Philosophy Basics for Atheists (i.e. morons)

So I just read this truly stupid comment on tumblr in reference to my blog that historically any country that legally enforces atheism is far more violent and genocidal than nations that enforce other religions.*

“OK, atheism is not a religion and it’s certainly not a moral code. Atheism is just the non-belief in a god. That’s all it is. Now stop throwing straw men about and use that brain of yours you so proudly claim to have in your blog description.”**

This is a statement typical of the absolute idiocy of atheism. At least Christian nutjobs will admit that it’s faith and not reason that is behind their stupid ideas…but Atheists have not only the idiocy to mistake their faith for reason, but also the arrogance to then believe what they mistake for reason makes them better than anyone else.

So just to be clear I see two explicit lies here and on implicit lie.

  1. Atheism is not a religion: Lie.
  2. That the faith based metaphysical beliefs of not believing in a God have no effect on a moral code: Lie.
  3. Thus atheism does not come with a moral code: Lie.

So let’s go over these.

First, I’ve dealt with this dozens of times, but let’s go over it again: to not believe in God is an act of faith.

You have no proof that God doesn’t exist. Further it is logically impossible, let me repeat LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, to prove a negative.  Thus to believe in something that cannot be proven in any way, shape, or form, is an act of faith.  It is believing in something you can’t know, and can’t prove, ever.  That’s faith.  That’s about as close to the definition of faith and religion as you can get.

And if you have a belief system based on an article of faith, that’s a religious belief.  It may not be an organized belief, it may be the very antithesis of the colloquial meaning of spiritual, but it is a religion.  Webster’s defines religion as: “7. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” and any atheist who wants to argue with me on that is insane, your belief in no God supplies the “cause, principle, or system of beliefs” the fact that you have no proof provides the “faith” and the fact that you’re arguing about it provides the “ardor.”  And it comes with its own sets of dogmatic beliefs.  There is the big bang, there is evolution. The fact that those theories still have some big holes in them, does not matter…nothing must deviate from the dogma.  Anyone who points out that the jump from random chemical to self replicating cells is a statistical impossibility and requires more than just the theory of evolution to make sense must be shouted down and burned at the stake.

But here let me pull another objection to my statement that atheism is a religion from the internet:

“Atheism isn’t a religion, and there are no atheists that I’ve ever heard of that have claimed themselves to be a “religion” of anything.  You’ve heard the arguments about atheism not being a religion before no doubt; you’ve just chosen to ignore them.”

Oh, so because atheists themselves don’t claim they’re a religion then they’re not.  You know, I’ve never heard any Nazis claim that they’re the personification of evil, and I’ve even heard arguments from Nazis that they’re right and good and true…I guess they must not be evil because they said so.  After all they said so.  Just because you argue you’re not something doesn’t make it true. O.J. tried to argue that he’s not a killer…reality said something different.  It doesn’t matter if you don’t think you’re a religion, you have a belief based on an article of faith that is utterly impossible to prove.  It only adds to the fact that this person is an idiot, that he thinks that dismissing the pointless claims that atheism isn’t a religion is stupid, yet the fact that there is evidence that God exists (not entirely conclusive evidence I’ll grant you, but evidence) and he just chooses to ignore that isn’t a problem for this moron at all.

“But you don’t have any proof that God does exist either” the standard line goes.   You’re right, except for the logical impossibility of an infinite regression series in causality***, the fact the big bang statistically should have produced as much matter and anti-mater making a psychical universe all but impossible, the fact that random chemicals can’t just turn into self replicating cells, the fact that evolved chimps can’t just magically become sentient, the fact that near death experiences show that memories are formed when there is no electrical charge in the brain, and a thousand other pieces of evidence that suggest that there is a soul and a God…yes, I have no evidence. And while each piece of evidence I could bring up could be explained away on its own, the totality of it suggests quite strongly that there is a God.

