Libb Thims (atheist)
American thinker Libb Thims’ 2015 profile, wherein he self-labels as an “electrochemical atheist”, captioned with the mention that in 2014 he began to engage in “extreme atheism” of the Feuerbach, Buchner, Nietzsche variety; the image shown being a screenshot of Thims’ 2013 NIU lecture to engineering students on Goethe and human chemical thermodynamics, doing the ball-and-ring experiment, to explain social volume expansion and contraction, in front of a lecture slide showing French philosopher Jean Sales, the person who introduced the human molecular hypothesis, and who in 1770 exchanged views with Voltaire on Baron d’Holbach’s System of Nature, aka the “Atheist’s bible”; Thims’ 2002 human molecular formula work, also shown on the lecture screen, was cited in 2013 as a god disproof. [1]
In atheism types, Thimsian atheism, as can be contrasted with Epicurean atheism, the brand of atheism of American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims (DN:10), an extreme deanthropomorphized progressive Goethean "physico-chemical atheism", generally comprised of the following six main component atheism types (see: atheism types by denial and belief):

1. Goetheanism
Physicochemical atheism
2. Holbachian atheism
3. Schopenhauerian atheism
4. Buchnerian atheism
5. Ostwaldian atheism
6. Nietzschean atheism

The roots of which are diagrammatically shown on the atheism genealogy page; which can generally be characterized as modern stage of the prophesized (Woodhull, 1871) Goethean revolution, one that overturns "everything holy" (Heine, 1810), namely the 5,100-year decrepit and deteriorating mythologically-based Anunian theology belief system, which currently dominates the thinking and belief state of 80 percent of the modern world, via Abraham and Brahma rooted faiths, i.e. Ra born out of the Nun following the primordial flood ideology (i.e. annual Nile River flood), as epitomized by the fact that 56 percent of American's currently believe that Adam and Eve were real people. (Ѻ)

Beg goad | Explicit atheism
In 2014, the exchange that moved Thims from theism-avoiding implicit atheism to theism-engaging explicit atheism can be found in thread posts 3-4 in the “Beg-Thims dialogue” (Ѻ) thread, below article exact science, wherein, on Aug 14th, Thims asks Mirza Beg, whom he had been engaged with via 162 threads, in the previous two months, the following:

“Re: “religion and science growing together”, while on this premise of yours, i.e. that religion and science are merging, what branch of science explains the operation of the flying horse (buraq) (Ѻ) that Muhammad used to fly from Mecca to Jerusalem and back in one night?

Also, do you believe, as a grown adult, in the existence of flying horses? I’ve taken a course in aerospace engineering, and I don’t recall hearing about the operation of the burag? I don’t mean to ridicule you here, but as you say, each sura of the Quran is accurate, being that it has been copied by scribes, verbatim, from the mind of Allah, to the ears of Muhammad, to the modern reader; hence, Sura 17, aka “The Night Journey”, should be a true story in your mind, if I am not mistaken. Hence, I just want to clarify if it is just winged horses you believe in, or also other mythological horses, e.g. unicorns?

To give you some comparison, Johannes Kepler, in the 17th century, believed in the existence of planets ridden by “winged angels” causing them to move. Hence, you might, likewise, presently believe in “winged horses”? This, by no means, to note, is an issue embedded in Germany (Kepler) or Pakistan (Beg), but also here in America; read, for example, the transcript (pdf) of Meeting 17: Session 6 of the 10 Jun 2014 Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, Atlanta, Ga, guest speaker Joshua Greene, and you will see a discussion of “whether there's angels in the universe” (pg. 17).”
Thimsian atheism
A Jan 2018 screenshot of Hmolpedian elenovski (Ѻ), who characterizes his or her first ideology as “Thimsian atheist”, along with Dawkins number of 10, anarcho-communism, nihilism, and Yugoslav.

Beg, on Aug 15th, responded to this as follows:

“Re: ‘What branch of science explains buraq?’, Quran and Hadeth (record of Prophet’s sayings and actions) have made known to believers and non-believers that the Prophet was taken from Mecca to Jerusalem and to heaven with a buraq and Angel Gabriel to guide him in the tour to heaven and hell and tell him to perform the prayer and he prayed with all prophets and he came back to his bed in one night.

