Skip to content
December 6, 2011 / itsnobody

Free and Open Challenge to Atheists

Atheists often claim that atheism is some how more rational or logical than Theism.

In reality however there is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument. 100% of atheistic arguments are illogical.

I challenge any atheist to propose any argument they have here so I can explain how and why it’s illogical. Feel free to post any argument in the comments section here. Everything is free and open here.

This challenge is for atheists who believe either of these:
– God does not exist
– God is unlikely to exist

This is NOT a challenge for atheists who:
– Make no claims regarding the existence or non-existence of God

I’ll update this article with refutations as people post arguments.

[UPDATE 12.08.2011] – So far no atheist has proposed any argument (I don’t consider that ad hominem as an argument)

[UPDATE 12.17.2011] – Replied to Anon, I am looking forward to more and more arguments and criticisms for me to debunk. Hopefully if more and more people post arguments or questions I can eventually debunk virtually every atheistic argument that exists.

[UPDATE 02.15.2012] – I am short on time, but I updated this post with some new refutations. I will eventually refute all of the laughable arguments atheists have provided. Their arguments are so weak it’s just too easy. I get my arguments from my own independent mind, so how can atheists compete? All they can do is copy arguments from other atheists.

Responses to Arguments:

“Well I don’t believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible dragon, celestial teapot, [insert something that lacks proof here]” – A common argument used by atheists. The problem with this argument is that it’s a non-sequitur. The existence or non-existence of God has nothing to do with the existence of a FSM, celestial teapot, etc…Contrary to what delusional atheists you can’t refute something by pointing out that you also don’t believe in something else that lacks proof.

Pointing out that you don’t believe in something else that lacks evidence does nothing to refute the existence of God or even indicate that existence of God is unlikely, so this argument is invalid.

Here’s an example applied to something else:
“The luminiferous aether does not exist or is unlikely to exist because I don’t believe in a FSM, invisible dragon, celestial teapot, etc…” – The atheist’s reasoning

Here’s a valid argument:
“The luminiferous aether does not exist or is unlikely to exist because X empirical observation indicates so”

Since this FSM argument does nothing refute the existence of God or indicate that the existence of God is unlikely it is an invalid, illogical reason given for believing that God does not exist or that God is unlikely to exist.

Argument from free-will – Another common argument used by atheists. The problem with this argument is that there’s more scientific evidence against free-will than God so it requires MORE faith to believe in free-will than it does to believe in God.

Since it takes more faith to believe in free-will than God any atheist who believes in free-will will have to admit that faith, evidence, and science has nothing to do with their disbelief in God. Believing in free-will would effectively ruin all the atheistic arguments connected to evidence and science.

Since this argument assumes that free-will exists the very act of arguing this requires MORE faith than believing in God (effectively ruining all evidence-based atheistic arguments).

God is something complex – This argument is simply a straw man. God has never been defined as complex except only by atheists. I don’t know why atheists constantly use this convenient straw man.

If God exists then why do bad things happen?/The Earth is full of suffering – Another common argument used by atheists, what a shame that it’s based off a straw man. The Earth has been defined as an evil place full of suffering and God had never been defined a being who if exists would mean that the Earth would be a place of enjoyment. Heavenly worlds had been defined as good, enjoyable places, not the Earth.

So evil existing on Earth is perfectly consistent with God existing.

God violates Ockham’s razor – This argument just arises from a misunderstanding of what Ockham’s razor is. Ockham’s razor tells that we can only assume the very least to be true, it does not (as atheists believe) tell us that extra assumptions are false. It only tells us that you cannot assume that extra assumptions are true.

For instance prior to General Relativity Ockham’s razor would’ve told us that “Newtonian physics is an extremely accurate model in certain conditions”, it would not have told us that “General Relativity is false or unlikely to be true”.

Through Ockham’s razor we would conclude that modern science tells us nothing about the existence or non-existence of God (just as with any empirically untestable hypothesis).

“Cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt equates to non-existence” – This argument can be easily be falsified with counterexamples.

Here are some counterexamples:
– Quarks prior to the late 1960s
– Newtonian gravity prior to Newton inventing the mathematics for Newtonian gravity
– General Relativity prior to the mathematics for General Relativity being developed
– A planet far far faraway that cannot be observed
– Atoms and electromagnetism prior to scientists finding ways to empirically test the existence of those things
– Everything in modern science proven to exist now during the time period that it was empirical un-testable

There are many many many things that human beings cannot directly perceive with their senses that really exist. Many things I mentioned on this list can only be indirectly detected, so they cannot be directly seen, felt, or heard even in modern times.

Here are somethings that may exist that human beings cannot directly or indirectly detect in modern times:
– 1-dimensional strings (quadrillions of times smaller than quarks)
– multiple universes
– gravitons

The simple fact is human beings can only scientifically know what’s within the realm of empirical testability, everything outside of that human beings cannot know (scientifically).

“I have never directly seen, heard, or felt the presence of any God” – You haven’t directly  seen, heard, or felt something that cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt? God has been defined as something that cannot be ordinarily seen, heard, or felt. This is simply a form of circular reasoning. Since God is an empirically untestable hypothesis then God cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt by definition. So this argument can be reduced to saying “I have never directly seen, heard, or felt something that cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt”.

Biblical inerrancy: It’s possible that the Bible contains errors and that God exists so this argument does nothing to show the non-existence or unlikelihood of God. Showing that the Bible contains errors isn’t the same as showing that God doesn’t exist. Arguing against Biblical inerrancy is different from arguing against the existence of God. Arguing that the Bible is full of errors is an argument against Biblical inerrancy, not an argument against the existence of God. The conclusion violates Ockham’s razor so this argument illogical.

What Created God?: God is defined as causeless and requires no Creator. If atheists are arguing that everything requires a cause and that God must have a cause this claim can easily be falsified in science. Energy has no creator, it just had always existed, yet atheists do not object to anyone claiming that energy is causeless, eternal, and all-existing. Many atheists believe that the universe is eternal and always existed…so how can someone argue that the reason why God cannot exist is because God must have a cause but then claim that everything besides God doesn’t require a cause? By what reasoning did atheists conclude that God requires a cause?

No compelling arguments for the existence of a God: Compelling arguments as in scientific evidence for something can only exist for an empirically testable hypothesis. So this again is circular reasoning, just the same as saying “There’s no scientific evidence for something that there cannot be scientific evidence for”. If no one finds a way to test the existence of God, multiple universes, the string theory or anything else empirically untestable then scientific evidence cannot exist for it. All hypotheses and theories in modern science that have scientific evidence today were unproven and lacked evidence during the time period that they were empirically untestable.

Knowing my beliefs to be true, flawless, faultless, and without error I encourage people to question, criticize, scrutinize things so that they can see that I am correct.

The main reason why atheists intentionally disallow free and open criticism of their arguments is specifically because they are anti-science fanatics and know that their arguments and beliefs are wrong and false, so they ban and block anyone from questioning, criticizing, or scrutinizing their arguments. If a statement is true then it will stand up to any amount of criticism, so why do atheists intentionally prevent criticism for?

Since I know my statements are true I intentionally encourage criticism.

Atheistic arguments are so laughable and weak, I don’t know how anyone can seriously take atheistic arguments seriously. If atheists really take their arguments seriously then they must be foolish, idiotic, senseless, or not understand anything about logic or science.

There simply is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument.



Leave a Comment
  1. Mario / Sep 3 2017 7:23 pm

    The first argument is not a proof of God inexistence, it is an observation about how you can’t proove the inexistance of anything, there is simply no precendent of an experiment that has prooven the innexistance of something. So this argument ask the question “is anything that has not prooven to not exist an undeniable existance?” as for example the flying spagetti monster.

  2. Mario / Sep 3 2017 7:21 pm

    The first argument is not a proof of God inexistence, it is an observation about how you can’t proove the inexistance of anything, there is simply no precendent of an experiment that has prooved the innexistance of something. So this argument ask the question “is anything that has not prooven to not exist an undeniable existance?” as for example the flying.

  3. Anonymous / Feb 22 2017 10:28 pm

    I think this post requires a God definition in the first place.

  4. Brian Dunning / Oct 12 2016 6:41 pm

    Debating with a Young Earth Creationist is actually really easy, because they only have a few standard arguments, and haven’t come up with any new cogent ones for some time. These standard arguments have been published time and time again, and a practiced Young Earth Creationist can handily draw them like a six-gun at the drop of a hat. All of their arguments are silly in their wrongness and easily debunked, and if you’re prepared in advance, it’s easy to beat down any Young Earther with a quick verbal body slam. You’re not going to change their mind, since Young Earthers do not base their opinions upon rational study of the evidence; but you might help clear things up for an innocent bystander who overhears.

    So here are the standard arguments for a young Earth, and the standard rebuttals from the scientific consensus, starting with my favorite:

    Evolution is just a theory, not a fact. This is an easily digestible sound bite intended to show that evolution is just an unproven hypothesis, like any other, and thus should not be taught in schools as if it were fact. Actually, evolution is both a theory and a fact. A fact is something we observe in the world, and a theory is our best explanation for it. Stephen Jay Gould famously addressed this argument by pointing out that the fact of gravity is that things fall, and our theory of gravity began with Isaac Newton and was later replaced by Einstein’s improved theory. The current state of our theory to explain gravity does not affect the fact that things fall. Similarly, Darwin’s original theory of evolution was highly incomplete and had plenty of errors. Today’s theory is still incomplete but it’s a thousand times better than it was in Darwin’s day. But the state of our explanation does not affect the observed fact that species evolve over time.

    The next argument you’re likely to encounter states that Evolution is controversial; scientists disagree on its validity. Young Earth Creationists have latched onto the fact that evolutionary biologists still have competing theories to explain numerous minor aspects of evolution. Throwing out evolution for this reason would be like dismissing the use of tires on cars because there are competing tread designs. Despite the claim of widespread controversy, no significant number of scientists doubt either the fact of evolution or the validity of the theory as a whole. Young Earthers often publish lists of scientists whom they say reject evolution. These lists are probably true. In the United States, the majority of the general public are creationists of one flavor or another. But the scientific community has a very different opinion: Most surveys of scientists find that 95 to 98 percent accept evolution just as they do other aspects of the natural world.

    Young Earth Creationists also argue that Evolution is not falsifiable, therefore it’s not science. One of the fundamentals of any science is that it’s falsifiable. If a test can be derived that, if it were to fail, falsified a proposition, then that proposition meets a basic test of being a science. Something that cannot be tested and falsified, like the existence of gods, is therefore not a science. Young Earthers accept this to the point that they use it as an argument against evolution’s status as a science.

    In fact, evolution could be very easily falsified. Evolutionary biologist JBS Haldane famously said that a fossilized rabbit from the Precambrian era would do it. Another way to falsify evolution would be to test any of the innumerable predictions it makes, and see if the observation doesn’t match what was predicted. Young Earthers are invited to go through all the predictions made in the evolutionary literature, and if they can genuinely find that not a single one is testable, then they’re right.

    The next argument to be prepared for is that Evolution is itself a religion. This argument has become increasingly popular in recent years as creationists have tried to bolster their own position by decorating it with scientific-sounding words like intelligent design. And as they try to convince us that their own position is science based, they correspondingly mock evolution by calling it a religion of those who worship Darwin as a prophet and accept its tenets on faith since there is no evidence supporting evolution. Clearly this is an argument that could only be persuasive to people who know little or nothing about the concept of evolution or Darwin’s role in its development. This argument is easily dismissed. A religion is the worship of a supernatural divine superbeing, and there is nothing anywhere in the theory of evolution that makes reference to such a being, and not a single living human considers himself a member of any “evolution church.”

    Young Earth Creationists also like to argue that Evolution cannot be observed. Part of what you need to do to validate a theory is to test it and observe the results. Although there are evolutionary phenomena that can be directly observed like dog breeding and lab experiments with fruit flies, most of what evolution explains has happened over millions of years and so, quite obviously, nobody was around to observe most of it. This is true, but it misstates what observation consists of. There’s a lot of observation in science where we have to use evidence of an event: certain chemical reactions, subatomic particle physics, theoretical physics; all of these disciplines involve experimentation and observation where the actual events can’t be witnessed. The theory of evolution was originally developed to explain the evidence that was observed from the fossil record. So in this respect, every significant aspect of evolution has been exhaustively observed and documented, many times over.