“But you don’t have iron clad arguments” the argument goes.  True, but I’m not claiming that I’m not relying on faith to fill in the places reason can’t provide an answer, you are.

atheists are idiots

When you lose the reason for causality the whole story just sounds stupid.

But then the idiot Atheists like to bring up the truly idiotic thought experiment called “Russell’s Teapot.”  It’s a silly thought experiment that says there might be a teapot orbiting the sun, but since no one has provided any proof then we must assume that it doesn’t exist until someone provides proof.  And thus the burden of proof is on people who believe in God to prove that he exists.  (This again ignores all the evidence that does exist, it’s very convenient that Atheist always equate lack of absolute proof with lack of any proof).  First of all whether there is or isn’t a teapot has no effect on my life which is one of the reason why it is totally incomparable to God.  There might be a massive asteroid hurtling toward earth that could destroy the whole place, since this will have an effect on our lives, we have telescopes looking for it even though it may not exist.  Just because you come up with a charming example that uses a teapot doesn’t just mean you get to decide who has the burden of proof.  If you want to be purely based in reason you take no stance and be an agnostic.  If you want to believe there is no God and hold that as a belief, then you have no burden of proof other than your own feelings. But if you want me to believe you don’t say that you don’t have to prove your beliefs—if you’re going to publically make a statement of fact (that there is no God) you better back it up.  You cannot say reason is on your side but someone has to prove you wrong and you don’t have to prove your case.

And finally Atheists I now see are trying something really stupid.  Now they’re calling themselves agnostic atheists.  In this bizarre argument, there are agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists, agnostic theists, and gnostic theists. The gnostics in both groups (in a bizarre perversion of the English meaning of the word Gnostic) believe deeply, whereas the agnostics aren’t sure and try to portray themselves as being purely reasonable. This of course is preposterous as every idiot I have heard describe themselves “agnostic atheist” (and thus should not feel the need to argue about a belief they do not hold strongly) will attack you like a rabid Doberman if you even so much as question the logical basis of atheism.  It’s like socialists describing themselves as “progressives” or “moderate” or “centrists” or anything else, doesn’t change the fact that you’re batshit crazy. Think of this being a gnostic theist would mean you believe you can prove God doesn’t exist (logically impossible) or a being an agnostic theist would mean you believe in something you believe you can’t know, even through faith (which would be just dumb).  So I doubt you’ll find anyone dumb enough to be in those two categories. So really you have atheists and theists…and you have people who don’t have a real opinion agnostics, which this stupid 4 part chart doesn’t account for. You may try to make yourself sound more logical, but you’re an atheist, end of story.

Further this distinction ignores that it doesn’t matter how strongly you believe in your atheism, it matters which side you picked.

And this brings up to the second lie, the implicit one, that being an atheist doesn’t affect the rest of your philosophical beliefs. Actually it does.  Choices have consequences.  Philosophy is not a buffet where you can pick and chose beliefs as the writer of lies above would have you believe.

So first some quick background (this will be a refresher course if you already read Republicans and Reincarnation).


There are four**** main branches of philosophy: Metaphysic, epistemology, ethics and politics.

Metaphysics: the philosophy about the nature of the universe, what is true, what exists, teleology, and of course religion.

Epistemology: the philosophy of how we know or if we can know.  It’s a really annoying field of lots of hair splitting and hypotheticals.  But this deals with the acceptability of reason and faith in finding truth.

Ethics: How individuals should act and what is the purpose of their actions.

Politics: The ethics of groups and how the individual relates to the group and vice versa.

The lie above would have you believe that these four branches are separated.  That my beliefs about God (i.e. metaphysics) has nothing to do with my beliefs about epistemology, ethics, or politics.

Wrong. Oh so wrong.

Metaphysics affects your beliefs about epistemology. If there is not God there is not Truth beyond the laws of nature, there is no ethical Truth, there is not political Truth, no moral Truth…no truth at all outside of the laws of physics…and even then epistemologically you’re on shaky ground finding a philosophical basis for getting past skepticism because without God all that brain of yours is a sack of meat and electrical signals, there is no philosophical ground to trust it actually knows what it’s doing.

