Fairies, Teapots, Turtles and other such Atheistic nonsense

For some reason atheists piss me off more than any other religion. Maybe it’s because, as a group, they are the most arrogant bunch of idiots who scream that their idiotic beliefs are the only true way to view things without even the dignity to admit that what they’re screaming is unsubstantiated faith.
Or maybe it’s because it’s because they give such terrible arguments. Really terrible arguments. They’re like most liberals–they can give 5 or 6 memorized talking points and they never deviate.

In a recent article I published on the utter stupidity of atheism I got several stock point arguments in response on several forums, so rather than waste my time and respond to them individually, I thought best to deal with them all at once.

So I’m going to respond to their repetitive talking points, and not only am I going to use quotes, and jokes, and parables, but unlike atheists I’m going to back my quips and stories up with real argument.

(Also let me point out, if you’re just an atheist, because that works for you, I don’t really care about you or your beliefs, you are free to have them and I’m not attacking you. I’m attacking the rabid section of Atheism that feels that their belief is so superior to everyone else’s that they must attack everyone else’s beliefs. It is their arguments I’m hitting, if you just have your beliefs and aren’t proselytizing, I’m not out to attack you.).

Stock Atheist Argument 1: We may not be able to prove our point but you can’t prove yours.
Dumb Dawkins
I’d like to begin this section with a classic joke whose usefulness will be relevant by the end of this piece.

A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy and the Big Bang. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy which in turn all came out of the initial explosion. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”

Now in this joke we’re supposed to see that the scientist is intelligent and the old woman is really an idiot for such a silly idea as turtles all the way down. I’ve even seen an atheist use this joke to make fun of religious people and how ignorant they are in not accepting science. That spiritual people are stupid to not understand that we can trace the origins of everything to physics and the Big Bang.

Let me clarify what I mean by this. The most perfect argument for the existence of God.

There’s just one problem with that whole model. What caused the Big Bang? And atheists have to answer to that. The first is “Well, it’s just a series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches over and over again” which is called an infinite series. Or you can go even more complex with some description of a quantum mechanics/holographic universe within a universe. But that too leads to an infinite series. Because of the fact that everything has to be caused by something else otherwise it would just sit there and never. do anything (see the 1st Law of Newtonian Physics), everything in physics is subject to this need for cause, no matter how complex that makes the universe everything is still subject to causation. Which leads you to only one of two possibilities. Either you have an infinite series of causes going back for an infinite period of time…or you have something that doesn’t need a cause, an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover (as Aristotle would say). This first cause that needs no other thing to cause it we call God.

But why can’t we have an infinite series? Because that also violates the rules of physics and logic. Because even if you go back all the way an infinite way, there has to be something that causes that movement. But rather than believe that there must be some cause that needs nothing to cause it, Atheists are arguing we should believe in the infinite series of causes, that we should be believe, “It’s turtles all the way down.” That’s what arguing for not having a God is arguing for, the stupidity of turtles all the way down.

Logic dictates that there has to be some cause outside of the rules of causation, because an infinite regression is just idiotic. That’s a logical fact. That God exists is a fact dictated by logic. Now, intelligent philosophers will admit that a lot of the qualities that we often apply to God (intelligence, goodness, motive) we do not have as strong a case for, and thus faith is required in part to a have a fuller sense of what God is. We only have arguments that only suggest but do not completely prove these qualities beyond the shadow of a doubt. But the existence of a first cause is a logical necessity, and this we call God.

You may have issues with the qualities we attribute to God and you may attack them, but just because you attack the arguments for those qualities does not negate the fact that for existence to be, you logically must have God, the first cause.

“But, but,” I can hear atheists sputtering, “Hume and Kant and Dawkins disproved the argument by cause.” No they didn’t. Let me explain what are all the arguments made by Hume and Kant and such against the argument by cause. Every version goes something like this…lots of words that intentionally get you lost in the argument, complain about all the traits added after existence, complain all you did was look for proof in what you already believe* thus you really didn’t prove anything, and thus the argument by cause is wrong. QED. If that sounds kind of dumb, it is. Some might complain that I’ve just put up a straw man version of the argument against the argument by cause. I haven’t. Every long winded version boils down to, uh, I don’t want to buy your proof, so I don’t have to actually disprove your points I just have to say your logic is bad (not that I’m going to show where) and so there, I win. It’s actually a lot like most atheist arguments arrogance and idiocy working hand in hand. But don’t believe me go read Kant and Hume and whoever, try and follow their points…and don’t get upset if you feel you can’t follow them, they’re designed to be impossible to follow the logic of making you think if you can’t understand it and thus making you feel inferior and thus it must be right. But it’s not you that isn’t understanding the argument. There isn’t a well reasoned argument to understand.