    One of the most tiresome creationist arguments against evolution tries to claim that There is an absence of transitional fossils. If the ancestor of the modern horse Miohippus evolved from its predecessor Mesohippus, then surely there must be examples of transitional fossils that would show characteristics of both, or perhaps an intermediate stage. I use the horse example because the fossil record of horses is exceptionally well represented with many finds. If evolution is true, shouldn’t there be examples of transitional stages between Miohippus and Mesohippus? The creationists say that there are not. Well, there are, and in abundance. You can tell people that there aren’t, but you’re either intentionally lying or intentionally refusing to inform yourself on a subject you’re claiming to be authoritative on. Kathleen Hunt of the University of Washington writes:

    A typical Miohippus was distinctly larger than a typical Mesohippus, with a slightly longer skull. The facial fossa was deeper and more expanded. In addition, the ankle joint had changed subtly. Miohippus also began to show a variable extra crest on its upper cheek teeth. In later horse species, this crest became a characteristic feature of the teeth. This is an excellent example of how new traits originate as variations in the ancestral population.

    The layperson need look no deeper than Wikipedia to find a long list of transitional fossils. But be aware that many species known only from the fossil record may be known by only one skeleton, often incomplete. The older fossil records are simply too sparse to expect any form of completeness, especially if you’re looking for complete transitions. It’s not going to happen. However, the theory of punctuated equilibrium predicts that in many cases there will be no transitional fossils, so in a lot of these cases, creationists are pointing to the absence of fossils that evolutionary theory predicts probably never existed.

    Here’s another Young Earth argument, and when I first heard it I said “What the heck are they talking about??” It’s that Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that there is no reverse entropy in any isolated system. The available energy in a closed system will stay the same or decrease over time, and the overall entropy of such a system can only increase or stay the same. This is an immutable physical law, and it’s true. Young Earth Creationists argue that this means a complex system, like a living organism, cannot form on its own, as that would be a decrease of entropy. Order from disorder, they argue, is physically impossible without divine intervention. This argument is easy to make if you oversimplify the law to the point of ignoring its principal qualification: that it only applies to a closed, isolated system. If you attempt to apply it to any system, such as a plant, animal, or deck of cards, you’ve just proven that photosynthesis, growth, and unshuffling are impossible too. Organisms are open systems (as was the proverbial primordial goo), since they exchange material and energy with their surroundings, and so the second law of thermodynamics is not relevant to them. Innumerable natural and artificial processes produce order from disorder in open systems using external energy and material.

    In a related vein, Young Earthers also argue that Evolution cannot create complex structures with irreducible complexity. This argument was made famous by Michael Behe, an evangelical biochemist, who coined the term irreducible complexity. Take a complex structure like an eyeball, and remove any part of it to simulate evolution in reverse, and it will no longer function. Thus, an eyeball cannot have evolved through natural selection, as a non-functioning structure would not be a genetic advantage. It seems like it makes sense at face value, but it’s based on a tremendously faulty concept. Evolution in reverse is not accurately simulated by taking a cleaver and hacking an eyeball in half. The animal kingdom is full of examples of simpler eye structures, all of which are functional, all of which are irreducibly complex, and all of which are susceptible to further refinement through evolution. For a dramatic visual example of how irreducible complexity can and does evolve through gradual refinement, and yet remain irreducibly complex, take a look at Lee Graham’s applet the Irreducible Complexity Evolver at

    Another effort to fight science using logic states that It’s too improbable for complex life forms to develop by chance. This is the old “747 in a junkyard” argument. How likely is it that a tornado would go through a junkyard, and by chance, happen to assemble a perfect 747? The same argument was made centuries ago by William Paley, except he referred to the exquisite design of a pocketwatch, and pointed out that such a thing is so complex and delicate that it had to have been designed from the top down by a creator. This argument is simply reflective of ignorance of the extraordinary power of evolution’s bottom-up design mechanism. Once you have an understanding of multigenerational mutation and natural selection, and also understand how structures with irreducible complexity evolve, there’s nothing unlikely or implausible about evolution at all. In fact, genetic algorithms (the computer software version of evolution), are starting to take over the world of invention with innovative new engineering advances that top-down designers like human beings might have never come up with. Bottom-up design is not only probable, it’s inevitable and nearly always produces better designs than any intelligent creator could have.

    You should also be prepared to hear that Evolution cannot create new information. Based on a misinterpretation of information theory, this argument states that the new information required to create a new species cannot suddenly spawn into existence spontaneously; new information can only come from an outside source, namely, an intelligent creator. This particular argument doesn’t go very far, since any genetic mutation or duplication can only be described as new information. Not all of that information is good. Most of it’s useless, called genetic drift, but once in a blue moon you get a piece that’s beneficial to the organism. New genetic information is observed in evolutionary processes every day.

    For a final blow from the logic department, be ready for the argument that Evolution does not explain some aspects of life or culture. This is an argument which is really just a logical fallacy: that since evolution does not explain everything, it is therefore entirely false. Evolutionary biologists are the first ones to stand up and say that there are still plenty of aspects of life we’re still learning about. That doesn’t make the things we’ve already learned wrong. It’s also increasingly common for Young Earthers to point to things that have nothing to do with the origin of life and speciation, like the Big Bang and the age of the earth, and argue that since the theory of evolution does not explain those things as well, it is therefore false. This is an even greater logical fallacy. Theories explain only those observed phenomena they are designed to explain. They are not intended to have anything to do with stuff they have nothing to do with.

    Those are the standard arguments. One thing I can’t easily prepare you for are the non-standard arguments you might get from a creationist who doesn’t know his business very well. For example, when evangelical actor Kirk Cameron and Christian author Ray Comfort were given a platform by ABC television in April 2007 to express their beliefs to the creators of the Blasphemy Challenge, they didn’t even know the standard arguments and just started throwing random stuff out left and right in a way that’s much harder to debate intelligently. Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy had a similar experience when debating moon hoax believer Joe Rogan, and he summed it up quite aptly by pointing out that it’s easy to know the science better than a believer does, but a believer can easily know the pseudoscience way better than you. Stick with what you know, and don’t allow an unpracticed creationist who’s all over the place to steer you off the track.

  5. Steph / Sep 27 2016 2:12 pm

    I’ve read through a few of your posts…you’re a very logical, rational thinker, which means you will be despised by those who don’t think this way. Many people are emotional “thinkers”, which completely contradicts the point of logic and reasoning. No wonder so many athiests and liberals/socialists spew so much hate towards you. Keep up the good work!

    • Anonymous / Feb 7 2017 4:48 pm

      Logical, rational thinker. Are you fucking serious bitch?

      Religion is only rational to those that want to believe it. Where was god when his so called ‘people’ were being tortured and exterminated 70 years ago?

      Where is god when children are being raped? And don’t say that’s a test….a god who lets children get raped as a test is a fucking shit god.

  6. OneTrueCocksucker / Aug 22 2016 11:17 pm

    Fuck you, dumb nigger.

  7. Gary Alan Brown / Jul 19 2016 11:17 pm

    Please – you really need to strengthen your “Who created God? answer. Here’s how:

    The question about “who” created God is often asked and has a very logical answer. Science has proven Big Bang cosmology beyond a reasonable doubt. Every prediction regarding the scientific implications of the Big Bang has been discovered and verified. Big Bang cosmology states that the universe and all the dimensions therein had a beginning. Time, space, matter, energy – all the dimensions we understand flashed into existence from nothing in an instantaneous burst of unimaginable energy. Physical time, in particular had to have had a beginning because one definition of time is “a record of change” in the material world and it is listed as one of the seven fundamental physical quantities of the universe. Most scientists believe that the physical time dimension began at the point of the Big Bang.

    Here’s the key: the Creator of the material universe must, by definition be an immaterial being. Likewise, the immaterial Creator of time MUST by definition exist outside the dimension of physical time. A Being that exists outside the dimension of physical time CANNOT have a beginning because the concept of beginning is a time dependent concept in a physical universe. Now, if a Being has no beginning, that Being is by definition eternal and therefore cannot have been created. Immaterial beings cannot “change” (or decay) because change is a concept for a material, physical world. You might be interested to know that out of all the religious books in the world, only the Bible refers to time as having had a beginning: 2 Tim. 1:9 and Titus 1:2.

    What we observe in the physical universe is entirely consistent with the attributes of God as described in the Bible.

    • Steph / Sep 27 2016 2:08 pm

      Wonderful comment!

      • Gay Alan Brown / Oct 12 2016 6:23 pm

        The author is a young earth creationist – read some of the other posts.

        We know that to be completely untrue, which puts anything else they have written into doubt.

        Lets look at it this way. The implication in the Bible is that God created “his people” – the Jews. You cannot just become a Jew, you have to be born into Judaism. That’s why we have Christianity. The Jews don’t believe Christ was the son of God – they’re still Jewish, not Christian. Christianity exists so everyone can worship this supposed Jewish God.

        Whether or not God exists, Religion is complete and utter rubbish. it serves 2 purposes – control and power.

  8. Gary Alan Brown / Jul 19 2016 11:11 pm

    On the “complexity of God” argument or Dawkin’s argument that God must be more complex than his creation – it’s a category error, confusing the material with the immaterial. Example: how complex is a disembodied mind?

  9. Daniel Wallis / Jul 19 2016 6:57 pm

    both sides religious or atheist, making claims of a certainty of a god or not is illogical. there is no way in knowing that. everyone who makes a claim of the absolute existence or non existence of a god is illogical from the start. and a deluded moron

  10. Anonymous / Mar 10 2016 7:30 pm

    Thank you for existing.

  11. Spef / Jan 21 2016 7:37 am

    Is this real? Is this a joke? The only thing I am certain of is that there will always be an uncertainty present. For me, it is as follows: I do know that I am in a state of satisfaction that is unfamiliar to me. Is it caused because of your intelligence? Or are you a maniac that just so happens to have entered my local existence at the same time I entered a new state of satisfaction? Both? Maybe I was always going to end up satisfied at this point. Maybe I was always satisfied and it was only in my subconscious. These are all examples of the uncertain thoughts that rule my consciousness, even if they are representative of only an infinitesimally small slice of the thought-pie. None of that matters to the purpose of my comment, however. I am commenting to say ‘thank you’ in the only way I ever could, by not saying it at all. Decipher the text as you will.

    • Anonymous / Mar 10 2016 7:31 pm

      You could have just written “Thank you for existing.”

  12. Jim Jones / Dec 3 2015 9:33 pm

    You seem to enjoy pointing out fallacies. Be careful not to commit the fallacy fallacy.

  13. Zider / Oct 10 2015 6:14 am

    – God does not exist

    Not an atheist argument.

    – God is unlikely to exist

    Not an atheist argument.

    You’re thinking of antitheists. Please don’t put them in the same category.

    • Steph / Sep 27 2016 2:25 pm

      Semantics is not a logical argument. Explain this…if athiests truly believe there is no God, what do they have to gain by arguing so fiercely? Isn’t that a complete waste of time and energy? The athiests I’ve encountered are vile, angry, hateful and discontent…I don’t fight so hard against those things I deem irrelevant. Do you? How does it benefit athiests, or their agenda, (and they clearly have an agenda, make no mistake) to seek out believers in order to attempt to argue in a Creator they don’t believe exists? One cannot explain faith in God, or faith in anything else for that matter, so what is an athiest trying to achieve by attacking (often personally) believers? Athiests cannot, have not, will not disprove the existence of our Creator, so what is their end game? Is it simply to dampen the spirits of those who have chosen to believe, love and serve God? How does this, in any way, benefit the life of an athiest?

      • Gay Alan Brown / Oct 12 2016 6:30 pm

        If God really does exist, why does the Catholic church (one of the most religious religions) have such a problem with paedophilia?

        Christianity exists purely because any non Jewish person cannot become Jewish. Jews do not care what Christians believe because you’re not Jewish and never can be. If there was any truth in your religion, you would all be Muslim and Judaism and Christianity would be things of the past.

        It’s a floor that all Christians refuse to accept in the basis of their religion.

  14. GOD / Jul 18 2015 12:43 pm

    damn ME
    Damn MY SON

    WHY ‘ I CREATED YOU ?? WHY ‘ I made ​​that mistake ? WHY ‘ I SOILED THE WORLD OF YOUR PRESENCE ?

    ah but I do not exist , who the hell is doing this ?