And your Metaphysical and Epistemological beliefs directly create your ethics.  What is true and what you can know is what creates value and what has value is what we direct our life toward.  The values of life if there is a soul and God are radically different from the values without them.

And obviously this change in ethics forms the basis for radically divergent forms of government.

And this then all comes to the third lie, that Atheism is not a moral code.

Atheism holds there is no God. Thus there is no soul.  Thus there cannot be free will.  You cannot rationally hold that there is free will if there is no soul, because free will to be free must be free of the laws of physics.  Choice doesn’t exist, if all your actions are determined only by chemical reactions in your brain. If there is no soul then your brain is simply a collection of chemicals running certain chemical reactions based on stimuli from the outside environment.  Without a soul your brain is nothing but an extremely complex computer running a program.   It may break, it may not work properly, but there is not choice in the matter, there are only reactions determined by the laws of physics.

And if there is no soul and there is no free will the question of value becomes extremely difficult.  Why are you a collection of chemical reactions more valuable than a tree, or a rock, or chemical reaction in a high school chemistry lab?  All are just collections of chemicals operating without choice by the mindless sequence of physical reactions of the their base elements.  Now, atheist Ayn Rand tried make the argument that since we are self-aware and beings of reason we are ends in ourselves…but even her argument depends on free will and an intrinsic value of the human life (both dependent on the soul) and if she ever applied her logic that contradistinctions cannot exist to her own beliefs she would have seen this.

Without the soul and free will human life cannot have value in and of itself.  And any atheist who would like to claim that human life has value in and of itself, I would like to know how you can possibly claim one set of chemical reactions can have more value than another.  And to believe that life has no value is a moral code with very definite moral implications. Ah, but maybe it’s because we’re really complex systems of chemical reactions (why complexity should be valued more than simplicity is a moral judgment without philosophical basis in a Godless universe…also the universe prefers the simplicity of complete chaos and entropy…complexity can only occur in order and lack of chaos, very against the nature of the universe)…but let’s say for the moment it’s because of complexity.  That immediately requires you admit that something more complex would be of more value of human life…let’s call this more complex thing, oh I don’t know, the Herrenvolk…do I even have to explain where that moral code leads?

Not to say all atheists are immoral or act as if human life has no value, most act as if human life has value…but that’s kind of odd for people who rail about how their reason is superior to everyone else’s but somehow are acting on a belief they have no reasonable or logical cause to believe in.  I guess they take that human life has value as an act of faith.

You can’t logically say we should all treat each other with respect and dignity if you no metaphysical reason why humans are so special.

And politically this gets really screwed up, because if there is no intrinsic value to human life, then there are no natural rights, then at best the most you can come up with is a utilitarian system that aims for whatever goal or end you decide (because without the value of the soul, the individual ceases to be the ultimate value and thus value can be whatever you want it to be).  And under utilitarianism anything is permissible (as history has shown time and time again), any atrocity is acceptable so long as it accomplishes whatever your final goal and final solution is.

Now Atheists will like to tell you that this is wrong.  That they do believe in the value of the individual, but they can’t exactly give you a philosophical reason for it.  That they don’t believe in the evils of Unitarianism in practice (Nazism, socialism, communism) but oddly enough all of these governments in history have done everything they can to outlaw, to abolish and to prevent any religion other than atheism.  Why?  Because religion gives value to the individual, and thus rights and reason and free will and value and a soul. Something other than the State to believe in and follow.

To say that atheism does not come with a moral code is to say that ideas do not have consequences.  It is to say that they believe in reason but refuse to follow ideas to their logical conclusions.  You cannot have it both ways. Either you embrace reason and thus metaphysical points affects ethics and morality, or you don’t believe in reason.