The reason Atheists really, really hate the argument by cause and will deny it to their last dying and lying breath is that is gets them out of their central point: “Rules of argument state you have to prove God exists.” This is kind of dumb on its face, when you’re in the minority and trying to prove to the majority that you’re right, even if you are right (which atheists aren’t) the burden of proof is on you. But since they bizarrely think that life should be governed by the same rules as a scientific lab without a shred of common sense. So they say the burden of proof is on believers and not them, so they have a vested interest in putting their hands over their ears and going “LALALALALALA” in the face of the fact that logic requires that there is a God.

*By the way this would mean that every criminal prosecution is wrong.

Stock Atheist Argument 2: If there is a God, why isn’t there evidence of God’s existence?

Someone asked [Bertrand] Russell at some meeting: ‘Lord Russell, what will you say when you die and are brought face to face with your Maker?’ He replied without hesitation: ‘God,’ I shall say, ‘God, why did you make the evidence for your existence so insufficient?’ – A. J. Ayer

Again let me start off with a classic joke:

A terrible flood hit a small town, sending the rescue units out.
It just so happened that a devoutly religious woman lived in this town when the flood hit, and she sat down to wait for God to save her.
When the first rescue boat came in the worker called for her to come out but she just shook her head and said “Thank you, but my God will save me. ” Shaking his head the rescue worker moved on.
The waters rose and she climbed to the second story of her home to wait for God.
A second boat came by and the worker called out “Listen lady we’ve got to get you out of here!” Once again she thanked him profusely and said “My God will save me.”
The waters rose a third time forcing her to her roof.
The water was just closing around her ankles when a third boat came by. ” Lady, I’m the last boat out if you don’t come now you’re going to die. ” She just smiled “My God will save me” she said quietly. Frustrated the worker moved on. The waters rose once again leaving her standing on her chimney. She heard a huge ruckus above her head and when she looked up she saw an emergency helicopter. ” This is it lady, you have to come now or we won’t be able to save you. ” Still she refused to go. The waters rose a final time dragging her under and she was drowned. When she got to heaven, the Lord asked her if she had any questions, and in a timid voice she replied. “You said if I followed you, you would always save me. Why didn’t you save me from that flood?” God looked at her in shocked disbelief and said: “My child I sent three boats and a helicopter for you… What else did you want?”

For Atheists who ask for proof of God you have to look at them like the woman who didn’t recognize the three boats and the helicopter for what they were.

Probability states there should have been a fairly equal amount of matter and antimatter created at the Big Bang. There wasn’t. It was actually incredibly disproportioned. But it was also just enough anti-matter to spread out the universe, but not enough to push everything too far from each other so that nothing forms. Boy, that was lucky.

And let’s just ignore how this planet is set up rather well for life and just assume life can develop in lots of situations, let’s look at the odds of life starting. Now most of what gets chalked up as Intelligent Design is kind of stupid, but not when it comes to the creation of life and the creation of sentience. The most basic cell requires over 200 processes, each controlled by several dozen protein chains, each controlled by several lines of code on a strand of DNA. Ignoring that there would have to be something to start the process, the odds of a DNA chain that can do all of that without error and in the proper order…I could give you a number but think of it this way, you have better odds of winning the Powerball every Wednesday and Saturday for a year (probably getting hit by lightning several times during that year). Yes, I’m sure that just happened by chance.

And then there was that time when evolved chimps suddenly became self aware. I can’t quite tell you the odds on that because there are no odds on that. It can’t happen just by itself. Sentience and free will defy everything we know about physics and biology. They’re not things that can just happen because certain chemicals line up in a certain way or because the brain becomes complex enough.

Then of course there are all those miracles that can’t be disproven. A bulk of evidence in the realm studies into near death experience, past life memories and the fields of parapsychology, no doubt some or most of which is not relevant, but which can’t be dismissed because it just doesn’t fit your argument.

There are piles and piles of evidence. Just because you don’t want to look at them as evidence doesn’t stop their existence.

Stock Atheist Argument 3: Fairies and the Teapots don’t exist so neither does God.

There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can’t prove that there aren’t any, so shouldn’t we be agnostic with respect to fairies?—Richard Dawkins

Also see the pretentious and stupid “Russell’s Teapot” thought experiment which Atheists are so fond of quoting.

There is an old Buddhist parable used to justify Buddhism agnosticism about questions of God and the creation of the universe.

“If one day you were walking along the road and are shot with an arrow do you stop to ask, ‘From what village was the shooter from?’ ‘What kind of wood was used to make the arrow?’ ‘What bird are the feathers on this arrow from?’ ‘How long ago was the arrow made?’ ‘Did the shooter eat a full breakfast this morning?’ No you will pull out the arrow and treat the wound.”