This is revealed in the Glorious Quran as follows: {Al-Israa, Glory be to Him Who made His servant to go on a night from the Sacred Mosque to the remote mosque of which We have blessed the precincts, so that We may show to him some of Our signs; surely He is the One who Hears, and Sees (1). And We gave Musa the Book and made it a guidance to the children of Israel, saying: Do not take a protector besides Me (2). The two verses imply that the Prophet was taken along as per the will of Allah to show the Prophet the ultimate for himself. I know it is hard for a highly intelligent person to believe in the existence of Buraq, which is described by Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, # 227 hadith: “I was brought by Buraq, which is an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place its hoof at a distance equal to the range of vision.” (Implying speed of light)! There is no branch of science that may explain the operation of the flying horse (buraq) that Prophet Mohammad used for the Night Journey. However, this is one of those miracles which believers must have faith in. Doubts were cast at the outset but the Journey was authenticated by one his closest Associates saying that it must be true if the Prophet is saying so because He has never lied before. Same is my argument; call it blind faith but as argued earlier, belief in FAITH rules supreme. Research is ongoing on Myths, Legends and Miracles which upholds them and also rejects them. This leaves me no option but to cling to my theoretical explanation.”

This, in the year to follow, after absorbing this statement, tipped Thims into the “out-and-open public extreme explicit atheism” category, with direct engagement into the public engagement into the mentally-taxing “descent into absurdities and idiocy vacuum” (see: creationist scientists ranked by idiocy).

Type | Descriptors
Among atheists, according to enlightenment era atheists historian David Berman (2007), there are various types, that are well-classified by declaration, namely: avowed published atheism (e.g. Baron d’Holbach), clandestine atheism (e.g. Jean Meslier), covert atheism (e.g. add), putative atheism (e.g. Helvetius, Augustin Roux, Erasmus Darwin, and Jeremy Bentham), covert implied atheism (e.g. Anthony Collins, John Toland, and Albert Radicatti); among these, according to Berman, Holbach is unique in that he publicly denied both god and afterlife:

Holbachian atheism = avowed atheism (deny god) + mortalism (deny afterlife)

Thims is a grade above d’Holbach in that he denies not only god and afterlife but also life:

Thimsian atheism = avowed atheism (deny god) + mortalism (deny afterlife) + abioism (deny life)

Thims, in this regard, is the first professed “abioist” atheist (defunct theory of life, 2009); such as exemplified by the following online-published personal note:

“Not only do I not believe in the principle of the afterlife, but also do not believe in the principle of life.”
— Libb Thims (2012), personal note; written in black pen on printing paper, Sep 24

Technically, to note, Alfred Rogers, and his 2010 life does not exist publications, can also be classified as professed “abioist atheist” as well; others, following Thims, might likewise be classified as abioist atheists (e.g. Jeff Tuhtan, David Bossens, Patrick Fergus, and possibly a few others). The most extreme versions of extreme atheism, in direction, is one who denies not only god, afterlife, and life, but also soul and spirit:

Hardcore extreme atheism = avowed atheism + mortalism + abioism + aspiritism + asoulism

Denial of the spirit seems to be a mute issue, although there are many modern day "spiritual atheists", being that the materialists, those who believe the universe is but matter and motion, seem to have long ago denied denied the existence of spirit; e.g. the last true pioneer in this area was Pierre Teilhard (1936), after which venture into this realm of "spirit matter" was nullified as waste.

To outright deny the existence of the soul, in regards to its fundamental principle, however, is more complicated (see: Heisenberg-Pauli dialogue, Goethe on the soul, Edison on the soul, and Einstein on the soul). One can, e.g., simply deny the existence of the soul, on the basis that one never finds one in the corpses one dissects (e.g. pineal gland of the Cartesian soul; the heart of the Egyptian soul, etc.), such as was done by Francois Broussais; but to deny the existence of right and wrong, i.e. objective morality, as compared moral relativism (or subjective morality), i.e. to deny the existence of “justice” in a fermionic-bosonic universe is more complicated.

The following are a work-in-progress listing of statements of type of atheism of Libb Thims, by Thims, or others, in respect to type or label:

Thimsian atheism | Descriptors

0.Age 5: atheism inquisitor | problem broached

1.Aware of the problem (god problem); but kept in the back of the mind.

2.Outward self-labeled, seemingly, as culturally-inoffensive "secular", if probed.

3.100% atheist; after discovering Gary Greenberg, following 50-70 book reading research on the so-called "religious origins" problem.