And history has shown that the logical conclusion of atheism on any grand scale is never something we would call ethical.

Yes there are some truly psychotic and idiotic beliefs and morals in various religions, but the flaws in certain religions does not negate the massive flaws at the very heart of atheism:  Calling it faith, believes that choices do not have consequences, and believes that a belief that destroys the value of human life is not someone’s perverted moral code.

But please tell me where my logic is wrong…other than just whining that “Atheism isn’t a religion, atheism isn’t a religion.”

*Just in case some idiot doesn’t bother to read the article and want to make an argument without doing even the slightest bit of research, like, I don’t, clicking on the link, I do point out that enforcing any belief leads to bloodshed and that secular pluralistic governments are best…but as few atheists actually want a pluralistic society as shown by their vicious push to have everything but their beliefs banned by law, it’s not really a valid point.

**Before you ask I’m not linking to the fucking idiot who said this, they don’t deserve a higher hit count.

***The argument by cause is actually a very strong argument, as it logically requires something infinite, outside of time and space, with volition, and intelligence.  It is logically impossible for there not to be something like this, and as Aquinas would say, this we call God.  The problem with the argument by cause is it doesn’t tell you much about God, and that is why it is a weak argument–the other arguments are required to tell you anything about God.

****Five really, but aesthetics has little to do with this discussion.



Filed under Atheism, Civil Liberties, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Free Will, God, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, philosophy, Purpose of Life, Religion, Spirituality, Tyranny, virtue

20 responses to “Philosophy Basics for Atheists (i.e. morons)

  1. Turbowombat

    Interesting that you quote the atheist as using the term “non-belief” then go on to argue that a positive belief in the non-existence of gods is faith based. Well, yes, it is. But that’s not what the commenter said. There are two ways to lack belief in something. Either positively assert it’s non-existence, or reply “I don’t know” when asked whether or not it exists. Both are atheistic stances. One is gnostic, the other agnostic. The same way a religious person who says “I believe god exists and I can prove it without faith” is making a gnostic theistic claim whereas the one who says “I have faith but can’t prove god exists” is making an agnostic theistic claim.

    We can all agree that the gnostic claims on both sides are silly. But the commenter wasn’t making a gnostic claim. Perhaps you could address what the commenter actually said instead of your misrepresentation of what he said.

    • And perhaps you could learn to read and see that I did address that (paragraph 15 the first full one after the picture). Just because you say it’s a “non-belief” does not change the fact that you are stating a positive fact “That god does not exist”

      If you really were an agnostic you wouldn’t have a dog in this fight and wouldn’t get involved…or maybe at most just ask question as you attempt to learn. You may want to eat your cake and have it too by calling yourself an agnostic atheist, but just because you want it doesn’t mean you can have it. You’re can either not take a side and be an agnostic, or you can be an atheist and say God doesn’t exist. And once you say God doesn’t exist it doesn’t matter how strongly you believe or how justified you think that case is, there are distinct philosophical consequence for that belief. (There are also consequence in being an agnostic namely you can’t proceed on any line of philosophical reasoning without having a foundation to build them on, and if you have no foundation for beliefs you shouldn’t be getting into philosophical arguments.)

      “We can all agree that the gnostic claims on both sides are silly.” Really we do?

      Gnostic according to Webster’s means: “of relating to or characterized by knowledge”… and in this case I’ll guess we’re taking the philosophical definition of knowledge to be belief that is both correct and justified. As I explained in the article (along with a link to an even longer article proving the point) there is more than enough evidence and reasoning out there to say that the preponderance of the evidence shows that God exist (thank you for again just ignoring that because to acknowledge it might actually show you have no case) so that is my justification, and as I have the justification I feel I’m rather safe in saying the it is a fact that God exists. So by your truly rare use of the word gnostic, I am making a gnostic claim: God Exists.