Buddhists use this parable to justify their intentional agnosticism about metaphysical questions that religion often addresses. For a Buddhist the most important thing is to end the cycle of rebirth and suffering, the rest can wait until that is stopped, and wasting time on these questions is like asking what village the shooter was from when you still have an arrow and bleeding wound in you. Deal with the pressing problem at hand. **

The parable understands there is a difference between questions that are relevant and questions that are not. Dawkins and Russell may think that teapots and fairies are relevant, but they’re not…and to compare them to what must be the cause of all existence is clearly not understanding the nature of what you’re talking about. Fairies and teapots in space don’t have to exist, nor is there anything to necessarily suggest they do. God has to exist for there to be existence and oddly enough existence is the evidence. Feel free to be agonistic, hell even atheistic, about fairies and tea pots. But don’t dare suggest that your silly little quip is on the same lines as dismissing what logically has to be for there to be anything.

**Now I have some issues with this parable because I think you can’t fully know where you’re going and how to get there unless you actually know where you’re going and how to get there. I think if you’re shot with an arrow and one village in the area uses poison and one doesn’t then yes the question about which village a person is from becomes relevant. I think understanding God is like that question, in some cases it may be helpful, in other cases perhaps not.

Stock Atheist Argument 4: You don’t believe in other Gods either, so your God is wrong.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
– Richard Dawkins

Silly Hitchens

Really dumb atheist
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.–Stephen F. Roberts.

This one atheists love, as you can see from the ease at which I found a multitude of quotes. It’s more fun when you get into it with non-public figures because then they’ll start using names and specifics. “Well why don’t you believe in Zeus? Or Odin? Or Shiva?” And this tendency comes from the fact that most Atheists are actually just immature and rebelling against mommy and daddy’s beliefs which often in the West is Christianity.

And again I turn to a parable.

A number of blind men came to an elephant. Somebody told them that it was an elephant. The blind men asked, ‘What is the elephant like?’ and they began to touch its body. One of them said: ‘It is like a pillar.’ This blind man had only touched its leg. Another man said, ‘The elephant is like a husking basket.’ This person had only touched its ears. Similarly, he who touched its trunk or its belly talked of it differently. In the same way, he who has seen the Lord in a particular way limits the Lord to that alone and thinks that He is nothing else.– Ramakrishna Paramhamsa

If a culture misunderstands what God is but puts a name to their understanding (Zeus, Odin, Brahma, Dagda, El), does that mean the thing they’re trying to understand doesn’t exist. The blind men were wrong about their understanding of an elephant, does that mean elephants don’t exist? Newton was wrong about the nature of gravity; Einstein proved that, it doesn’t mean there is no such thing as gravity. People don’t understand what God fully is, thus all the masks we put on God to understand him are imperfect. But just because you can show flaws with each mask it does not dictate that what is behind the mask is wrong. You can disprove every religion, that doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist. And just because some people don’t believe in the interpretations of others doesn’t make the other person wrong or that first person right. God exists independent of people’s perceptions about him.

I believe in God. Now what my understanding of him is may be imperfect, that does not mean the thing I’m trying to understand doesn’t exist. But that’s the game Atheists like to play. They attack an understanding of the thing and use it to say that the thing itself doesn’t exist. But there is a problem with this argument, an elephant in the room you might say is that elephants exist, and that is that there is a difference between the imperfect conceptions of God and the existence of God.

Stock Atheist Argument 5: Atheism isn’t a religion.

Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.” 
–Don Hirschberg
Until someone claims to see Christopher Hitchens’ face in a tree stump, idiots must stop claiming that atheism is a religion. There’s one little difference: Religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, and atheism is — precisely not that. Got it? Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.—Bill Maher

Those are such cute lines. It’s just that even the slightest amount of logic tears them apart. If you want a quote here I’ll respond with the popular “Contradictions do not exist if you think you’ve found a contradiction, recheck your premises. One of them is wrong.” Or if you prefer “2+2=4”
Let’s take a look at that quote again “Religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power” and I’ve seen numerous Atheists in personal arguments respond in the same way.

I respond by doing this wacky thing like quoting the dictionary. From Webster’s: “Religion: 7. A cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness, and faith.” Now under my definition Atheism is a religion because they hold a belief (That there is no God) based on absolutely no evidence (a process otherwise known as faith, thus meeting the requirements of the definition).