4.Implicit atheism [indirectly stated (e.g. the Journal of Human Thermodynamics was launched (2005), from the get-go, with rule (c) banning god theory (unless historical, religio-mythology, deconstruction, etc.); thermodynamics is atheist by definition]Thims2005 (Ѻ)
5.In 2008 to 2007, while penning Human Chemistry, went to great lengths to AVOID using the term "god" or any related "god theory" terms, e.g. soul, spirit, etc, throughout the entire book, except until the last chapter, in the section on cessation thermodynamics, wherein the highest-ranked (by vote) present-day greatest philosophical conundrum, i.e. "What Happens When You Die?", as shown below, was broached via thermodynamics:

death, love, life


6.143% atheist; conversationally-forward atheism; e.g. “I’m level 10 on the Dawkins scale; don’t like the word ‘atheist’, like ‘scientist’ better.”Thims2009
Sep 7
7.Avoidance atheist; e.g. while giving college human thermodynamics bioengineering lectures, e.g. on how Goethean chemical thermodynamics determines relationship reactions, morality, etc.; side-stepped and avoided the "elephant in the room" problem; the repercussions of which became apparent in student feedback letters (i.e. deeper topics weren't brought up openly in lecture, via hand raising; possibly owing to the cultural taboo-ness of the subject transgression).

8.Became a blogged about "public atheist"; e.g. Thims is “a [life-denier] whose science is laced with extreme atheism and materialism.” Sekhar2011[4]
9. Printed-in-book atheist by definition; e.g. “a strong atheist who adheres to a physics-based [Goethean] morality.” Bossens2013[5]
10.On 13 May 2014, Thims discovered the physiochemical sociology work of Mirza Beg; in late May, Thims obtained a copy of of Beg’s 1987 New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior. [1] On 23 Jun 2014, Begs and Thims began communicating, via Hmolpedia messaging, and in some 189+ public thread dialogue interactions, over the course of two months, until 12 Sep 2014, during the course of which.

11.Beg's strawOn 15 Aug 2014, Beg publicly admitted that he believed in the existence of the "buraq" (Ѻ), i.e. the flying horse that Muhammad rode during his "night journey", wherein he visited, in heaven: Moses, Abraham, John the Baptist, and Jesus, and other prophets of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion.

This was the proverbial "straw" that broke the camel's back, therein working to turn Thims from an "implicit atheist" (camel straining to present human chemical thermodynamics WITHOUT god talk) to an "explicit atheist" (unburdened camel presenting human chemical thermodynamics WITH god talk, albeit completely dismantled via the methods of: extreme atheism, greatest atheism scholarship, religio-mythology scholarship, and god terminology upgrade).

12.In 17 Jun 2014, in the 44-page draft version of Chemical Thermodynamics: With Applications in the Humanities, this "god avoiding" route (carpet sweeping method) was still testingly being employed, via the method of subsuming the problem into the 3-page "Religion | Belief conflicts" section, of the preface, via citation to Pierre Laplace (1802), Wilhelm Ostwald (1909), and Paul Dirac (1933), and how god had been dismissed from celestial mechanics, physical chemistry, particle physics and sociology, respectively.
Jun 17

13. Thims and FergusOn 9 Sep 2014, Thims started the “atheism timeline” page in Hmolpedia.

On 11 Sep 2014, Thims started the Atheism Reviews YouTube channel and the page in Hmolpedia on Atheism Reviews. On 15 Sep 2014, Thims made an “Atheism Reviews” promo video (Ѻ).

Over the next two months, Thims began ordering atheism books, via book orders from Amazon (see: Thims religio-mythology and atheism book collection).

On 5 Nov 2014, Thims, together with Patrick Fergus, made their first PUBLIC “History of Atheism” (Ѻ) intro video (see: photos_, entering into the full-on PUBLIC ATHEISM engaging domain.

14. Self-characterized (on video): “extreme atheist” (aka "extreme realism" believer); and referred to by others, e.g. Patrick Fergus, as "extreme".Thims2014[8]

Defended the use, as on explicit atheist, of capital "G" in God (singular) and lower case "g" in "gods" (plural), in video:

This was then the standard usage in Hmolpedia articles; in the year to follow, Thims saw the error in his ways, and thereafter began to lower case all "god" and "gods" usages, but to continue to capitalize named gods, such as Zeus, or Osiris.