  15. GOD / Jul 18 2015 12:40 pm


  16. GOD / Jul 18 2015 12:39 pm

    no matter how stupid and devoid of logic is what you write , so your mental incapacity ( or maybe your psychotic hallucinations ) will lead you to believe that what you write is correct ( or that it makes logical sense ) even if it does not. In practice you have created a debate in which you are a participant , but you ‘re also self- proclaimed judge , the only one able to decide who writes a correct thing … it is clear that there is already a conflict of interest , but beyond that, unfortunately , the judge in question is a person with emotional problems / mental that is not only able to argue logically , but when a person says that the sky is green gives him reason , and gives a wrong one that says the sky is blue XD

    • That Dude / Sep 9 2016 5:06 pm

      Hey another Baseless comment using personal attacks as he was talking about. Also itsnobody never blocks comments as he believes everyone has the freedom to speak no matter how stupid they are to him.

    • Steph / Sep 27 2016 2:35 pm

      You do understand, surely, that you haven’t broken his argument nor have you even attempted to argue your own ideas? You’ve used the weakest trick in the book, you’ve resorted to personal attacks, name-calling and you’ve used bully tactics. It’s easy and it’s weak but it’s not a relevant response and no one takes you seriously except your fellow “emotional thinkers”. Attempting to disprove an argument, or “break the argument” of the writer, takes a lot more than spewing disparaging, hurtful, disrespectful comments. Try to think about why you disagree with the article…how is it “wrong” in your view? Learn to use your logical brain instead of attacking those with whom you disagree. You just may find that your reasons for disagreeing with many arguments are not reasonable, rational or factual. You may learn to think outside your own emotions. Dig deep.

      • Gay Alan Brown / Oct 12 2016 6:34 pm

        err itsnobody repeatedly uses the same bully tactics you accuse others of. Or did you just ignore those parts?

        The emotional thinker argument is a fallacy – its you that’s the emotional thinker by needing to believe in a God.

  17. Vercingetorige / Jul 18 2015 12:18 pm

    I hope you resolved quickly, Obsession , and your mental problems . I do not think that atheists have to prove anything , because it’s not their problem . If you have this unhealthy obsession , you should be the one to prove otherwise ( think to yourself , because anyone in their right mind would read your arguments ” smile ” ) . I really hope that the blog is a joke , otherwise I hope you realize that these obsessions and this sense of inferiority ( you are looking for anyway to mask with a fake superiority ) is a psychotic delusion , I really hope you solve your problems .

    • Steph / Sep 27 2016 2:40 pm

      You do understand, surely, that you haven’t broken his argument nor have you even attempted to argue your own ideas? You’ve used the weakest trick in the book, you’ve resorted to personal attacks, name-calling and you’ve used bully tactics. It’s easy and it’s weak but it’s not a relevant response and no one takes you seriously except your fellow “emotional thinkers”. Attempting to disprove an argument, or “break the argument” of the writer, takes a lot more than spewing disparaging, hurtful, disrespectful comments. Try to think about why you disagree with the article…how is it “wrong” in your view? Learn to use your logical brain instead of attacking those with whom you disagree. You just may find that your reasons for disagreeing with many arguments are not reasonable, rational or factual. You may learn to think outside your own emotions. Dig deep.
      Btw…you commented on his blog post. You have every right to do so, but to question his right to voice his opinions/beliefs/views, makes your response hypocritical.

    • Steph / Sep 27 2016 2:44 pm

      If “this blog is a joke” and you “realized” this before you ever read the article, how is it you think your opinions are superior? The writer is “delusional” and “psychotic” for choosing to make an argument? Then what are you for clicking on the blog link, reading the article, then offering nothing of substance, no argument to defend your views/beliefs, but attempting to tear down another person because you disagree with them?

      • Gay Alan Brown / Oct 12 2016 6:37 pm

        Why did you come here?

  18. Anon / Jun 21 2015 8:25 pm

    It was then understood that the reality of human existence and of the human condition is less than one billionth of reality as we can observe it.

    But please inform us on why you think humans are so God damnn special given the vastness of the universe and and the sheer amount of biodiversity on this tiny little rock in space called Earth. Mr. Correct me because Im so fucking right and convicted in what I perceive as truth.

  19. Anon / Jun 21 2015 8:21 pm

    There was a carving in a wall in a concentration camp during WW2 it said, “If there is a god, he will have to beg for my forgiveness”

    • Alt / Jun 24 2017 2:02 pm

      As for the carving, it is another bullshit story written by dirty jews in order to keep the holohoax alive so they can continue raping humanity unimpeded.
      Same for the “lampshades and soap” lie. They were projecting. They made it up because they know they deserve to be made into lampshades and soap. They would then actually be usefull for something other than utter destruction of all good things.

  20. Anon / Jun 21 2015 8:17 pm

    You can’t get past the Epicurean dilemma. Sure the possibility of a god exists, one that is apathetic to the human condition and absent from daily interaction but you cannot assert a moral god and I’d love to see you attempt where many other minds have dedicated their entire lives trying to refute with no avail.

  21. Anonymous / May 15 2015 12:00 am


    • guest / Feb 3 2016 7:22 pm

      you’re one to talk.

  22. oogenhand / Apr 19 2015 11:38 am

    Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
    “It’s possible that the Bible contains errors and that God exists so this argument does nothing to show the non-existence or unlikelihood of God. Showing that the Bible contains errors isn’t the same as showing that God doesn’t exist. Arguing against Biblical inerrancy is different from arguing against the existence of God. Arguing that the Bible is full of errors is an argument against Biblical inerrancy, not an argument against the existence of God. The conclusion violates Ockham’s razor so this argument illogical.”

    Yes, God exists and Hell is eternal. Remember Bernstein’s Wager…

  23. Anonymous / Nov 25 2014 11:37 am

    I think this site is brilliant. Fool all the atheists who would otherwise be wasting their haven’t got a life selves in constantly infesting the blog of any article on the net which mentions faith religion or science with their cut and past bs and get them to post here instead. A breath of fresh air. More power to your elbow Sir.

  24. TheGuyLaughingAtYourPerceptualBias / Oct 31 2014 7:51 am

    I find it funny how you always dismiss atheist comments when they make personal insults and ad hominem attacks when you can’t make a single comment or post without personally attacking atheists as a group. You are a huge hypocrite and the worst part is that you’re too arrogant to even realize.

  25. Ali / Oct 20 2014 6:30 am

    Why god? Why not gods? As in plural. Older religions are in most cases polytheistic (as far as I know), what happened to that?
    For me (I’m actually agnostic), the question is not “Is god real”, but more “Is god relevant?”. If such an omnipotent phenomenon exists, wouldn’t we be irrelevant to it, like bacteria are to us?
    The thing is, you can’t know the truth. But believing an organised religion to be the absolute truth is in my eyes as close-minded as discarding it all as bs.

  26. Jason Sobieski / Sep 12 2014 9:10 pm

    There are actually many good arguments against the existence of God…but of course it depends upon your definition of God. We can easily dispense with God or gods who create logic or are alleged to be omnipotent outside of logic. We can dismiss the anthropromorphic God who designed the universe and yet is unchanging, as the very act of designing something requires a series of changes. See some of the logical contradictions here?

    So if you go to the God of the Bible, there is plenty of good arguments against that God. Again, God is alleged to be timeless, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, and yet Jesus said that only the Father knows when the return of the Son is to be. An obvious contradiction. Furthermore, whenever God is speaking to Moses or Abraham, et. al., this is clearly a contradiction as well. Speaking is something that requires change, and God is unchanging by definition, and hence doesn’t exist.

    You need to go ahead and define God before anyone can argue about it.

  27. Ryan Schick / Aug 4 2014 10:41 am

    “Knowing my beliefs to be true, flawless, faultless, and without error”
    Yeah thats what all Jehova’s witnesses, Taliban, and other brainwashed and brainwashers say.

    No proof of your god
    Hating the 31% of the world that doesn’t believe in what you do is not flawless, faultless, and without error.
    Without atheists, life would be 1901 right now.

    Your beliefs are filled with flaws, hate, and stupidity.

    • Stan, ambassador of The Way / Aug 9 2014 9:16 am

      Look at the scientific advances when Britain converted to Protestantism!
      Look at Issac Newton! The House of Wisdom!
      Science and technology do not hinge on atheism or any other belief system!

      At the core of The Way (Christianity) the is no hate because the is pure love, God is love. There are people who take the worldview of Christianity and try and shove it down peoples throats, but you need to understand that those people have missed the keystone of our faith. Love.

      I have yet to observe someone call pure love as described in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 flawed, hateful or stupid. As a true christian, I hate only sin. I do not hate the people who sin, because i was like them until God separated me from my sin and made me pure, noble and upright. This is done by love, not hate.

      Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

      God Is Love

  28. Ryan Schick / Aug 4 2014 10:32 am

    If itsnobody is this hateful towards atheists, I can’t IMAGINE what this dirthead thinks of homosexuals.

  29. Ryan Schick / Aug 4 2014 10:25 am

    Face it people, itsnobody will never learn.
    She can’t give proof of anything.
    She uses predictions and opinions to defend her side.
    She thought she was making a time machine. Seriously?
    itsnobody, can you tell us why god doesn’t need a creator, but the universe does?
    itsnobody, can you explain how people are in denial when you only have like 5 people on your side?
    atheism has brought us the modern lightbulb, found the DNA structure, modern technology, and logic.

    All gods came from the same place: in ancient times people didn’t now how things like the sun coming up happened.
    You can’t prove your specific god exists. Or any god someone has dreamed up. You are as dumb as someone who goes to scientology.
    The bible saying god is real is like the bible saying 2+2=5. It may say it, but you gotta do the math.

  30. Ryan Schick / Jul 16 2014 6:02 pm

    you think that 100% of atheist arguments are illogical, but that’s just because you don’t ive a crap about what they are trying to tell you.

  31. David Demers / Jul 15 2014 8:34 am

    What the fug? Why am I getting E-mails on this stupid article like I wrote it? What in the fug is wrong with you people?

    The dumb questions being asked, don’t think to hard about it now as it will be revealed when you die. If you’re that hard up for this dumb ass topic then kill yourself, you’ll find out faster.

    AND HEY, “itsnobody”, you pile of trash – STOP USING MY EMAIL ADDRESS AS YOUR OWN YOU SCUMBAG. I’m TIRED OF RECIEVING YOUR JUNK MAIL AND IDIOTIC FORWARDS AND BLOG RESPONSE NOTIFICATIONS ETC. ETC. “itsnobody” – kill yourself. Its a win-win scenario, you can find out if god is real or fake and I can stop getting your junk mail, juvenile forwards and auto responses from your pathetic blogs.

    Have a nice day.

    Kill yourself ‘itsnobody’ I despise you for using my email address as a junk mail dumpster.

  32. Anon / Apr 27 2014 6:42 am

    Which god are you talking about?

  33. Anonymous / Apr 1 2014 4:47 am

    I can’t think of any logical arguments FOR any kind of gods, and that is why I cannot believe in it. When I see compelling evidence of a supernatural creator-being, I will happily change my mind. But what concrete and measurable evidence is there to suggest without a doubt that there is a creator being?

    Without evidence, I don’t think there’s reason to believe in anything. Claiming something true is somewhat useless if there is not overwhelming evidence to prove the validity of the claim. But I am not atheist. I think claiming either side of the debate is a loser’s game.

    If you are a true patron of logic, you will recognize that a theory is ‘proven’ when there is overwhelming evidence to support it’s claim based on existing proof. So until a god proves that he exists, and is a god- any argument in favor of religion is equally as arbitrary as it’s atheistic counterpart.

  34. Stephanie Braddock / Feb 23 2014 1:08 pm

    Look, I’m an atheist, but I have nothing against religion or people who practice it. Do I have a problem with some of the actions performed in the NAME of religion? Yes. But that is something completely different. I have no evidence that God isn’t real, but neither does religion have any irrefutable evidence that he IS. We can neither prove his existence or disprove it, because belief in God is based on faith. While you have a right to defend religion, this blatant disrespect for atheists and their views is bigoted and, frankly, rather distressing.

    • Ryan Schick / Aug 4 2014 10:30 am

      itsnobody is scared to argue with people like you she can’t compete with.

  35. Luis / Jan 28 2014 10:24 am

    ”I just dream of a day when a natural disaster comes and completely kills every atheist off”

    Brah, natural disasters don’t work that way. Haven’t you heard? The good Lord who overlooks them allows hundreds of thousands of religious people and their children to be killed by these events. So ‘dreaming’ for a more discriminating natural disaster is definitely your best option. Unfortunately, your God seems much better at destroying the homes and communities of poor religious people who bare the brunt of the economic and social policies of religious people in office.