      But may I say that your hairsplitting of gnostic and agnostic isn’t done for philosophical accuracy, it is done to make it appear as if you have an intellectual high ground you have no right to. People don’t claim to be agnostic atheists because they’re what every normal person would just call an agnostic and they just “don’t know”, people call themselves agnostic atheists because they do believe that God doesn’t exist but are trying to dress themselves up in the ethos of intellectual respectability and hoping their big words will scare most of their opposition off.

      I simply choose to correctly (again a gnostic claim on my part) call bullshit on this idea that it’s a non-belief. It is a belief, and calling it something else doesn’t change that fact, and it has consequences.

  2. We know the ocean exists, the mountains, the animals, us, the Earth, the moon..our solar system…our galaxy…billions of galaxies…this we can prove…but God…defined differently by hundreds of religions…it seems to me the burden of proof lays with those that believe in God and why their God is the only God and correct interpretation of his will.

    • Really have you seen those mountains? Those oceans? All of those animals? The specific planets? With your own eyes? You’re taking an awful lot on faith that the textbooks are right.

      And again I did provide proof. Thanks again for showing you didn’t actually read. And the proof I have provided actually is just as solid as the proof of those galaxies have planets of their own, you just don’t like to admit that.

      Also the burden of proof lies with the person trying to prove their point. If you just want to be an atheist in your private life you don’t need to meet a burden of proof. But if you want to convince someone else that you’re right and that God doesn’t exist then the burden of proof lies with you. You don’t get to go up to someone tell them they’re wrong and then demand that they prove they’re right. Atheists are very vicious in attacking others and then saying they don’t have to justify their attacks with this bullshit of “the burden of proof is on other people”. Like everything else about Atheists it’s trying to have it both ways without rhyme or reason.

      • I am not trying to convert people…that is what Christianity is concerned with…therefore I don’t have the burden of proof. My religion is philosophy and observation and an open mind…I don’t accept or deny your faith…you are free to do as you please.

        • Thank you again for ignoring that I did provide proof of God’s existence.

          It’s amazing that someone who has followed this blog for over a year would make a statement like “that is what Christianity is concerned with” this is a New Ager/Pagan blog. Also from the way that Atheism has repeatedly tried to force their beliefs on people (again you’ve followed this blog for quite some time, you’ve seen the examples) through government and law, you don’t get to claim that it is only religion that is trying to convert people.

          “My religion is philosophy and observation and an open mind…I don’t accept or deny your faith” Again you’re trying to have it both ways. You don’t get to believe in philosophy (and by extension reason) and then claim you’re not taking a position on this issue. Every branch of philosophy is radically affected by whether you believe in God or don’t…if you take no position you can’t engage in philosophy because far far to many things are left without a logical basis. It’s like saying “I believe in mathematics, but I take no position on believing or not believing in zero.” You could probably handle some basic arithmetic, but not really mathematics.

          “you are free to do as you please.” If you don’t care what I think why did you feel the need to comment?

          • I will come back to discuss with you…I haven’t gotten much sleep and I am going to Mass with my ex-wife and son…but I will come back to discuss with you further as it is a very interesting argument you are trying to make. In the meantime…happy soltice and merry Christmas.

  3. david

    you’ve got quite the foul mouthfor someone who mentions moral codes and professes faith in God. I’m sure he’s very proud of you. oh and btw your “logic” isn’t worth the pixels it’s displayed on.

    • “I don’t swear just for the hell of it. Language is a poor enough means of communication. I think we should use all the words we’ve got. Besides, there are damn few words that anybody understands.”–the character of Henry Drummond, Inherit the Wind

      I love how when people have no argument they try to attack my swearing. Swearing is not an impediment to an argument, it is part of the pathos dressing that any good argument has. Further there is nothing uneithical or immoral about swearing at the proper time in the proper place…you have very Puritanical view of God to think otherwise. Also it’s one thing to say my logic is bad…but the fact that you can’t actually back it up shows that you have nothing.