Dec 23

15.Water-test (online) atheism type label: “electrochemical atheist”Thims2015
Jun 30
16.Water-test (online) atheism type label: “extreme physiochemical materialism atheist”Thims2015
Jul 3
17.Explicit atheism: have "atheism type" explicitly defined, per denial (six main), belief (six main), and by top 28 historical atheism brands composition (see: atheism types by denial and belief).
Jul 7

18.On 10 Aug 2015, taught "Zerotheism for Kids" class, a stylized Sunday school for atheists.

19.Attempted to draft "atheist's bible" for kids, aka a Children's Atheist Bible, resulting in a draft Smart Atheism: for Kids (see: smart atheism).

(add discussion)

people in the clouds (afterlife) (labeled)
An image shown to kids during the 2015 Zerotheism for Kids class, as an example of nonsense that modern kids are taught.
At age five, Thims rejected the existence of god, when told logic that some day a person will "die", and that when that happens, if the person is "good", they will go to "live" with "god", to which Thims queried his interlocutor with the response question "where does god live?", to which Thims was given an answer that was unpalatable to the mind.

In early youth, the first time Thims road on a plane, he looked out of the window into the clouds, similar to the above photo, to confirm or disprove the previously told to him story that people who die go to live in the clouds. This, to note, is similar to Russian cosmonaut Gherman Titov, who in 1961, then aged 26, upon his return from space, then being the second Soviet astronaut to orbit the earth, let it be known that "he hadn't seen god". [10]

In 2003, Thims, in his draft manuscript Human Thermodynamics, deconstructed all of modern religion back to its pure Nile River mythology (80% world belief) and Yellow River mythology (10% world belief) origins (via transcription and syncretism).

In 2005, Thims launched the Journal of Human Thermodynamics, in which it was conditionally-stipulated that two submissions NOT acceptable were: (a) religious argument and (b) information theory arguments; later (c.2013) added (c) "life theory" arguments as not acceptable.

In 2007, Thims published his two-volume Human Chemistry, presented in such a way that it was “atheism implicit”, i.e. it was assumed implicitly that chemistry (or thermodynamics), a god-free subject, applied to the explication of the humanities, is, without fanfare, a concordantly god-free subject; so-called “god talk”, i.e. god (Ѻ), soul (Ѻ), spirit (Ѻ), was relegated to a tentative end section on “Cessation Thermodynamics”; in 2009, amid the Moriarty-Thims debate, self-classified himself as a “10” on the original 7-point Dawkins scale; during 2010 lectures, to bioengineering students, began to see (see: student responses (Ѻ)) how “implicit atheism” may not be a fully-effective approach, i.e. one that is, in effect, a bush-beater or rug-sweeping approach (e.g. see: chemistry professor paradox); soon thereafter, began to be labeled an atheist, of the "strong" or "extreme" variety—particularly for his avocation of the view that life does not exist, that it is a defunct scientific theory, a carryover from our religio-mythology heritage.

Thims (3 atheist quotes) CTAH 2014
The three "god hypothesis" is obsolete and therefore unneeded quotes in Thims' 2013 draft Chemical Thermodynamics: with Application in the Humanities, the "Religious Tension" intro section. [3]
In 2011, he drafted Purpose? (in a Godless Universe), with non-mythological dating system; albeit an effort that stalled out (c.2013) at the 105-page level. [2]

In 2013, Thims’ human molecular formula work was cited, with the shown "The Creation of Adam" (Michelangelo, 1512) image (above right), in the Triple≡Bond Chemistry ( article “Chemical Formula of a Human”; alluding to the religion-overthrowing implication of human molecular theory: [4]

God vs Thims (labeled)

In 2013, Thims draft-initiated Chemical Thermodynamics: with Applications in the Humanities, became bottlenecked, in the intro, in attempting to address the “religious issue” (i.e. belief conflict issue), in less than a three-pages; opening to quotes of Pierre Laplace (1802), Wilhelm Ostwald (1909), and Paul Dirac (1933), shown adjacent. [3] This work seems to have halted; seemingly owing to the implicit "God vs Gibbs" imbedded "religious conflict", as seen in the Rossini debate; Frederick Rossini's 1971 "Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World" being of the "implicit atheism" variety.
Muhammad riding buraq (labeled)
Mirza Beg’s admittance that he believes in Muhammad’s flying horse and simultaneously that Gibbs energy differentials govern human spontaneities, caused Thims to switch from implicit atheism to explicit atheism.