    How does that make you feel?

  36. Luis / Jan 24 2014 8:36 am

    ”God is something complex – This argument is simply a straw man. God has never been defined as complex except only by atheists. I don’t know why atheists constantly use this convenient straw man.”

    ”Horseshit” is the most charitable and polite way to describe this. Here, try this on for size: God is supposed by THEISTS to be capable of complex cognition and information processing. An entity that can feel emotion, think and retrieve information is, by definition, complex. Theists get around this by pretending that ‘that isn’t MY God’. When the atheist isn’t looking, it’s straight back to the God who LISTENS to my prayers, JUDGES my actions, FEELS anger or happiness towards those actions, DECIDES what my punishment or reward should be, and INTERVENES in the universe on my behalf (i.e. answering prayers). Let me know how ANY of that is conceivable with a non-complex entity. I’ll be patient. THEISTS have traditionally defined God as a being endowed with human-like attributes, and most current theistic discourse implies that God is a being endowed with consciousness and from which they draw emotional succour. One doesn’t draw emotional succour from ‘energy’ or whatever the convenient dodge happens to be. So, in fact, theists routinely and casually admit that they see God as a complex entity.

    You’re welcome.

  37. itssomebody / Jan 23 2014 12:22 am

    Quotes from @itsnobody_

    “I guess in order to solve all of these problems it’s back to working on my secretive physics model”

    “Since gravity & time seem to be the same things it would be better if we just scrapped those concepts instead went for time-force, I think.”

    “I’m going to publish my article soon in hopes that I can end racism by getting people to view atheists as subhuman beings.”

    “If I really do figure out all this stuff, is the world really ready for it or to know? I’m not sure…”

    “The secret to higher technology that would solve all world problems is understanding the wave-like nature of matter…”

    “My current problem is just solving the power consumption issue…if only I had around 1000 MW of power to experiment with…” (1.21 gigawatts!!!)

    “When I mean this technology would solve all problems, I mean literally everything, crime, negative health conditions, wars, poverty, etc…”

    “I know if I had all the power and resources I would successfully complete my machines, the main problem is the power consumption”

    “…modern science is a joke anyway.”

    “No I’m an anti-racist, New Zealanders are the lowest most racist people that exist, fuck New Zealand”

    “Hitler’s own words during the time period when the Nazis didn’t have power DEFINITELY doesn’t prove anything.”

    “If only I could figure out exactly and precisely how this works…all of my problems would be solved…so far I think like a magnetic wave..”

    “Once society accepts evolution as opposed to the creationist delusion and the brain = mind a Whites-only type of society will come back..”

    “In general, smaller-brained individuals are more aggressive, more prone to crime, and have worse memory than larger-brained individuals”

    “Support for scientific racism (accepting evolution and natural selection as fact as opposed to the creationist delusion) grows”

    “Brain size studies show that human ethnic groups have brain sizes varying from 1212 cc – 1518 cc, brain size is linked to the ethnic group”

    “If the results of my experiment turn out fascinating I might publish the results, but probably still keep the other stuff mostly secretive”

    “Should I invoke the existence of a different type of energy or modify what we call energy to have different properties? It all depends…”

    “Octopuses have been observed to use tools, build shelters, navigate through mazes, and board fishing boats to steal crabs” (evolution at work?!)

    “The neuroscientific consensus is that free-will is non-existent and humans only feel as if they’re in control but are not” (so god gave us nothing?!)

    “I’m still waiting for the materials that I ordered to arrive so that I can finally test my hypotheses out with experiments”

    “I should write an article explaining in high details how evolution supports racism since I understand it better than many Ph.D students:”

    “….although I’m certain it will occur by 2200 or earlier, if I figure out how to cure old age I might still be alive then…”

    “The only thing kind of similar to the technology I’m working on that I can think of is on that Twilight Zone episode “Valley of the Shadow”

    “Converting energy into matter (large macro objects) is easy, curing almost everything is easy, going into different timelines is easy, but..”

    “…thereby effectively curing or well-treating basically everything, there’s no pathogen that can resist this, it’s in a different timeline”

    “Using electrical equipment, certain metals and lots of power (10MW+) I should be able to construct a machine cures or well-treats all things”

    “The closer I come towards the truth the crazier things seem,just like Bohr said “Your theory is crazy, but it’s not crazy enough to be true”

    “80KW of power, some materials, and electrical equipment is what I need to build a miniature version of this machine, the best machine ever”

    “Something deep inside of me wants to create a Utopia-type world, I guess that’s what I will end up doing, hopefully…” (just without people who don’t agree with you…right?)

    Okay, that’s enough. It just goes on and on and on…

  38. Mrs. Robert - Spanish teacher / Jan 12 2014 11:48 pm

    Wow, cruddy logic from atheists here! Clearly you’d attracted the emotionally repressed f8cktards like flies to honey with your awesome layout of the facts. Kudos, itsnobody! Keep crusading. The atheists hate life and everyone who doesn’t think like them. Who is this masked intellectual who so pricks our pomposity! Class.

    • An Atheist / Jan 20 2014 1:37 am

      I will not be participating in this debate simply because no matter what I say or what you say, neither of us will be able indisputably prove the other wrong. I will, however, say this in response to a particular sentence of the comment above that I found interesting: if you were to hate a person, why shouldn’t they hate you back? I don’t have any problems with what religion another person believes as it is none of my business, but obviously you do. Wouldn’t that mean you are the one who hates everyone who doesn’t believe what you believe, not the atheist? Your logic sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

      • itsnobody / Jan 20 2014 8:06 pm

        You’re just using a straw man argument.

        I don’t hate people because of their religion or beliefs unless they are racist/Nationalist/Nazi-ish beliefs, so where did you get that idea?

        Now atheists I don’t consider to be human beings, but instead subhuman beings because of the racism/Nationalism/Nazism. I would only consider non-racist/Nazi/Nationalist atheists to be human beings (if a such thing exists) as opposed to subhuman beings.

        I just dream of a day when a natural disaster comes and completely kills every atheist off, just imagine how much racism/nationalism we could end.

        Since you are an atheist, if tomorrow a natural disaster came and killed you off, I’d be happy.

        Now since your argument was just a straw man, you misunderstood the point of the challenge, which was just for an atheist to come up with just one logical argument indicating that God is non-existent or unlikely to be existent.

        Since I’m pro-science I allow all comments and any type of criticism and scrutiny here, no one gets banned, because criticism and scrutiny is an extremely important principle in science.
        Since atheists always have been anti-science they strongly strongly discourage criticism and scrutiny of beliefs that they agree with, they would only allow criticism and scrutiny of beliefs that they personally disagree with and ban and block others since they always have been anti-science.

        Message to all atheists: Just go back to your anti-science agreeing-contest atheist forum/fan sites where you can force people to agree.

        I don’t blame you for backing out of the debate though, atheists are subhuman so they can’t stand up to me.

        After performing many experiments and thinking about things, I’m more confident than ever that eventually (if I had enough power and some electrical equipment) I would be able to experimentally prove the existence of God (both a personal and impersonal form), an afterlife, the existence of multiple timelines, the existence of heavenly and hellish worlds, time travel, instantaneous travel to any location, come up with a cure for virtually everything (including old age), convert energy into matter, demonstrate the wave-like nature of all things, and much more!

        Experimentation tells us what reality is like…of course the fools (atheists) are afraid of it

        If only I had enough power (like around 1000 MW)….right now I’m just trying to figure out more of the physics so that I wouldn’t need as much power…

        I better finish working on this physics model before the fools (atheists) take over…the fools (atheists) can continue to work on empirically untestable garbage like the String Theory…lol

        But is the world really ready for such knowledge and technology? I think not, and the government obviously would too…

        Just remember, that deep, deep inside, infinitesimal in size, lies the light of lights!

        Have a good day!

      • An Atheist / Jan 21 2014 4:26 pm

        I was responding to Mrs. Robert’s claim that atheists hate everyone that doesn’t agree with them. Not once did I discuss what groups of people you hate, unless you happen to be Mrs. Robert. I don’t understand what you’re ranting on about either as it is almost entirely un-relatable to my post. You claim you want debates yet you’d rather target my comment which not only isn’t directed at you but doesn’t offer an argument for whether or not God, or a god, exists. Why not reply to all of the actual arguments offered below instead of going on about how “anti-science” Atheists are and how they are all stupid, Nazi, racist, rapist, and immoral subhuman beings?

      • itsnobody / Jan 22 2014 10:16 pm

        If it’s not directed at me then why did you use the phrase ‘this debate’, what are you fools (atheists) afraid of?

        Well the arguments are lame and weak, I’m really waiting for atheists to come up with good stuff before I reply, which might take literally years.

    • Luis / Jan 28 2014 10:10 am

      ‘The atheists hate life’

      Pulled straight from your ass. You don’t even pretend to engage anything other than a stupid and ridiculously false straw man, ‘teacher’. Try to educate yourself before you presume to educate others, and hopefully try to see why equivocating ‘life’ with a desert god is a miserable exercise in self-loathing. All you’ve revealed (unwittingly, no doubt, but then I never credited religious fanatics with much brains) is that you hate life and need the patronage of an invisible overseer. In psychology, this sort of thing is called ‘projection’.

  39. Will / Dec 24 2013 9:10 pm

    It looks like this is an older post, but I would like to present my case in simple terms:

    From the Greek and Latin prefixes, when the letter ‘a’ is appended to the beginning of a word, it means without or not. So if theists claim to believe in god(s), then atheists would claim without belief in god(s). Moreover, atheists are not claiming there are no gods. Many atheists are open to the possibility there might be god(s), but find the evidence insufficient.

    When there is a claim to a particular subject, the logical thing to do is evaluate the claim and the negation of the claim, not the opposite to the claim. In a court of law, when there is a case of murder, the jury makes a decision of sufficient evidence to the claim guilty or not guilty. This is not whether the person is guilty or innocent, correspondingly, atheists are only stating the negation of the claim and not that there is no god. The person may be guilty, however, if there is not sufficient evidence then stating the person is guilty is unfounded. Furthermore, atheists in the recent movement do not claim there is no god, only that there is not sufficient evidence for a god, and find it highly unlikely the more research and investigation into the particular claims.

  40. Stacy Turner / Dec 19 2013 6:29 pm

    I have read your entire blog twice, and checked your sources and links. I have found over 50 uses of what are various types of doublespeak and fallacious arguments and shitty scientific method. But to make this debate more convenient to me, I will just categorize them all as Pious Fraud. That is the reason for the fallacy. Lying for the 7 1/2 pound, black as Michael Jordon, Jew Jesus was found to be a mortal sin by the Church. Have fun gnashing and the pointy bitey demons.;

    You practically moved the goalpost so fast in changing the nature of the IQ study and religious affiliation it was unreadable. But I trudged on. Read the study and leave your race facts alone. If you want to use them, put them in context.

    Of those studied those with a higher IQ declared no belief or atheism. That is it. Now if you say Blacks are less intelligent or Asian whatever, fine. Then check the percentage of religious blacks and religious Asians or Caucasians. Jews and Muslims are not a race, everyone knows this. Those that give no shits about offending feels when presenting fact, anyway. Yo, thinking is hard.

    I have evaluated you claim and have found no evidence for God. Would you like to present another argument to me? I have mad no claim just as I will say there is no Mad Scientist controlling our thoughts and stimuli as we could be just brains in vats of his mad lab.

    I am responding to your claim that you could defeat any atheist in a debate based on your superior, flawless logic and evidence. It is bent, flawed and a textbook example over and over of doublespeak and Pious Fraud. You proved nothing, and you should start fresh with me now. Being a generous and kind man with superior modern ethics, I offer you a second chance and toss down the gauntlet. If you can break away from stoning non virgin brides, avoiding delicious shrimp, lobster and bacon or beating your slaves. Lets begin. You may go first.

    Technology has slaughtered every god/goddess/supernatural in history but these last few. Soon bro, soon. I enjoy these last gasps. Sounds like, victory.

    Do you admit defeat and bow to my flawless logic and bench-press vs body weight, or must I taunt you a second time? Or shall we begin, as gentlemen of course…

    Your friend in Christ,


  41. ian / Dec 15 2013 8:24 pm

    Surely only god can know that god exists.