      • Kora-lea

        You sound very angry, it leads me to speculate whether you have truly accepted Jesus into your heart? Are you willing to sacrifice yourself in the name of the Lord? Lol! Don’t get so worked up on what everyone else believes or doesn’t believe. Any which way you look at it, it’s pretty comical the different ideas people have as to how we all came to be. Did some dude in the sky somewhere make us all from 2 ppl who carried on a rather incestuous form of multiplication of the human population? Or was there absolutely nothing and then boom we have everything? Now we can’t even agree on what actually happened so we have to argue more about how we label our stupid beliefs? “God” is laughing at all of us right now and I’m laughing with him!

        • And your comment lead me to speculate did you actually read anything? Did you the words “conservative NEW AGER” suggest that maybe your reference about accepting Christ might not be relevant here? Perhaps the cover of the book with the big Yin-Yang symbol and Ganesh on it might have implied that that the Christian idea of sacrifice is an irrelevant point with this audience? Also, everything you’re saying seems to be presenting the false dichotomy that I have to choose between either atheism or strict fundamentalist Christianity.
          And if I’m angry, maybe it’s because I have to so often deal with idiots who don’t seem to know how to read or how to present a decent argument but feel like they have a right to tell me what to think.

  4. Pingback: Fairies, Teapots, Turtles and other such Atheistic nonsense | The Conservative New Ager

  5. Pingback: How do I know if my brain is faulty? | Thoughts of Sam Isaacson


    You can’t either prove god exists or doesn’t exist.
    So, it doesn’t. Unless you believe the universe is a god, but that’s another topic.
    If you claim something you have to prove it, simple.
    It doesn’t really matter anyway whether a god exists or not because we can’t really do anything about it and so far it has not changed anything.
    Personally, i find it egocentric to think that this whole universe was created just for us and that our meaningless actions actually mean something.
    I just prefer to live my life and trying to the least harm posible to the rest of the people.

    PD: sorry for my enlgish :v

    • Oh I don’t mind your English, it’s the internet, only a jackass is a grammar Nazi in this environment and I only critique people on their language after they make the first move.

      However I do have serious problems with your absolutely abhorrent understanding of philosophy.

      Where to start….
      “You can’t either prove god exists or doesn’t exist. So, it doesn’t.”
      So your argument is that if you can’t prove something exists, it doesn’t exist. It’s odd that you chide me for egocentrism, but seem to claim that whether I can prove something or not to you somehow effects reality. I can’t tell you how bad your epistemology is. Whether something exists or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you, or I, or anyone can prove it. Reality has nothing to do with what can or cannot be proven. Aristotle could not prove the existence of quantum particles, nor did he even suspect their existence, that doesn’t change the fact that they existed.

      Now what I think you meant to say is that if you can’t prove something you have to assume it doesn’t exist. This is still bad philosophy for two reasons. (1) The first is that all progress throughout human history is actually brought about by people who keep getting told their beliefs are stupid and they have no proof…until low and behold there is…but it would never have come about if people just gave in when there is no proof right at hand. So to completely adopt your mentality is to condemn humanity to stagnation. (2) Your entire premise is simply preposterous as there is proof. The argument by cause clearly demonstrates there has to be a cause to the universe. The complexity of the universe is so preposterously improbable that to claim that it just happened by chance strains believability ( The fact that there are numerous studies into the existence of the afterlife ( and reincarnation ( including among numerous others a 2000 page 2 volume, peer reviewed work from the University of Virginia that only looked at children who could accurately describe numerous details of a past life that could be verified (but whom the children could have had no knowledge of) and who demonstrated birth marks that were directly related to the way the person they were in a past life died ( Now you can claim, oh those are just stories, people just made those up, that’s bad science…but there comes a point where there is just deny such a body of evidence just makes you look sad. And all of this proof of the afterlife and the soul seems to very clearly indicate the existence of the soul and God.