Atheism Reviews | Extreme atheism
In 2014, Thims launched the Atheism Reviews channel, in the wake of the Beg-Thims dialogue, wherein Mirza Beg admitted that he believed in flying horses, i.e. the winged buraq (Ѻ) that Muhammad rode during his superluminal night journey to visit Allah, as described in the 17th surah of the Quran, shown adjacent, in aims to digress on mythology-debunking pro-science extreme “explicit atheism”, of the Meslier-Mettrie-Holbach "extreme atheism" mindset and the Goethe-Schopenhauer-Nietzsche "god assassination" technique approach.

On 19 Nov 2014, Thims derived the following word scramble memory mnemonic to quickly conceptualize “extreme atheism”, namely the main backbone belief tenants of real world Rossini hypothesis human chemical chemicals: (Ѻ)

Atheism Reviews word scramble

Thims then made this verbally-stated Thimsian atheism mnemonic into the above diagram, shown above, which he has since used as screenshot opening to the majority of Atheism Reviews videos. This mnemonic was described in more detail in the 27 Dec 2014 video (Ѻ) “Extreme Atheism | Meaning”.

The following, from the atheism genealogy page, shows the roots of the type of atheism of Thims:

Thimsian atheism (genealogy)

Implicit → Explicit | Switch
The switch from "implicit atheism" to "explicit atheism" can be found in the growth of the work of Thims, who in his 2007 two-volume Human Chemistry textbook completely avoided the use of the word "god" and god-related terms, e.g. soul, spirit, etc., except for the last 7-page volume two end section on cessation thermodynamics, a short introduction to what, historically, thermodynamics, and human thermodynamicists have had to saw about the laws of thermodynamics and question of the essence of being or state of mind of a person at the point of dereaction (death), wherein the subject matter invariably treads into domain traditionally reserved for religion. [2]

In 2010, Thims, while adhering to an “implicit atheism” style of presentation, using the standard 19th century established Laplace-Wislicenus “assumed atheism” modus operandi, such as depicted (above, right), Thims gave his first public lecture on human thermodynamics, to the University of Illinois, Chicago bioengineering students, of Ali Mansoori. What was discovered, however, was that without “explicitly” and openly digressing on the fact that thermodynamics is, by definition, based on godless and religion-free principles, students kept their objections and points of concern to themselves. This was evidenced when Mansoori instructed students as part of their homework to write short commentaries on Thims’ presentation, scans of which are listed here (Ѻ); one of which is shown below:

Lecture reaction  1 (2010)

Here, we see that without being explicit and open about that fact that thermodynamics, physics, and chemistry are god-free subjects, an unaddressed tension remains. This was one of the turning points that worked to move Thims, in circa 2014, into becoming an explicit atheist; see, e.g., the tabulated listing of "atheism types (by denial)" wherein each denial (disbelief) and belief (creed) of each type of atheism, with respect to each type of scientist, is "explicitly" stated.

Freudian atheism | Comparison
Thimsian atheism, compared to Freudian atheism, i.e. the brand of atheism of Sigmund Freud, are similar on two accounts. Firstly, Freud, in his 1895 “Project for Scientific Psychology” sought out to build his entire formulation of psychology in terms of free energy and bound energy applied to chemicals “in” the mind, via citation to Hermann Helmholtz. Thims, in this respect, beginning in 1995, set out to build his entire reformulation of the humanities in terms of free energy and bound energy, albeit conceptualized such that people are chemicals—as Goethe saw things—and the free energies and bound energies are applied “between” minds.
Morality Squared (Libb Thims) 2
A Jun 2015 draft-cover (Ѻ) for tentative 80-120 page booklet entitled Morality Squared: on the Goethean-Feuerbach Prophesy and the Nietzschean Void, an elaboration on Ludwig Feuerbach’s famous 1850 nitric acid [HNO3] quote + Goethe’s 1809 sulphuric acid [H2SO4] based “moral symbols” explaining P1:C4 and Ten Commandments overthrowing P2:C18 end chapter (see: Goethean revolution).

Secondly, Freud, his 1939 Moses and Monotheism, sought to determine the religio-mythology roots of Moses, the conclusion of which being that he connected the character of Moses to the Egyptian monotheistic pharaoh Akhenaten. Thims, beginning in circa 2003, engaged in the same project, albeit connecting all of the main characters of the Abrahamic faiths and Brahmaic faiths further back, past Akhenaten, all the way to formation of the first dynasty (see: religio-mythology transcription and syncretism).

