should not expect that any particular human religious institution has figured out the mystery either. I cop a more open agnostic stance to them, even though I see no reason to even suppose there is any conscious personality running the universe.
    I HAVE to touch on issues of spirituality at times with clients, so the way I’ve found to help me relate to them on this at all is to consider “God” a metaphor like “magic” for all the awesome forces running the cosmos that we don’t understand. It’s the “God of the gaps” idea. I just reduce God to pure metaphor for myself, rather than deluding myself to think of it as a real entity. I usually tell people (outside my work environment) that I’m a skeptical agnostic, but you could call me an atheist whose afraid to come off too militantly. I’m interested in helping fundamentalists who shout their beliefs publicly, to help them somehow question and break free of their slavish adherence to unquestioned dogma–which is what I managed to do over the course of a few years. I think to do that, one needs to have dialogue with them, and striking a militant stance myself, though at times a lot of fun, doesn’t help me be heard by them. (Yes, I know, with some of them it’s a lost cause, but I’m trying.)

  • Chad Trick

    I feel like I’m listening to that insanely stupid ICP song, “Miracles.” F***ing magnets… do they work?

  • Seamus Ruah

    No, no we’re not Steven.

  • Kir (Politicoid)

    Oh no wonder I got so much flack. I didn’t realize that this was a channel for religious atheists.

    • cinesimon

      You mean, you’ve never really bothered to engage with any honesty.

      • Kir (Politicoid)

        Engage what? Engage in discussions about religion? Discussions about religion, spirituality, existence, are always great. I’m rather open minded. Sadly religious people, even religious atheists are not.

  • SirReal

    This is disappointing, to say the least. Oh well.

  • Rich Wilson

    (apologies if this has been touched on in the 170+ comments, I’ve been under a

    rock, or more accurately a pile of wet drywall, for the last several days)

    you’re missing the stars in the sky and you’re missing the sunrises and sunsets and you’re missing the fact that bees pollinate all these crops and keep us alive and the way that everything seems to work together

    And if you decide not to try heroin you’ll never know what you’ve been missing.

  • Puzzled

    It’s true – I’ve never seen a sunset.

  • talover30

    Sounds like the ever popular Argument from Ignorance Fallacy to me.

  • stoli5

    Funny that the prez of American Asshats looks like Lucifer with his little devil goatee. Highly resembles the John Lovitz version.

    • cinesimon

      Your childish hatred shows that you have SO much faith in whatever religion you claim to believe in.

  • wicky woo

    Pttth King is a hack writer. I never enjoyed his writings. They honestly didn’t scare me. He’s like the RL Stine (a children’s horror writer who writes about sock monsters) of Adult horror literacy.

    Lol. Moon….. That spells tool box, Moon…

  • Nick

    Well he is old. Before the internet, people didn’t really have the kind of easy access to information that we do now. So it makes sense that more older people would be of faith due to the fact that they didn’t grow up with information that was better than faith.

  • Edcedc8

    ah, atheists; can’t see the forest for the trees.

  • Chris Martinez

    Great article but wow, so disappointed in King.

  • chris

    if people would just be reasonable and logical in their thinking instead of being closed minded to the facts of GOD, then they could grasp one of the countless miracles HE has put right in front of our faces. hard hearts for the wrong cause, causes blindness and deafness to truth.