So who’s right? Well let’s test out the Atheist’s definition whose key point is believing in a divine being. By this definition is Christianity a religion? Yes. Judaism? Yes. Hinduism? Yes. So far so good. Buddhism and Taosim? No. Most strains of Buddhism (as I pointed out above) and several strains of Taoism don’t believe in a supreme being. So by the definition Atheists are trying to use would say that Buddhism and Taoism aren’t religions. And that would be preposterous on its face. No you can either try to continue arguing this, or can admit that the definition used by Atheists while practical in most cases in the West, is not a solid definition.

The criteria of faith is a much more comprehensive definition. And by that definition Atheism is a religious belief.
It is based on faith and no evidence.

And all the negatives that come with religion are there as well. Like many religions, its followers proselytize, they are emotionally invested in protecting their beliefs, their zealots are violent to those who don’t follow their religion.

Of course Atheism has none of the positives that come with other religions, but hey that applies to several religions.

Atheists quips are clever, but without substance. And sadly that’s all they have.

Advertisements

38 Comments

Filed under Aristotle, Bill Maher, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Free Will, God, New Age, People Are Stupid, Religion

38 responses to “Fairies, Teapots, Turtles and other such Atheistic nonsense

  1. Pingback: Questions about existence | Finding Answers

  2. but atheism isn’t a religion, I wouldn’t even classify it as a worldview or philosphy,

    • According to Websters religion is “7. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Granted it is not the most common definition of religion. But atheism is a belief system based on a completely unprovable article of faith (that there is no God), it by extension answer all questions of metaphysics (science), epistemology (neuroscience) and offers one of only two choices for ethics: either secular humanism (based on a the idea that human beings have value, but they have to hold this belief as an article of faith as nothing in their metaphysics justifies this) or a complete lack of ethics (usually manifesting in the form of some disturbed utilitarianism). Throughout history the majority of atheists have looked to a statist government to one degree or another to fill the function that most people believe church should and does fill.

      The belief in God, whether for or against, is an idea that lays the groundwork for all philosophy, and ideas have consequences, especially this one as it is so foundational to any line of thought.

      To reach the same conclusions about metaphysics, ethics, politics or any form of philosophy that could be reached as a logical conclusion from believing there is a God, you would have to take a lot of assumptions on faith (more than you would with the faith of believing in God)…which leaves us with the outcome of having different conclusions (i.e. it is certainly a worldview or philosophy) or it is more steeped in faith than what we usually consider religion.

      Also keep in mind how zealously vicious atheists become when you challenge them. How they need to proselytize their beliefs to everyone and how they feel their ideas must be held as sacrosanct and all others condemned. Their behavior is almost exact to the believer of any religion who only uses faith and never balances it with reason.
      It looks, acts, and talks like a religion/worldview/philosophy…

      • It’s not a belief system, I would say the complete opposite of a belief system.

        In that it is a non-belief system. In that any person, or book that claims that their God or Gods is real should be able to provide reasonable evidence of this claim of existence.

        This is not an unreasonable request. In fact it is very sane and reasonable usage of our use of intuition and reasoning skills. We do it with all other things. Buy Car A or Buy Car B. Why? What Reason?

        Buy House A or Buy House B. Why? What Reason?

        Buy Computer A. or Buy Computer B. Why? What Reason?

        I think it would be unfair to all the other religions, If I were to take your word that your God exist? And not take theirs? So to be fair, I put all religions and god(s) on equal grounds of non-existence (to be fair) until one actually exist.

        • “It’s not a belief system, I would say the complete opposite of a belief system.” So it’s the opposite of a belief system by having a belief that there is no God and all the logical consequences that come from that belief. Uh-huh.

          “In that it is a non-belief system.” That doesn’t make grammatical or philosophical sense.

          “In that any person, or book that claims that their God or Gods is real should be able to provide reasonable evidence of this claim of existence.” You mean like I did here. Thank you for doing your research. Oh wait I summarized the whole argument for that post in Point 1 of this post. Thank you for putting up a stock comment that shows you didn’t actually read anything.

          Really you compare a metaphysical point that lays the ground work for all future philosophical deductions to the choice between a Mac and a PC. Also making fun of me for not providing a reason, when I have provided a reason, is shockingly silly.

          “I think it would be unfair to all the other religions, If I were to take your word that your God exist? And not take theirs? So to be fair, I put all religions and god(s) on equal grounds of non-existence (to be fair) until one actually exist.” I am just stunned. Literally on the post you’re commenting on I dealt with your point already. Point 4.

          Do you bother to read the posts you’re commenting on, or do you just troll for people who say they believe in God and then just post asinine stock comments?

        • And people wonder why I think Atheists aren’t all that bright.

          • I left the comment on the other page post,

            oh and the argument from design, is the worst argument of them all.