    If humans knew god existed they would be godlike and could not demonstrate they had faith in gods existance

  42. Anonymous / Nov 14 2013 9:46 am

    Holy confirmation bias Batman!

  43. Anonymous / Nov 14 2013 9:40 am

    You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of logic, so I will use small words… One school of thought requires a magic man to exist, the other doesn’t. Is it logical to think the woman is actually being cut in half, or is logic what shows you it’s a trick? You made your choice, I made mine.

    Keep on trolling.

    • Anonymous / Nov 14 2013 9:48 am

      atheist posters are too often just poisoning the well, straw manning , or ad hom’ing instead of actually presenting an argument . why is that ?

      • Anonymous / Nov 15 2013 2:04 am

        First of all, the burden of proof is not on atheists to “prove” anything. Religion is the organization compelling membership, donation, and loyalty. The burden of proof is on them because, often under the threat of a violently painful afterlife (not a very “logical” notion for a deity who claims to be all loving and forgiving), religion compels people to devote their time, pledge loyalty, shape their lifestyle, and donate their money. If you are going to ask for my time, loyalty, or money, I would say the burden is on you to illustrate proof of concept and return on investment.

        As for your request for a logical debate? Well there is no such thing as using logic to debate emotion. Religion requires blind faith. Otherwise known in the scientific community as confirmation bias. It doesn’t matter how much academic, historical, archeological, and scientific evidence I provide. If someone has chosen to have blind faith in their religion, the proposed logical evidence will be dismissed by ones natural defensive instincts. It’s basic psychology. Science and religion have perpetually at odds because science seeks experimental answers to questions religion wants to monopolize.

        Furthermore, I personally chose to become an atheist because my religious upbringing just never clicked with my curiosity about the natural world and universe. So I asked a lot of questions, did a lot of academic research, even took some theology classes and made an informed decision once I saw an entire timeline of the history of major religions on this planet. That is for me, not for everyone else. If I were to force my conclusion on everyone else, I would be perpetuating my beliefs in the same way religions perpetuate their agenda. And what the hell is the point of freeing myself of all that baggage if I am just going to act like a fanatic. If you ask me religion is the most personal relationship anyone can ever have because regardless of what religion you follow, at the end of the day it’s your personal interpretation and experience that shapes your vantage point and relationship with god. Don’t let someone else define that relationship for you. Believe what you want, and let others believe what they want.

      • jason roberts / Nov 16 2013 7:03 am


        -who said it was ? burden of proof is upon the claimant . even then, the burden of proof is limited in scope as it is only relevant if someone wants to hear the case for a proof of a claim .


        -absolutely, except i see no one asking any atheist for any of those things here .


        -poisoning the well fallacy


        -many believers , and probably the vast majority, have no conflict with science and religion .the same goes for atheist dogma – it is clung to for the same reasons you give, with a dose of blind faith .
        -where is the argument from an atheist world view that it is correct ? that it is logically impossible for theists/deists to be correct ?


        -these are tandem forces for the most part . sometimes they are at odds due to human subjectivity . they are not at odds to the God of nature for He has made science possible, made possible the intelligibility of the cosmos .


        -my theism would not click without this curiosity .


        -very good point . but you know very well if you spend much time online in these circles that many atheists are being very fanatical






        -in other words don’t even discourse on the subject ?

  44. Anonymous / Oct 31 2013 2:22 pm

    First of all, your claim “there is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument” is itself a logical fallacy. It’s called an improper assertion–a proposition stated as fact rather than arrived at through the process of reasoning. That being said, I see what you’re trying to say. True, an atheist can never and will never be able to disprove the existence of god beyond a reasonable doubt. Anyone who says he knows with 100% certainty that god does not exist is a liar. (The same goes for anyone certain that god exists.) It is logically impossible to prove a negative. However, the theists are the ones who have the burden of proof. It is not impossible to prove a positive. That “god exists” is not a scientific hypothesis and therefore untestable does not make it any more true! There are plenty of ridiculous, untestable claims that are completely false. Example: “Santa Claus exists” : untestable, impossible to prove or disprove, definitely false. Most atheists don’t believe in god simply because there isn’t enough evidence to support that he exists. I believe that god probably doesn’t exist because no one can convince me with a preponderance of the evidence that god probably does exist. In other words, it doesn’t matter if you can refute atheistic arguments all day because this is an exercise in futility without concrete evidence that god does, in fact, exist.

    • Anonymous / Oct 31 2013 2:35 pm

      Very well written! Itsnobody will now respond by telling you that this is typical of atheists, who are all subhuman, fools! Itsnobody will tell you all atheists are a White Supremacists, based on the fact that some KKK guy, or something, once said he was an atheist. Itsnobody will then go on a diatribe about ‘why, oh why, can’t one atheist just agree with me?!’ But, those who have get shot down regardless.

      I once believed Itsnobody was just a Christian troll, but now, I really believe he/she believes the crap!

      Oh, and so think he/she is trying to build a time machine (not kidding). He just needs to sort out the physics of it. So, there’s that….

    • jason roberts / Nov 2 2013 3:38 am

      i am a christian theist . i don’t agree with all of the blogger’s statements , but many of them are quite true . anyways i would like to address a few of your claims about positives/negatives – you can prove a negative , and it may very well be impossible to prove a positive .

      • Anonymous / Nov 2 2013 5:47 am

        For example?

  45. jonas pell / Oct 23 2013 3:28 pm

    I can fly by mental powers alone. Since you can’t disprove it, I must be correct. That is the so called logic behind all your cheap theistic atheist baiting drivel

    • jason roberts / Nov 16 2013 7:06 am

      not being able to disprove something doesn’t make it correct . that is silly .

  46. Anonymous / Oct 16 2013 4:54 pm

    ‘This is NOT a challenge for atheists who:
    – Make no claims regarding the existence or non-existence of God’

    This shows your understanding of Atheism.
    Atheists are people who DON’T believe in God! You are describing AGNOSTICS who haven’t decided which one is right

    Atheism is not a ‘denial’ or ‘rejection’ of God, we simply do not believe in him! Is that hard to understand!

    Second of all our ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’ argument is EXACTLY like belief in God. Neither one has been proven and both are just as ridiculous as the other! Say for instance I am the parent of a child and I tell them that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. If I keep indoctrinating them with that then they will believe it even though it has absolutely no proof or evidence! Ever heard of Santa Claus? You ask almost any child under the age of 7 and they will tell you that he is real!

    Third of all why does it take more faith to believe in free-will (which we actually KNOW is true) than to believe in God? When was God fact and why do you think that?

    The ‘Why does God let bad things happen’ argument is a straw-man? He kills innocent people even though he is a ‘loving’ God.

    Since when have you even listened to an atheist! This article shows you have no idea what we (atheists) actually think and talk about!

    Give me evidence – or even better PROOF – of a God and I will actually think about it instead of just deny it because it goes against what I currently think is correct.

    • Zider / Oct 10 2015 6:26 am

      2 years later and no reply for the all-knowing itsnobody, that says a lot.. 🙂

    • That Dude / Sep 10 2016 2:11 am

      Congrats you basically just gave into full detail what Non-Sequitur is. You used a premise and asserted it with something you believe equally ridiculous. If X doesn’t exist therefore y cannot exist. It as it’s stated, doesn’t follow. It doesn’t dispute the existence of God; It only shows your disbelief. Nothing more. Again this is what he meant by non-sequitur.

  47. IDisnothing / Oct 16 2013 9:59 am

    Come and debate us at FSTDT:

    …if you DARE.

    Jason Lisle pussied out of such:

    But then, to fundies, stating facts = ‘Trolling’, thus Jason Lily-livered changing his blog’s posting policy, because some wouldn’t play his ‘Circular Logic’ game according to HIS rules. Nor did he have the guts to argue the toss against we Atheists on OUR turf: Fundies Say The Darndest Things.

    I trust you do, Mr.nobody. Be seeing you (“The Prisoner”)

  48. Scarlett / Sep 29 2013 2:57 pm

    Have you considered actually trying to deliver on your claim? I saw not the first indication that you have logically proven any “illogical” atheist stance. All I saw in this post was general refutation of summary statements some atheists use as counters to typical illogical religious arguments. I do challenge you to explain vestigial biological/anatomical components of the human body.

    • Scarlett / Sep 29 2013 3:01 pm

      I should also point out that saying, “Knowing my beliefs to be true, flawless, faultless, and without error I encourage people to question, criticize, scrutinize things so that they can see that I am correct,” is actually sinful according to the Bible. Pride and all that…

      • Anonymous / Oct 31 2013 2:40 pm

        Love it! Sadly, no response.

  49. itwillsetyoufree / Sep 20 2013 3:40 am

    itsnobody- i think you should explain to them some simple things:
    1. The Bible is presented as an attempt from God to comunicate with us. Makes sense since we can’t see him and He can see us. it’s called a revelation..

    2. The bible HAS some violence in it that people in their HUMAN wisdom may not like (even though those that died generally were very bad people (hebrews or non jews)’ and it’s not a story made to please. It shows it ‘s genuiness (one more proof are the genealogies and multitudes of details which you would not include in a made up story ). God himself tells US that we should decide whether he is a GOD OF LOVE or an EVIL god.(not both). So it’s not because one disagree with the bible or GOD commends to kill babies (always read a text in its context) that it’s an argument for him (IT)not to exist
    3. iF one reads the bible, they will notice that the people of ISRAEL are an anomaly. they were less numerous than most nations around them, unwanted, hated and survived pretty well. WHY ? GOd himself gives the reason why. HE gave some LAWS and statutes , that is to say the basics of modern science. Look at the leveticus., implicitly one will find many laws incoded in the ceremonial laws ex: the basic rules of hygiene , quarantains in the case of diseases, diagnostics about plagues and leprosy, what food is proper and improper to eat, not to touch the dead corps (fairly recent discovery)not to mention the TEN COMANDMENTS which deals with the moral laws etc….
    another things that ones has to read for self. Oh and people stop saying that every religious people thought that the earth was flat back then. it was only in the dark ages and in europe. (kind David speaks about the earh being a circle)

    4. last but not least GOD in the bible gives a challenge to ANYONE AND any gods. He said basically the one that is GOD is welcome to predictsomething BUT if he is god, IT MUST HAPPEN just like state (not half , partly, alegorically etc..). Therefore the existence of God is a matter of faith but not entirely. He gave PROPHECIES (clear ones not as nostradamus that can be interpreted as one think it ought to be) but he basically prophecied about what would happen in the future (an attribute that only God can have) i call it “proof” . One has to look at how many prophecies foretoled the birth and life of Christ to realize that it’s mind buggling how they came to fulfilment at the exact date predicted. One PROPHECY that REALLY needs to be looked at is the prophecy of DANIEL THAT FORETOLD ACCURATLY the sucessive most important kingdoms to rule over the earth after BABYLON. DANIEL spoked about alexander the great (the king of grecia) the medo percians and the roman empire and more…. (needs study and explaining). If something happens over and over again. Just like predicted and thousand of years later, at the right time and place, what would you conclude? There is a pattern I can trust . the bible is pretty logical and amazing (not to an unacostumed mind and to a superficial reader though)

    • FlipC / Sep 20 2013 5:01 am

      1. So God’s attempt to communicate with us was imperfect, why?
      2. a) Excellent definition of “bad people” – those of a different religion or tribe; allows one to literally get away with murder
      b) Violence and genealogies show “genuineness” ;therefore the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy is a genuine historical document?
      c) God asks us to kill infants and then asks us to decide whether he’s a God of love or evil; sorry is this a trick question?
      3) They codified experiences that led to depth and imbued them with religious meaning so they would be unquestioningly obeyed. In a different age John Snow may well have done the same with cholera.
      4) a) Which spouses that there are other gods
      b) Prophecies of Christ where the events were retrofitted to match
      c) I don’t recall the kingdom of heaven occurring in 164AD as determined by Daniel’s prophecy, nor mention of the English empire?

    • Anonymous / Nov 15 2013 2:16 am

      Christ was a literally figure by several different names previous to being retrofitted into Christianity, which happened over 100 years after his supposed death and resurrection. So it was in no was a prophecy. It was just the gradual accumulation of oral traditions just like all other major religions.

      Also it’s not too wise to include the law of Leviticus as proof of gods infallibility considering there is a verse describing not only how god approves of slavery, but also how as long as your slave can stand the next day, your beating of them is not a sin…. Sounds like a good guy.