      “If you claim something you have to prove it, simple.” Just did. And I have repeatedly in numerous other places on this blog.

      “It doesn’t really matter anyway whether a god exists or not because we can’t really do anything about it and so far it has not changed anything.” Perhaps you’re right whether God exists or not has very little impact on reality…but only if you consider ethics to not be important. You see with God there comes the fact that you have a soul, which has a spark of the divine and thus intrinsic value, and by extension human life and human existence have value. Without God, it’s a tad hard to establish that human life has value. After all without a soul you’re just an animal…quite frankly the fact that you’re an animal isn’t all that impressive anyway as an animal is just a complex set of chemical reactions. Now you might try humans have value because of our sentience..but that doesn’t work either because you don’t have sentience you have a series of chemical reactions in your brain, none freely chosen, just chemical reactions that occur because of the laws of physics and causality. Ah, but the humanists respond, we just believe that humans have value (even though they have no metaphysical grounding for that)…but that’s hypocrisy, because to be an atheist and to believe human beings have value is to take that value on faith without proof…and I could swear somewhere that an atheist once told me “If you claim something you have to prove it, simple.” Now my stance for believing humans have value, which they do, is grounded in the fact that we have a soul (which can be proved) which was created by God (which can be proved). So my side is stable and yours is riddle with contradictions and hypocrisy.

      “Personally, i find it egocentric to think that this whole universe was created just for us and that our meaningless actions actually mean something.” And personally I find your nihilistic attitude revolting. Actions are not meaningless, and life has a purpose. People only claim otherwise to avoid the simple fact that they are here for a purpose and that they need to find that purpose. People embrace meaninglessness because with meaning comes the responsibility to act in accord with the end of that meaning. And to turn away from this basic truth is the most rank cowardice and greatest arrogance of attempting to put up a lie as truth and claim yourself a genius for doing so.

      I also notice you didn’t actually respond to anything in the article you just gave me what amounts to a stock comment. Is that the depth of your intellectual prowess?

  7. With the Teapot…..we see no evidence of such a pot and we see no effect. We don’t see wind but we feel and see it’s effect.

    There is no bigger effect than the universe and our consciousness. The idea there is no reason to posit the cause of this effect, when not only the world appears designed but now the underlying Math(which was never a factor in all of humanity’s conclusion that there is aGod in the first place) has been discovered to be infinately more designed than “appearance”, is just willful denial of the truth.

    Look, the game has been over for thousands of years . The fine tuning just highlights how pathological the atheist mind is. But understand this….Who consents to their own doom? What else can they do to sleep at night but claim we’re the ones who are insane. So I don’t get jammed up on these weirdos because it’s like arguing with a toilet.

  8. With the Teapot…..we see no evidence of such a pot and we see no effect. We don’t see wind but we feel and see it’s effect.

    There is no bigger effect than the universe and our consciousness. The idea there is no reason to posit the cause of this effect, when not only the world appears designed but now the underlying Math(which was never a factor in all of humanity’s conclusion that there is aGod in the first place) has been discovered to be infinately more designed than “appearance”, is just willful denial of the truth.

    Look, the game has been over for thousands of years . The fine tuning just highlights how pathological the atheist mind is. But understand this….Who consents to their own doom? What else can they do to sleep at night but claim we’re the ones who are insane. So I don’t get jammed up on these weirdos because it’s like arguing with a toilet.

  9. anonymous

    Something tells me that you’re not any better than atheists, who I don’t side with. In other words, I don’t side with them. But how you come off as criticizing them makes you sound like them by badmouthing Christians.

    • “Something tells me that you’re not any better than atheists, ” The thing telling you that would be your lack of a brain.
      “But how you come off as criticizing them makes you sound like them by badmouthing Christians” I don’t sound like them. The only way you could think that is if you lacked the brain to see the difference between logical arguments and stupid ones. Given that you offer no evidence, no proof, and no actual basis for your argument, I think it’s safe to say you’re an idiot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s