God | capitalization
In 2015, circa Jun-Jul, Thims began notably to begin de-capitalizing the term “God” wherever used or found into the lowercase “god”, a seeming repercussion to the 23 Dec 2014 video “God or god? | Capitalization psychology” (Ѻ); itself a follow up to the accusation of a YouTube user (i.e. “503WorkShop”, who changed his channel name to “myName” (Ѻ), as a result of the fiasco), that Thims wasn’t a real atheist (or still believed in god, in some way) because he was capitalizing “God” and “Allah”, in discussion, and using lowercase for the plural "gods", or something along these lines. In some way the accusation ruminated in the mind, as an ongoing irritation; in circa Jun (or May), Thims seems to have begun water-testing lowercase capitalization grammar standard methodology.

On 9 Sep 2015, while processing the following newly-found (Ѻ) God-capitalized quote into Hmolpedia:

“I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.”
— Galileo Galilei (c.1630) (Ѻ)

Into the form, into the becoming to be new-standard form for Hmolpedia articles:

“I do not feel obliged to believe that same god who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.”
Galileo Galilei (c.1630) (Ѻ)

The reasoning arrived that similar to not capitalizing “caloric” or “phlogiston”, these being once-proposed or “hypothesized” or theorized to exist entities, such as found in phlogiston theory or caloric theory, respectively, then so too should the same punctuation methodology apply in regards to “god theory” and or the “hypothesis of god” (or god hypothesis), i.e. the term “god”, similar to caloric, is but a hypothetically-proposed entity or theoretical construct, debarred and or disabused from science in the 19th century, in each of the following fields, respectively: physics in 1802 (via Laplace | France), in physiology in 1842 (via the Reymond-Brucke oath | Germany), in chemistry in 1885 (via Wislicenus), and in psychology in 1895 (via Freud | Vienna).

Quotes | On
The following are related quotes:

“Arrogants like Eddington, despite his achievements, are the cause as to why people like Libb Thims fall from one position to another lower position. First Libb argued that life is a defunct theory to justify the application of classical version of the second law of thermodynamics to living systems, ignoring statistical thermodynamics. Then to justify ‘life is a defunct theory’ he argues that his actions and behavior or not ‘self-controlled’ or ‘self-driven’ [see: self-motion] but are governed by external electromagnetic forces. Arrogance leads to ignorance and scientific blindness as we noted from the example of Eddington and Nobel laureate Chandra Sekhar. Libb Thims’ science is laced with extreme atheism and materialism and hence his precarious position. Science needs to be kept at equal distance and away from both atheism and theism. I can’t stop but laugh at myself when I think that I am not alive or I am not moving myself.”
DMR Sekhar (2011), “Eddington’s Psycho-Syndrome”

Libb Thims is a strong atheist, adheres to a physics-based morality, and considers himself a Goethean revolutionist.”
David Bossens (2013), Debates of the Hmolpedians [5]

Libb Thims [penned] his human chemistry, and he’s also a hella fkn epic atheist.”
— Anon (2015), Science & Math thread, May 2.

1. (a) Libb Thims –
(b) Israel, Jonathan. (2011). Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights, 1750-1790 (pg. 661). Oxford University Press.
(c) Staff. (2013). “Fórmula química del ser humano” (Chemical Formula of Human), Triplenlace Quimica, i.e. Triple≡Bond Chemistry (, Sep 4.
2. Thims, Libb. (2011). Purpose? (in a Godless universe). (94-pg manuscript) (unfinished); Online as 105-page unfinished manuscript (14 Apr 2013). IoHT publications.
3. Thims, Libb. (2014-15/16). Chemical Thermodynamics: with Applications in the Humanities (97-page version: pdf of 800-pages estimated total). Publisher.
4. Sekhar, DMR. (2011). “Eddington’s Psycho-Syndrome” (Ѻ),
5. Bossens, David. (2013). Debates of the Hmolpedians (Ѻ). LuLu.
7. Libb Thims – (Started: 8 Jun 2015)
8. About – Atheism Reviews.
9. Thims, Libb. (2009). “YouTube message to Philp Moriarty”, Sep 7.
10. Zacharias, Ravi. (1990). The Real Face of Atheism (Ѻ)(Ѻ) (pg. 19). Baker Books, 2004.

TDics icon ns