      • Anonymous / Nov 15 2013 2:17 am


  50. Anonymous / Aug 3 2013 7:47 am
  51. Anonymous / Jul 20 2013 7:46 am

    To those of you taking this blog seriously, you must have a really low estimation of theists. Itsnobody describes himself thusly on his twitter:

    “I’m the expert at argumentation logic (the best of all time), interested in science, logic, reasoning, truth, and destroying arguments.”

    Do you actually think he is stupid enough to think he is the greatest expert on argumentation logic of all time when he has never shown any knowledge of predicate logic, Herbrand-Fitch proofs or set theory etc.? Read through the history of this blog, and you will see that he is only trolling. Most of you already know where to find more sophisticated versions of the arguments used here. Reading a chapter on the existence of god in an introductory philosophy book will cover all of this and more in a fair and impartial manner. Why are you wasting your time here? It is an obvious Poe.

    • Zider / Oct 10 2015 6:29 am

      There are so many people that are actually this stupid so it’s hard to tell the true trolls apart from them. Thanks for the heads up.

  52. teen theology 154 / Jul 2 2013 10:02 am

    itsnobody, your idea is correct and yes, creationism and theism are both sane and more importantly true. however the way you go about addressing the problem (atheism and people who blindly follow whoever has the “scientist” title) should not necessarily be in a provoking manner. Provocation can be effective (Jesus used it!) but in this case i don’t think it is very effective, especially to the extent you’ve used it. any way, keep up fighting for truth!

  53. Christian / Jun 20 2013 9:55 am

    1. The religion you believe in, therefore which god or gods you believe in, is directly dependent on your geographical location as well as time you exist in. (such as if you lived in the US 2000 years ago, you would know nothing of christianity, if you live X anywhere right now, it also determines your religion). That in itself, should nullify anyone’s belief in their religion, as I think it’s proof that religion is man made, hence god(s) are man made.

    2. Everything that has ever happened and everything that will (say in an hour, something will be going on, everywhere) is a DIRECT result of what has happened before it. Free will does not exist and truly is an illusion of a different form. Even if god(s) ever existed, they could not have any influence in what we do or how any particle / atoms / people / anything at all, behave. The very reason why I am writing this whole paragraph is because of everything that has happened in my life up to this point, and everything before I was even born. If you could somehow modify the behaviour of only ONE atom in the past, today’s reality would be totally different. There is only one past, and there is only one future. This holds true for the belief of one universe or infinite universes, each reality will still only have one absolute reality. If we could take a snapshot of the whole universe and able to observe all particles, and able to calculate the outcome, there would only be one outcome possible.

    Conclusion: Whether god is real or not, the one thing that is certain is that he / they are unnecessary.

    • teen theology 154 / Jul 2 2013 9:55 am

      you sir, are an idiot. ultimate truth does NOT change depending on your geographical local or time. It, because it is ultimate is independent.

      • Anonymous / Jul 2 2013 4:20 pm

        The point he is making is; if you had been born in Israel you would have been Jewish, if in India, Hindu etc. It’s is no coincidence you are obviously Christian having been bought up in a Christian household, or amongst Christian friends in a Christian country.

  54. Liam / May 4 2013 5:19 pm

    Mr. Itsnobody you just got absolutely torn to shreds by atheist comments so if you took time really read what they said with an open mind i would be suprised if you said if every argument was illogial. If you do come to saying the same thing as when you started then it shows something. You came here to just be racist against atheists themselves and to just thoroughly piss off atheists. So now tell me if your so right why have you only responded to the atheists comments that were not very strong?

    • teen theology 154 / Jul 2 2013 10:05 am

      Atheism suggests that there is evidence to disprove the existence of God. There is none.

      • Anonymous / Jul 20 2013 6:35 am

        No it does not

      • Anonyrat / Oct 16 2013 9:40 am

        Atheism only has one claim: ‘There is no evidence sufficient to make me believe that a god exists.’
        Atheism doesn’t necessarily include the claim that there is proof that a god does not exist.
        Atheism doesn’t necessarily include the claim to know that there is no possibility that a god might exist.
        Though there are atheists who will say the above, that is their own personal opinion and not part of the basic stance. The only thing all atheists have in common is that they do not -believe- in a god. They are not convinced, and have doubt. This includes ‘agnostics’ who are, in essence, atheists who aren’t ready to commit to the implications of the title.

      • Beccs / Oct 16 2013 7:19 pm

        Why are you lying?

        Atheism doesn’t make any claims against the non existence of deities. It’s a non belief in deities.

        Also, there’s absolutely NO proof your god, or any other god has or does exist.

  55. Liam / May 4 2013 4:29 pm

    Well in terms of this I really want to know why mythologies will not vanish off the face of the earth I mean we call Greek mythology because no one believes in i anymore we also find that idea ridiculous. The idea that there are multiple gods and that they are extremely flawed is not something we like to say anymore. Now To deal with what you say the only proof we have that god exists is one book written a long time ago. You got to think that they were just passed down at first through generations. So the thing with god having no cause we can turn around and throw that back in your face. Because the universe just could have happened out of luck by chance which is probably why were all here today. Now the only most people think this way is because well how shall i put this, They think were to important to be just caused by chance. Which is ridiculous because well how shall i put it we mean nothing to the way things worked. Say if all humans vanished tommorow our world would be better off and nothing would happen to how the universe functions. We also don’t try to explain things by saying oh yeah some invisible man did it. If we though that way we would have no advancements. We as atheists admit we don’t know things and we go try to explain them. Which is why most scientists are atheists themselves.

    • teen theology 154 / Jul 2 2013 10:15 am

      If you are walking in the middle of a desert and find a working supercomputer in the sand, where do you think it came from= The sand or someone who put it there?

      Some one put it there obviously! but when some people are faced with the question where did earth come from they answer differently. Well, the earth is far more complicated then a computer so….

      As well you say most scientists are atheists because you admit there’s stuff you don’t know? No, actually, whether they’ll tell you or not, they’re atheists because that’s where the dough is, feeding senseless propaganda to unintelligent people. they don’t even practice science right! In pure science you develop a hypothesis and attempt to disprove it. well these guys are developing hypotheses (so far so good) and then trying to prove it, and then developing theories to fill the holes in their ideas!

      • Anonymous / Jul 2 2013 4:24 pm

        Ridiculous analogy and statement. If I walk outside and don’t see an Elephant does that mean I should believe an elephant is there?

        As for scientists being atheist for the money! I don’t even need to comment on that.

  56. Non-Beileber / Apr 27 2013 5:05 pm

    No compelling arguments for the existence of a God: Compelling arguments as in scientific evidence for something can only exist for an empirically testable hypothesis. So this again is circular reasoning, just the same as saying “There’s no scientific evidence for something that there cannot be scientific evidence for”. If no one finds a way to test the existence of God, multiple universes, the string theory or anything else empirically untestable then scientific evidence cannot exist for it. All hypotheses and theories in modern science that have scientific evidence today were unproven and lacked evidence during the time period that they were empirically untestable.

    This is my favourite! Nothing was real, like god, until it was able to be tested – ergo, god cannot be tested so he/she/it must exist. Seriously, read that comment again. You’re saying god exists, so, the burden of proof is on you. This entire blog should be trying to convince the rational types that a higher being, who created humanity, the world and the millions of lifeforms on it, opted to pass on his/her knowledge to the Bronze Age inhabitants of the Middle East (which, if you go back and read your bible, has very little in it, which is odd for an all seeing, all knowing deity), is even required to exist.

    We are better than this. Humans can or could transcend all. We are brilliant! But, we don’t need any gods.

    • teen theology 154 / Jul 2 2013 10:17 am

      if you can’t congnito the simple evidence for God, take you sum to the bathroom.

      • Anonymous / Jul 20 2013 8:18 am

        Either fix up your Latin or never use it again please.

  57. Non-Beileber / Apr 27 2013 4:54 pm

    Why don’t you believe in all the God’s?

    • teen theology 154 / Jul 2 2013 10:17 am

      They contradict each other!!!

      • Anonymous / Jul 2 2013 4:26 pm

        Brilliant answer! They do contradict each other; that is the point!

        How do you know yours is right?!

  58. Alessio Curuizia Jr. / Jan 9 2013 12:55 pm

    I am currently in a self-discovery phase to find out if I TRULY once & for all believe in a
    higher power. I have considered myself Agnostic for about 10, For those who
    don’t know it basically means you believe most religions and religious doctrines have
    got it wrong, But still believe on the concept of a creator up above. I have never
    questioned the very existence of GOD until recently, Hence why I joined this site to get
    INTELLIGENT feedback and logical debates from BOTH sides of the fence.

    I thought y/list was VERY thought provoking. I that you for that.

    Although in my quest for a definitive answer I have read similar ones your list REALLY
    does give me something to ponder about. Again I thank you. For the record I WANT
    to still believe in GOD but NOT turn a blind eye towards LOGIC I find imperative enough
    to satisfy me their isn’t one. I’ve always been a logical thinker at heart and will use logic
    from both sides of the fence for me to make up my mind indefinably.

    • Dannaday Coats / Apr 29 2013 5:49 am

      The problem with the modern definition of ‘logic’, Alessio, is that its often influenced by someone else, who has an agenda

    • Carlos Díaz / May 29 2013 5:18 am

      I was once in your same position. I began a search much like yours and i came to truly believe in Gods existence. Not by faith, but by pure reasoning and logic, i might be wrong about it, but so far i havent come across an atheist argument that convinces me of the inexistence of God. I am a deist and as such i dont believe in any religion. I might suggest you some arguments for the existence of a prime causal for the creation, they are logical arguments, not meant to prove the existence of god but just to prove that it is within reason to believe in a creator. I recommend you to read the following (i am sorry if they are not the exact names, english is not my native language so i might get the translation a bit wrong) Kalam Argument, Desire Argument by CS Lewis, Ontological Argument by Alvin Plantinga, Vertical Cosmology, Moral Argument, Fine tunning argument, The 3 worlds of Karl Popper (wich is not a theistic argument, but rather a way to counter naturalists), among many others. I hope you find peace in whatever your conclussions are.

  59. Aita / Nov 24 2012 9:15 am

    If you cannot prove god empirically, the default status, according to logic, is disbelief (The negative statement is the default position until the positive position contains greater evidence in comparison).

    Truth (what is) is irrelevant compared to reality (what we know is). If you think truth is the argument, you get stuck at the brain-in-a-jar question and cannot progress further.

    Pro-tip: If you don’t know the basic tenets of logic, do yourself a favor and don’t try to argue them.

    • teen theology 154 / Jul 2 2013 10:21 am

      Since you can’t come up with a good argument for atheism my default status is laughing at you because there is so much proof for God and you ignore it! To quote Tom Edison “The thumb alone is reason enough for a creator”

  60. troymo / Nov 7 2012 10:03 pm
  61. bradc / Oct 24 2012 4:12 pm

    I think you are misunderstanding the point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: it is basically a modern form of Russell’s teapot, which illustrates that the person making the religious claim is the one who has the burden of proof.

    And you are correct: it is not an argument against the existence of God, per se, it is simply an illustration of how “you can’t disprove God” is a poor argument FOR God (just like you can’t absolutely disprove FSM or Russell’s teapot). It is up to the person making the claim about God to show that there is some evidence or some reason to believe (not necessarily a proof).

    So that aside, I think I can present a compelling, logical argument (not a proof) for why God is unlikely to exist. The argument is basically this:
    (1) I choose to only accept beliefs that have sufficient support or plausibility of being true.
    (2) All of the arguments/evidences for God I am aware of are either inadequate or have plausible naturalistic explanations.
    (3) Therefore, at this point, I don’t accept the existence of God.

    I suspect that most atheists subscribe to some form of this argument, there are actually very few “I am 100% convinced there is no God” atheists out there, even Richard Dawkins describes himself as a “de facto atheist” (very low probability, but short of zero) on his scale of belief. If you think that this makes me an agnostic instead of an atheist, then whatever, that’s just an argument about definitions.

    So some might quibble with (1), since it is not practical to painstakingly verify every single fact we encounter, I suspect that your real objection is probably to (2), that you have some arguments/evidences for God that you find compelling. I used to as well. I grew up as an Evangelical Christian for the first 40 years of my life, and believed that we could see evidence of God in creation, in the Bible, and in spiritual experiences. I’ve since concluded that I was mistaken.