            Bad Design
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

            stupid Design
            http://bittersweetend.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/intelligent-design-perfect-design-stupid-design/

            Well lets stop playing semantics, because really we are tip-toeing around the issue of Christianity and the Christian God. Personally as to the idea of God I am actually AGNOSTIC, because I don’t know, and don’t claim to either. But as for the Christian God and the God of the bible, that is a man-made religion, and the Christian God is made up and fallacious. I could go into all the different reasons, why the historicity, the bible, the contradictions, the Creationism story. But I am pretty sure you have read half of them or atleast aware of them.

            • Well I’m making the argument from cause not backed up with the argument from design…did you actually want to attack the argument from cause?

              Also you’re attacking the stupid form of intelligent design which I’m not advocating here. Again thanks for reading. I am merely pointing out that science cannot explain the first cell coming to life, evolution pretty much does account for everything after that.

              “because really we are tip-toeing around the issue of Christianity and the Christian God.” Did you see the title Conservative NEW AGER? The book on the sides “Republicans and REINCARNATION”? The yin-yang symbol and the picture of Ganesh. This is a New Ager blog. New Ager. Pagan. I have no problems with Christianity works for some people, but this is not a Christian blog, genius, so your implication that I’m trying to defend the idea of the Christian god is rather odd…and just a tad ignorant.

              • I do apologize I assumed too much about you…I saw the american flag, the Gop symbol, and the conservative title. So I assumed you were a christian. or atleast an evangelical christian.

                As you do have christian stuff on your blog, but you are not evangelical nor fundamentalist nor bible totting. As my wife would call you a Culture Christian..enjoying all the fluffly stuff of christianity, but not going into the meat.

                As that what you choose to be advocate of on your blog, no quarrels from me.

                • What the hell?!

                  “I saw the american flag, the Gop symbol, and the conservative title. So I assumed you were a christian.” You do know the GOP has more than just Christians in it, don’t you? We pretty much have most religions in the party. We even have atheists. And to truly blow your mind we have gays and non-whites. Oh and women. I can clearly tell you’ve never heard about any of this, but it’s humorous given how you like to berate everyone else on being ignorant.

                  “As you do have christian stuff on your blog,” like what? God? Christian don’t have a monopoly on that concept. Positive mentions of Jesus…got a news flash for you yogi Paramanhansa Yogananda and His Holiness the Dalai Lama have also said nice things about Jesus (or are Hindus and Buddhist really closet Christians too?). Yes I tend not to bash Christians too much because they have their beliefs which work for them and I have mind, and I think through many reincarnations we will all eventually reach Enlightenment and return to God.

                  “As my wife would call you a Culture Christian..enjoying all the fluffly stuff of christianity, but not going into the meat.” Let me say this again since you didn’t get it the first time: New Ager. Pagan. Not Christian. Exactly what “fluffy” stuff of Christianity am I enjoying, and again thanks for not doing any reading at all to try and redeem yourself. There’s a quite a bit of meat in the discussion of spirituality here…not a terrible lot of it is Christian but then again it’s not a Christian blog.

                  Anyone else struck by the surreal nature of an atheist telling me I’m a terrible Christian?

                  • ur right the GOP has gays, atheist, who never get invited to the CPACs and the one time the login cabs get invited (last year) they were not allowed to speak at the event.

                    and lets be honest, It will be another 20 years before non-white ever wins the presidential nomination for the Gop.

                    oh I never said your a terrible christian, just a CULTURAL Christian.

                    • CPAC is not the party. Perhaps you missed Laura Ingram and Newt Gingrich saying they didn’t see much point to CPAC anymore (or are they just on the fringe of the party and not really relevant). Perhaps you also missed how it’s the liberals whose stock-in-trade is racial slurs against non-white Republicans.
                      “and lets be honest, It will be another 20 years before non-white ever wins the presidential nomination for the Gop.” Yes, that’s why we as a party love Marco Rubio so much and why he stands a good chance. And perhaps you missed how well Herman Cain did who was only sunk by liberal slurs and his lack of thought about foreign policy, not by his race. But I understand, it’s so much easier to just have a mindless knee jerk reaction that all Republicans are psycho Christian racists. Complex thought would probably be difficult for you, as you have shown an incredible aversion to reading already.

                      “oh I never said your a terrible christian, just a CULTURAL Christian.” First while the occasional grammatical mistake is inevitable for anyone, and I tend not to point this out to much, because God knows I make quite a few myself (which guarantee’s I’m going to miss a big error while typing this) I still need to say something. Your (a possessive pronoun, not to be confused with you’re, a contraction) grammar is consistently so atrocious it’s painful. Second of all I’m not a Cultural Christian.