    I’ll list some of the kinds of arguments I now reject and why in a follow-up post.

    • bradc / Oct 24 2012 5:00 pm

      Very briefly (any single one of these could probably fill an entire book), here are the kinds of arguments/evidences for God that I used to believe but have now rejected:

      * Evidence from creation (design argument):
      I was a young-earth creationist that was convinced the evidence proves we had to be supernaturally created. I realize now that I had a very poor understanding of what Evolution really claims, and now that I have learned more, I accept that the evidence shows that Evolution not only happened, but is sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth.

      * Evidence from the Bible (miracles, inspiration of scripture, fulfillment of prophecy):
      Even as a Christian, I understood that I couldn’t take spiritual claims about other religious books at face value (Book of Mormon, Koran, etc). So why did I accept similar claims about the Bible without really examining them? (Like “there is more historical evidence for Jesus than for any other person in history” or “the Bible is historically and archaeologically accurate” or “the Bible contains over 2000 prophecies that have been supernaturally fulfilled, with absolutely no errors”). After detailed examination, these claims fall apart.

      * Evidence from spiritual experience (feeling the holy spirit, “relationship not religion”, answered prayer, supernatural protection and provision):
      We can have emotional, even “spiritual” reactions to lots of things (music, a pretty sunset, your child’s birth), but there is little reason to think that this is anything more than just the way our brain works. Other religions claim spiritual experiences, too, like Mormons talking about getting a “burning in the bosom”. There are other ways to trigger these kinds of experiences (narcotics, dehydration, near-death injury, etc) that further support the idea that this is only a brain event. Answered prayer is almost certainly just Confirmation Bias and memory bias (counting the hits and ignoring the misses).

      * Argument from origins (Cosmological argument, where did the universe come from? How did life first originate on earth?):
      This is a little tougher, because the truth is that NOBODY KNOWS how exactly the universe originated or how exactly life began on earth. Even saying “it was God” isn’t really an EXPLANATION, just an attempt to provide some satisfactory answer so we don’t have to live with an unanswered question. Perhaps we won’t ever have a good explanation, but look at all the things we once explained via a supernatural cause (the sun and moon, lightning, earthquakes, disease, etc) that we now understand.

      Anyway, certainly none of these are proofs that God doesn’t exist, but to me they are satisfactory alternate explanations, and enough reason to not believe.

      • Matt / Apr 27 2013 5:12 pm

        Brilliant answer.

    • teen theology 154 / Jul 2 2013 10:23 am

      did you notice that you are saying that he’s illegitimate because he says you can’t disprove God (true) while you say he can’t disprove atheism (false)?

      • BradC / Jul 8 2013 3:51 pm

        Hmm? I was responding to his comments about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in which he is technically correct (that the FSM doesn’t make a direct argument against the existence of God), but where he misses the actual point of those analogies (that “you can’t disprove it” isn’t a good reason to believe it, either).

        It’s an argument about the burden of proof, that it’s the believer who ought to be providing reasons I should believe; it’s not up to me to “disprove God”.

        And he could (potentially) disprove atheism, if he actually provided any good reasons for me to believe that God is real.

        He hasn’t.

        I don’t.

        The remainder of my post (and the follow-up) are the reasons that *I am currently persuaded* that there is no God. If new evidence/arguments are presented, I’m willing to modify my views.

  62. Peter A. / Oct 20 2012 12:00 am

    A few points need to be highlighted here. First of all, whenever an atheist tries to lay the burden of evidence solely upon the theist by stating that he or she needs to present the evidence for the reality of god, they are only half right to do so. It is incumbent upon anyone making a claim, whether that claim is a positive one (God does exist) or a negative one (god does not exist) to present their reasons for believing whatever it may be that they believe. Atheism is NOT the default option, the option that we should all accept until something better comes along; that would be agnosticism.

    This leads on to my second point; the comparisons that are made between god and the flying spaghetti monster. People do believe in god, even if those reasons are beyond the reach of the village atheist to comprehend, because it makes sense to do so, it provides believers with a rational explanation for the existence of the reality we all share, and it provides the solution to the problem of infinite regress that one encounters when one tries to remain within the materialistic paradigm when attempting to account for creation, by presenting a solution that transcends the mundane world of causality.
    No one believes in the FSM or fairies, dragons or unicorns, because those concepts do not enhance our understanding of anything, they are not needed to account for anything (unlike God they serve no explanatory function), but most importantly of all they are purely fictional characters and everyone knows this. Too many atheists seem to believe that theists in general, but particularly Christians, believe in a literal ‘invisible sky-daddy’ – no, they don’t! It just goes to show how underdeveloped the atheistic view of god is amongst those who are old enough to know better, and therefore should know better.

    The third point needs to be this: the ‘God of the Gaps’ that so many atheists believe is the true reason for the failure of the concept of god to disappear, is almost purely imaginary. People don’t believe in god simply because it provides a temporary explanation for (fill-in-the-blank), but because it provides an explanation that is far more likely to the correct one for a number of the all-important universal issues that simply cannot be accounted for if one remains tied to the – hopelessly inadequate – naturalistic paradigm. ‘When one has eliminated the impossible as an explanation, whatever remains, however improbable, must be your answer’ as Sherlock Holmes would say (or words to that effect). A universe from literally nothing is impossible. Such an idea goes against everything we know about what we know (i.e. logic, mathematics, common sense et cetera), therefore all that is left is to believe in… something that transcends the limited and small-minded belief that the physical universe is all that there is, and all that there could possibly be.

  63. / Aug 15 2012 11:14 am

    Easy. Atheism is based on the idea that there is no evidence at all for the existence of any god. That is irrefutable. If you believe, you have to prove it. Understand? That’s unlikely, but maybe one day…

    • Peter A. / Oct 20 2012 12:11 am

      No evidence!? So are we to believe that, ‘In the beginning there was nothing – which exploded’? That truly is daft.
      The fact that the universe is at all comprehensible to us – that’s evidence.
      The fact that the only universe we know to exist contains so many precise fundamental physical constants that allow both life and intelligence to develop in the first place (i.e. ‘fine-tuning’) – that’s evidence.
      The fact that wherever information is to be found, you will also find intelligence behind the creation of that information – that’s evidence.
      The fact that nothing ever comes from nothing, combined with the fact that those who should know better (i.e. cosmologists and physicists) are now – desperately – trying to convince the rest of us that this could actually be because they have run out of ideas, and the only other plausible concept on offer – God – is unacceptable to them. This is also evidence.

      Want any more evidence?

  64. sugarcanegray / Jul 27 2012 9:53 am

    Your responses to atheist’s arguments debunked:

    The Flying Spaghetti monster
    You’re missing the point of this argument. The concept of the FSM is patently absurd, yet has as much validity as the God hypothesis. The point is drawing an entirely fair comparison between the FSM and God, showing the God hypothesis in it’s true light.

    Argument from Free Will
    This is an interesting one, as Free Will has been asserted by the religious more than the atheists. In fact, the very notion of God’s judgment relies on the concept of Free Will, otherwise God is punishing something that isn’t to blame. I know no theists who refute free will, yet it’s a growing belief amongst atheists that free will does not exist.

    What’s even more bizarre is that the notion of free will counters God’s supposed divine foreknowledge.

    I’ve had Jehovah’s Witnesses explain to me how God gave humans free will as a means to justify punishment for non-belief.

    God is something complex
    This is odd because this is often how Christians dismiss God’s apparent apathy towards bad things happening. “God works in mysterious ways,” or my personal favourite “we cannot understand God’s plan” – both of which are essentially implying the same thing. I’ve never heard an atheist say that god is complex tho.

    If God exists then why do bad things happen?/The Earth is full of suffering
    The point of this is that if God is omnipotent, then he would surely do something about bad things happening. Seeing as he doesn’t, this can mean only one of two things – God is not omnipotent, and therefore cannot act, or God is wilfully ignoring the bad things. That argument is meant less to refute God but more to highlight that he’s either impotent or a nasty cunt.

    God violates Ockham’s razor
    This is actually true. The least assumptions is that God does not exist. For God to exist, all manner of assumptions have to be made.

    “Cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt equates to non-existence”
    Your a counter examples are crazy. Quarks can always be felt as they make up all the matter around us. Gravity existed before newtonian made his laws – things falling have been witnessed since the dawn of time. The point of this is that gravity was studied because it’s a facet of reality. The same with quarks, atoms and so forth. God is not a facet of reality. Putting God conveniently outside the realm of empirical testing does nothing to bolster your argument of the god hypothesis, only show how flawed it is.

    “God has been defined as something that cannot be ordinarily seen, heard, or felt”
    Yet the religious claim to “feel” god, “talk” to God, “see” God, receive instructions from God… We’re also told that God has had a direct effect on Earth, things like Noah’s flood, but there’s no evidence for this.

    Biblical inerrancy
    The point of this argument is to show that the sole evidence (which is actually the hypothesis, not the evidence) for the existence of God is a book full of contradictions and factual errors, which itself shows the whole God premise is equally as flawed. The Bible reflects the knowledge man had at that time, and is as flawed as he was, so how could it be the word of God? Quite simply, it’s not. Therefore the single piece of evidence has to be cast aside in the argument meaning there is simply no evidence for the existence of God.

    What Created God?
    “God is defined as causeless and requires no Creator”
    By whom? you see, this is the problem – you have defined God as causeless and requiring no creator, as this supports your God hypothesis. The argument is simply highlighting how you manage to perpetuate your belief in God by making up rules to go around it that cannot be refuted.

    No compelling arguments for the existence of a God
    See answer directly above.

    “Knowing my beliefs to be true, flawless, faultless, and without error I encourage people to question, criticize, scrutinize things so that they can see that I am correct.”
    Basically what you’re saying here is that you’re closed minded, and blinded to the possibility that you are wrong. You have to be severely blind to not see the flaws in your belief.

    “The main reason why atheists intentionally disallow free and open criticism of their arguments is specifically because they are anti-science fanatics and know that their arguments and beliefs are wrong and false, so they ban and block anyone from questioning, criticizing, or scrutinizing their arguments”
    This is the pot calling the kettle black here. Atheists love open discourse, we argue about all manner of things all the time, and we’re open to the possibility we’re wrong. You are not, as you have already claimed. Furthermore, atheism is the lack of belief in a God, and is not a belief in itself. Atheists simply lack your beliefs, so there’s nothing there to argue against.
    As for being anti-science, this is a strange one that keep on running with. Atheists are all for science, all for empirical testing and observation and experiments. You can see this is the growing percentage of atheists working in scientific fields.

    • Peter A. / Oct 20 2012 12:25 am

      ‘The concept of the FSM is patently absurd, yet has as much validity as the God hypothesis.’ – but this is just the most absurd statement that a person could make. No one believes in FSM’s because, among other reasons, they are not needed to account for anything, they are obviously fictional (and everyone knows this), they do not serve any useful function and they lack supporting evidence in their favour.
      People believe in God (or ‘god’, if you prefer) because there is evidence in support of such a notion, reality makes little or no sense if one postulates God’s non-existence, and because for any account of the creation of the cosmos to be coherent there needs to be an underlying purpose. To just say that it all happened for no reason, with no cause, by accident, against hopeless odds, from nothing, is just STUPID! Yes, I know that some (like S. Hawking) are now publishing books pushing this absurd line, but he is (it simply must be said) a lousy philosopher even if he is a fantastic physicist. People, even the best of them, get things wrong. It happens.

      • FlipC / Oct 22 2012 4:38 am

        “No one believes in FSM’s because, among other reasons, they are not needed to account for anything,” But neither is God required because despite your assurance that “because for any account of the creation of the cosmos to be coherent there needs to be an underlying purpose” and “To just say that it all happened for no reason, with no cause, by accident, against hopeless odds, from nothing, is just STUPID!” that is still simply your opinion.

        You’re making an assumption that the universe has to be coherent, and has to make sense, and has to have purpose; and that assumption is based on… because the universe has to be coherent, and has to make sense, and has to have purpose. You’re presenting a circular argument. Provide evidence that the universe *has* to be like this and that’ll be worth discussing.

      • Peter A. / Oct 22 2012 11:30 pm

        FlipC, the universe IS coherent, and it DOES make sense. If it did not, then the practice of science would be impossible because there would be no perceivable regularity to the cosmos. That is, the laws of nature would not be able to be discerned, and because of this the technology that allows me to type out a response here would not exist in the first place.