                      Now I hate using wikipedia for a definition but there doesn’t seem to be anything more reliable that has a definition:
                      “A cultural Christian is a secular or nonreligious individual who still significantly identifies with Christian culture.”
                      “secular or nonreligious individual” no not secular and quite religious: New Ager which comes under the larger heading of Pagan.
                      “who still significantly identifies with Christian culture.” Nope. I do not identify with Christian culture. Say it with me now. Pagan. Pa-gan. Two syllables.

                      “As my wife would call you a Culture Christian..enjoying all the fluffly stuff of christianity, but not going into the meat.” The tone of this is quite insulting it’s saying I have no depth and just want a feel good religion, specifically saying I’m taking from Christianity. So yes you did quite clearly imply that I’m a terrible Christian. It’s bad enough you don’t have reading comprehension skills to understand what I write, it’s just sad you don’t have the reading comprehension skills to understand you write.

                  • Jeeze…that melted my brain.
                    And Rodriguez, I’m another non-Christian conservative…a gay one at that. It’s rather naive and close minded for you to assume that all conservatives are Christians.

      • Godless MAn

        It’s right there in the first sentence “…held to with ardor and faith.” Atheism is exactly the opposite of faith. Faith is the the suspension of evidence in order to uphold a belief. There is no faith in atheism. The rest of your “arguments” are a flimsy veil of self deceit riddled with logical errors and ultimately based in fear. Have a nice day 🙂

        • “There is no faith in atheism” Except that you believe in something, that there is no God, without any evidence. If you were going to claim that there is no proof of God (incorrectly I might add) then at best you would an agnostic. To be an atheist requires you to believe something without any proof, ergo it is faith. The fact that you feel the need to argue it shows the ardor.

          And I always have a nice day, probably because I know life has a purpose…something your belief does not provide. Which of us is rooted in fear again?

    • Celeste

      Atheism is not believing in a god or gods. That’s it. Nothing else. Just because some atheists are scientists or liberals or American or from California, doesn’t mean that atheists are liberal scientists from California. It also doesn’t necessarily mean that the person even consciously came to that conclusion. We are all atheists at birth and, until someone teaches us about a god or gods, we probably wouldn’t know of that position or of the possibility of their existence. You can’t make it into something it’s not. You can try and roll it into a liberal agenda but that’s not inherently so.
      The best and most eloquent review of atheism was on reddit by a user named iopha:
      “…Most of us have come to this point honestly. This must be emphasized. We’re not angry at God, we’re not trying to get attention or going through some cultural phase. We looked at the arguments on both sides and came to the best conclusion we could. We only have 70 odd years on this planet. We make mistakes, too; we are fallible creatures prone to error and haste. We do our best. And sometimes our best is ‘well, I don’t think any of this is right.’ I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I don’t rightly know where the universe came from, or how life began at first. But I don’t need all the answers to know that some answers are the wrong ones. I don’t know, and I don’t think Christians, or Muslims, or Taoists know either. They claim to know; I claim to not know.”

      • “Atheism is not believing in a god or gods. That’s it. Nothing else.” Ah the ever intellectual ‘I’m going to hold a belief, yet you cannot hold me accountable for any of the logical consequences of that belief argument’ tied to the ‘let’s not deal in reality, but only in the strict logic of a perfect Venn Diagram.’ First of all Atheism isn’t just about not believing in God. It comes with an entire metaphysics and epistemology rooted in a strict materialist understanding of science, which allows for nothing but a purely materialistic argument. Second, logically, it has to deny the special nature of human existence because under atheism a human being can be nothing but a complex set of chemical reactions endowed with no more specialness than a burning star or rock, differing only in complexity. I’m sorry if the idea that ideas have consequences offends you, but that is simply reality. Also despite your argument that clearly not all Atheists are liberals, there is also reality which, as stated by Pew in their yearly survey of religious beliefs “The religiously unaffiliated [i.e the group that includes Atheists and agnostics] are heavily Democratic in their partisanship and liberal in their political ideology.” (http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Unaffiliated/NonesOnTheRise-full.pdf) Yes there are atheist libertarians and conservatives (Penn Gillette and S.E. Cupp for example) but that does not change the fact that Atheism is HIGHLY correlated with liberal beliefs. Acknowledging this fact is not “make it into something it’s not” it’s dealing in reality. Don’t like that little fact, tough.
        “We are all atheists at birth” this line assumes that Atheism is true and is otherwise so utterly preposterous that it’s sad you even tried using it. Just about every spiritual belief states that the soul of a new born is still more connected with the other side and thus would still have knowledge of the greater existence of the divine…but I don’t really care about other faiths, as you may have noticed from even a cursory glance at this web page I believe in reincarnation and a soul that is constantly reincarnated actually knows for a fact that Atheism is very much not the case. “until someone teaches us about a god or gods, we probably wouldn’t know of that position or of the possibility of their existence” Again you don’t seem to deal very much in reality. The argument by cause which is accessible to just about anyone who cares to think about it, shows that there has to be a cause for the universe outside of the mere laws of science. Reason and reason alone can lead us to God. Now it may take faith or revelation to add some of characteristics to this being beyond what is only accessible through reason (existence, cause, intelligence, benevolence) but just because reason alone cannot tell us everything about God, doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist.
        So let me state before I tear this quote you used apart that I don’t want to hear you come back with, oh well, I didn’t agree with that part of the quote. That may be that you don’t agree with everything this other author said on Reddit (your depth of reading is something we should all aspire to), you offered up the quote without any qualification, you can take pummeling for using it.

        “…Most of us have come to this point honestly.” Not really, again reason through the argument by cause buttressed by the argument by design leads to an argument for the existence of God. To ignore this is to deny reason, to deny reason is to not be honest at any level, therefore it’s actually quite impossible to come to Atheism honestly.
        “We’re not angry at God,” It must be nice living in this dream world. Certainly there are Atheists who don’t come this belief because of anger…but an honest look at most Atheists is that most Atheists have mommy and daddy issues and are rebelling against the beliefs they associate with the figure they’re rebelling against. It’s an emotional reaction. Most people are based on emotional reactions and there are relatively few who believe things because of reason. A fair evaluation would say that most people seek religion not because of reason but because of fear and convenience. Now you may believe something for some reason, but please don’t act like the majority of Atheists are Saints of Reason who follow only where logic dictates, they’re not—most are there because they’re rebelling against something. That is what any honest evaluation would reveal.

        “We looked at the arguments on both sides and came to the best conclusion we could.” Then you must not have looked very hard. The argument by cause is irrefutable. But please tell me how it’s wrong in a way that doesn’t boil down to turtles all the way down.

        “We do our best.” Someone probably needed to explain to you at some point that your best isn’t good enough. To quote a shallow but enjoyable movie, “Your best? Losers whine about their best.”
        “I don’t pretend to have all the answers.” No that would be agnosticism, not Atheism. Pick one. You don’t get to vacillate between one or the other depending on which makes a better case. Either you don’t know (agnosticism) or you have an answer (Atheism, which is saying everything can be explained by science). I realize that many people who use the term Atheist are really agnostics, and that some really dumb fucks out there have now been using the phrase Agnostic Atheist (a self-contradictory statement that is only used to sound pretentious), but if you’re not clear on what you are, you shouldn’t be wading into the argument.

        “But I don’t need all the answers to know that some answers are the wrong ones.” Fair enough. But just because you disprove the God of the Hindus, or the God of the Christians, or the God of the such and such…you’ve only disproved the mask that they put on a larger being. Just because certain religions don’t get it exactly right doesn’t negate God’s existence.

  3. I am confused M. Rodriquez – first you want to support atheism as an anti belief and then you state you are an agnostic which means you are searching for truth. You never find truth by denying something.
    I can tell you that no one else can help you find God/truth you, must look within yourself, that is where it is
    Atheism is a religion of fear. Forget actual definitions and look at all belief that is not based on pure scientific fact – it is based on faith and that is exactly what atheist use – faith that there is nothing because in my opinion they fear there is something or they would not fight so hard they would just let others live and ignore them.
    You are fighting against Christianity and Cris is not purporting Christianity but God. If you would actually study other religions you will find there is but one God and many names based on the culture. There are many interpretations of God based on belief system and that is what everyone is looking for – the belief system that speaks truth to them or developing their own path to God. It does no good to critique ones chosen path to God because you think it silly – you do not know what that person needs in life or why their choice works for them; it is only important that you find your own path.
    Again I will state that atheists fear the concept of God because it means that life comes with meaning and thus responsibility or they would not fight it so hard as with their belief it should not bother them at all that other believe differently and they should just find everyone not with them silly but certainly not a threat. You need to actually decide what you believe and why before critiquing other beliefs. And then if you actually determine what is the right path for you – you might find there is no need to combat the belief of others.

    • hello conservative cathy,

      It seems you are misunderstanding terms. Agnosticism- Is an issue of knowledge and certainty and proof. That One cannot know with certainty nor proof that a God does or does not exist. In general, I must take scientific default position of assuming no conclusion until one is proven.

      However in Christianity, I have studied it enough to form my own conclusion about it.

      Oh I find your comment about that atheism is a fear laughable…..”The FEAR of the lord is the beginning of knowledge.” Whos religion is based on fear?

      • oh and that is proverbs 1:7

        • Gee, sure I said that Agnostic was uncertainty – thus search for the truth. Because you can not know the truth for yourself does not mean that others can not know for themselves. Good Luck on your path.
          Science is closer to proving God then not so if you want you will probably be on the path to God but if you choose not to believe then you will still be lost.
          When one fights other beliefs it is out of fear. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all are based on fear as some others.
          When you say fear of the lord is the beginning of knowledge you are probably following Christianity. My belief says God only loves so there is never anything to fear but what you can not accept in yourself. Knowledge is based on questioning and search for truth as you know it but you can never find truth if the search is out of fear.

        • Oh did a little digging and the Hebrew word יִרְאַ֣ת (yirat) is actually closer in meaning to “awe” or “reverence” in meaning even though it is usually translated as “fear”. And when you read it as such “The chief wisdom is the awe of Lord, but the evil despise knowledge and instruction.” It makes far more sense in context.

          • duh….and you had to digging for that. I can see you don’t read your bible very much. Like I said Cultural Christian. There is no shame in being a cultural Christian. The majority of americans are. I usually don’t like to debate or quarrel with cultural christian, cause your version of christianity/religion is harmless. You like all the good parts of God. (Love, Prosperity, Grace) and don’t ever talk about the other stuff in the bible (God’s Wrath and punishment, Old Testament)

            • man I did not expect liberal Christianity from a conservative blog or from a person named conservative cathy

              • Okay that’s it. You can keep posting comments if you wish, but I’m deleting them. You are clearly either a troll or so unbelievably stupid to understand that no one here is a Christian.

            • Christianity 101: just to fill in the context of fear and reverence. Is the way a child fears their father. Or a commoner fears their kind.

              They reverence him because of his awesomness and authority. But fear him because of awesomness and authority, because he is all powerful and can punish him. Like the bible says, he punishes those he loves. In that context like a child fears their fathers punishment, he reverences him because of that too.

              This Bible study lesson was for free…The next one I am going to have charge you for

              • Holy fuck, I really hope you don’t have children. If so you’re terrible. Children shouldn’t fear their parents, and any parent that uses fear is just sick.

              • Again I am confused – what exactly do you want from Cris – obviously you are inherently Christian and are having problems with it by holding others to your Christian standards – wow it must be difficult to be you.
                Basically Cris and I are not Christians but like/admire Christ as we do all enlightened beings. It is not Christianity to take only the good things from the Bible and other religious text it is called learning truth and dismissing that which is not truth. As I stated before I do not wish to critique other belief systems as I think everyone is where they should be at this time but I do believe and know that God is only love, does not see any sin and this life is an illusion so does not matter in the scheme of things – the soul is all that matters and this illusionary life is for lessons only. God does not judge only you can and you are equal with God as he created you this way. So you do not believe these things and that is your choice but do not say that others that do are any way liberal or some sort of false Christian when neither applies.
                And although I do not like to judge I would never follow anyone who believes in fear/judgement as a way to control followers.

            • “I usually don’t like to debate or quarrel with cultural christian, cause your version of christianity/religion is harmless.” Okay either you’re a troll or you have a severe learning disability. Not a Christian.

              Yes I do believe there are only good parts to God, because that is the only thing that makes logical sense…it’s one of the reasons, and say it with me now, THAT I’M NOT A CHRISTIAN.

              I’m also struck by your belief that a knowledge of how languages work and are often mistranslated somehow means I’m ignorant of a book. Along with the Gita, the Tao, the Koran, the teaching of the Buddha, and Book of Certitude and others, I have read multiple translations of the Bible, including the New Testament in the Greek. It’s one of the reasons why I realize a lot of often quoted phrases from most religions miss the actual point because of bad translation.

  4. Basically you probably should study some other religions and find that there is other beliefs and ideas separate from Christianity but the truths are still the same.

  5. J.Stalin

    You’re arrogant and misanthropic person. According to your own beliefs, you will definitely reincarnate into the pile of crap.

    • Truly an insightful comment. Did you have any actual points where you could disagree with the article or did you think mistaking confidence for arrogance was enough?

  6. I I love how everyone’s reusing the SAME ARGUMENT to prove that you’re something you clearly just told them you aren’t. Like that makes them right. Because they somehow know you better.

  7. Amazing article. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

  8. anonymous

    Just because I don’t take the side of atheists, it doesn’t mean that I’m all right with everything that you put in this article of yours. Honestly, you criticize atheists yet claim to get pissed off about religion. That makes you sink to the level of atheists.

    If I’m you, I wouldn’t behave like an atheist. Instead, I’d leave all religions alone.

    • “you criticize atheists yet claim to get pissed off about religion. ” So you equate honest and rational critique with the unjust critiques of idiots (hint you fall into the latter category). That’s quite stupid of you.
      “If I’m you, I wouldn’t behave like an atheist. ” I don’t. The gross stupidity of your comment however…

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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