        Patterns within nature are real, they are not assumed to be. Since this is (I would have thought obviously) the case, then there needs to be an underlying design and purpose to it. How can anyone honestly believe otherwise?

        The belief that everything just popped into existence, for no reason, against overwhelming odds, by accident is, quite frankly, bizarre. It requires a huge amount of blind faith to believe it because there is not a shred of evidence to support what is, ultimately, a philosophical position rather than an objectively arrived-at, verifiable deduction.

      • FlipC / Oct 23 2012 4:31 am

        Peter – And yet as we delve ever smaller we have to start dealing with probabilities rather than absolutes which implies we are seeing patterns and coherence from essentially random or chaotic events.

        In the same I can see shapes and patterns form in the sand from tidal action. Are you saying that the rivers and oceans are aware that they are designing these patterns? If there is no intelligence behind these patterns why does there need to be intelligence behind other patterns?

      • Peter A. / Oct 23 2012 7:59 am

        FlipC – No, that’s not what I meant at all. What you are describing (the shapes and patterns in the sand) are the end result of the comprehensible, coherent and consistent laws within nature that allow us to predict certain outcomes. This is the regularity and ‘patterns’ I was speaking of.
        You do of course realise that the early scientists, such as Newton, made their discoveries and formulated their laws of nature because they believed that it was rationally ordered, and they believed this because they first believed in a God that created a universe that reflected the character of that God. In other words, if they had believed what many scientists now claim to believe (i.e. a purposeless accident) they would not have even bothered in the first place, and the ‘Age of Reason’ would have been stillborn. It was their search for meaning that motivated them to try to uncover nature’s secrets, not dogmatic nihilism.

      • sugarcanegray / Oct 23 2012 4:13 pm

        “‘The concept of the FSM is patently absurd, yet has as much validity as the God hypothesis.’ – but this is just the most absurd statement that a person could make. No one believes in FSM’s because, among other reasons, they are not needed to account for anything, they are obviously fictional (and everyone knows this), they do not serve any useful function and they lack supporting evidence in their favour.”

        But to a growing number of people, the God hypothesis is as equally absurd as the FSM. To many, myself included, God is quite obviously fictional, does not serve any useful function and has no evidence to support his existence.

        “People believe in God (or ‘god’, if you prefer) because there is evidence in support of such a notion, reality makes little or no sense if one postulates God’s non-existence, and because for any account of the creation of the cosmos to be coherent there needs to be an underlying purpose.”

        Unfortunately there is no evidence to support God. The Bible is not evidence, it’s the hypothesis. Beyond that, there’s no evidence at all. The universe’s existence cannot be taken as evidence for God either – the hypothesis got everything it claimed about it’s creation completely wrong.

        “To just say that it all happened for no reason, with no cause, by accident, against hopeless odds, from nothing, is just STUPID! ”

        But perfectly in fitting with what we understand of how the universe works. And saying it’s an accident isn’t really fitting with the ideas we have about the origins of the universe – which is, given the laws of the universe, existence was an inevitability, and not at all against hopeless odds.

        Also I think you’re guilty of giving far too much weight to what there actually is. If you look at the universe as a whole – it is a thoroughly cold and empty place, pretty unremarkable and certainly not needing any “reason” to be, consisting mostly of “nothing” (matter only making up some 0.0000000000000000000042% of the total mass….).. with that in mind, a “purpose” seems absurd.

        It’s easy for us to look around and see this amazing planet we live on and the intricate nature of life and suppose there must be a purpose, but when you look at what is outside our planet, vast and incomprehensible emptiness, suddenly the need for a reason to it all vanishes. And, given how large the universe is, the odds of life arising through perfectly natural causes is actually pretty low if not completely guaranteed.

        Going further into the odds of things happening, the odds of us having this debate on some rock spinning around the sun on the outskirts of an outer spiral arm of the milky way are incredibly high – too high to calculate. But given the size of the universe, the odds become tiny. There is simply too many chances for this kind of thing to occur.

        “Yes, I know that some (like S. Hawking) are now publishing books pushing this absurd line, but he is (it simply must be said) a lousy philosopher even if he is a fantastic physicist. People, even the best of them, get things wrong. It happens.”

        But there is evidence to support their claims. I would recommend reading some of Lawrence Krauss’s work, or catching his speeches on youtube. He explains that, with the nature of physics, something will always come from nothing.

        Here’s his lecture entitled “A Universe From Nothing”

    • FlipC / Oct 23 2012 9:24 am

      Peter – Except if someone were presented with the patterns made by the tides why shouldn’t their response be “Wow I guess that took someone a really long time to carve”? They might assume that there has to be a reason why these patterns form and intuit that there must be intelligence behind it.

      They’d be wrong.

      In the same manner you state that Newton etc. made their discoveries because they believed that it was rationally organised. That may be true, but again you’re assuming that because that’s what they believed and it bore fruit then what they believed was true. That’s like saying a sportsperson’s lucky socks are indeed lucky because they won the game while wearing them.

      • Peter A. / Oct 23 2012 10:56 am

        Oh, for God’s sake, actually READ what I write here FlipC! I’m NOT talking about ‘patterns in the sand’! Geez!
        Why do I get the feeling I’m just wasting my time here?

        I’m not, repeat NOT, ‘making an assumption about Newton’. He, among others, actually DID believe in God. The vast majority, like today, were theists. Does that surprise you?
        Why are you continually making the accusation that I am just ‘making assumptions’? Does it make it easier for you to ‘debunk’ my viewpoint when you deliberately misrepresent me?

      • Mike / Oct 23 2012 11:09 am

        Okay…is this Mitt Romney????? You waiver and change at a moments notice. Jeez…piss or get off of the pot. You have no defense to this nonsense…none!

      • Peter A. / Oct 23 2012 11:13 am

        The ‘patterns’ are the laws of nature themselves, not the apparent intelligence that may be attributed to the end result of those laws (ex. the ripples in the sand that you seem to be so fond of). See the difference?

        Of course I understand that apparent order can be perceived in that which is actually random (ex. simulacra), but that is not the issue here. The issue is how a purely random, purposeless, accidental and unintelligent universe that popped magically into existence can have any attributes that allow an intelligent and purpose-driven species (us) to appear in the first place, and how that same meaningless universe can display evidence of the consistency, coherence and order that we observe (or I should say that ‘some people observe’, since you obviously don’t know what I am talking about).

        Maybe I’m just not explaining it properly here. Oh well, I tried 😦

      • Peter A. / Oct 23 2012 11:16 am

        Waiver and change at a moments notice? Me?! No defence? Nonsense? (Oh, I see, you mean ‘FlipC’).

      • Mike / Oct 23 2012 11:19 am

        No – I mean whoever the owner is and his nonsensical attempt to debunk atheism with his superstitious claims.

      • FlipC / Oct 23 2012 12:28 pm

        Peter – read what I’ve said. Probabilistic events producing “laws” is the same as probabilistic events producing patterns. Neither requires a guiding hand, neither requires intelligence.

        Now, no doubt, you’ll argue that the events themselves are the laws except as I said they’re not absolute; so you can’t have an absolute mind in charge of them/

        Likewise so what if Newton believed in God. What I’m saying is that just because he was a success doesn’t mean he was right about everything.

        But hey you know what just for the sake of this argument I’ll agree with your supposition that having the universe appear from nothing is “stupid”. That therefore there must have been some designer. Except to suppose that designer also appeared from nothing is by your definition also stupid. So either your designer always existed in which case so could the universe (in some state); or your designer was also designed and it’s turtles all the way down.

      • Peter A. / Oct 23 2012 9:13 pm

        Sugarcanegray – ‘Unfortunately there is no evidence to support God. The Bible is not evidence, it’s the hypothesis. Beyond that, there’s no evidence at all.’

        The ‘God’ of the Bible certainly has no evidence to support it, and ‘to a growing number of people’ this version of god IS becoming increasingly irrelevant, but that’s not to say that this god is not being replaced in people’s minds by one that is a little less embarrassing to believe in. My understanding, or definition, of God is obviously very different to that of most atheists. Maybe we should just get rid of the word ‘god’ and replace it with something else; the word obviously has far too many theological baggage attached to it to be of any use anymore.

        FlipC – ‘So either your designer always existed in which case so could the universe (in some state); or your designer was also designed and it’s turtles all the way down.’

        The universe could NOT have existed for all time, because we now know that it did not, and we know the reasons why – Olbers’ Paradox and expansion, among other reasons. No one believes in Steady State anymore.
        That which is finite, contingent, and temporal cannot be explained via recourse to another of its kind that simply appears before it without the issue of infinite regress (turtles all the way down) appearing. The ‘designer always existed’, but the universe did not because it could not, and for the reasons I’ve listed here and elsewhere. One cannot make a comparison between the two, because they are not at all the same. God, for lack of a better term, is not an invisible grand-daddy sitting amongst the clouds, in spite of what the Bible may say.

        I’m sorry about losing my temper before 😦 – it usually doesn’t happen, sorry.

      • FlipC / Oct 24 2012 4:10 am

        Peter – “The universe could NOT have existed for all time” ah ambiguity my error; I’ll clarify. What I meant by the universe always existing “(in some state)” was that prior to the universe and ‘outside’ the universe may well exist a sea of unordered energy (or we could talk about branes). It is this that may well have existed for ever with the universe arising out of it spontaneously.

        To that end I still can’t see the argument for an ordered being existing for ever beyond the “because they can” declaration. Again for the sake of argument one could suppose a being arising in the same manner as our universe and indeed setting up the conditions for our universe to exist with certain parameters, but once again this proves unnecessary as the conditions that would create our being could also apply equally to our universe.

  65. ndj456 / Jul 1 2012 12:39 pm

    Sorry but you don’t actually have a theory here, your argument basically consists of “I am right because I say I am”, it is up to you to prove the existence of God, which you have failed in doing.

    Furthermore, you say that your logic is based on science, and that atheism is ignorant of science, which is ridiculously ignorant and untrue. The entire basis of atheism is proving how the world works using science, which has not yet been completed because the world is not simple enough to explain in terms of a “God”, as presence of a “God” is how people who are afraid of science explain the world.

    Finally, your “Cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt equates to non-existence” is not only not what atheists necessarily believe, but your “counterexamples” are utterly nonsensical, as they consist almost exclusively of THEORIES and PREDICTIONS that have since been essentially PROVEN to be true. Equally, presence of a God is a theory and therefore it is up to the theorists to prove this to be the reality.

    • Peter A. / Oct 20 2012 12:45 am

      ndj456, you couldn’t be more wrong. Theories and predictions can be proven wrong (i.e. falsified) but they are never ‘proven to be true’. That’s not the way it works.
      Your last comment reveals a great deal more about your mindset than you would perhaps wish, for you are basically asking for the impossible when you charge that ‘God is a theory and therefore it is up to the theorist to PROVE this to be the reality’ (emphasis added). You are setting them up to fail, because no one can do this and you know it.

      • FlipC / Oct 22 2012 4:46 am

        ndj456 did say “essentially”. That is there is such a large body of evidence that indicates that a particular hypothesis is correct to advance it to the level of a theory that barely anyone considers it to be incorrect. Should such evidence be presented it would be placed under serious scrutiny.

        Consider the ‘faster-than-light’ neutrinos that turned out not to be. Scientists pretty much ‘knew’ that something had to be wrong, but at the same time were excited in case it wasn’t. That’s how science works.

        Religions on the other hand state something as true and then shout at (or kill, or ignore) anyone who says otherwise until the only people left around them are those who agree with them.

      • Peter A. / Oct 22 2012 11:38 pm

        Yes, that is the way religions do their (dirty) work. I don’t disagree with you on that point, that’s for sure. However, one does not need to be a religious zealot in order to entertain the possibility that perhaps there is so much more to reality, and what (if anything) underlies it, than what we currently understand to be the case.

    • That Dude / Sep 10 2016 2:51 am

      Theories are empirically un-testable subjects. We cannot empirically observe Evolution. We cannot Empirically observe the Big Bang. We empirically cannot observe framework of our universe. All we can do is look at what is around and assume that is the case. Of course ‘scientific evidence’ to point in their direction is what validates Theories, however there is always the chance easily that it could get debunked later this is something modern scientists should keep in mind instead of further researching in that field still with that assertion. I’d rather have what people claim to be fact to be observable than for scientists to waste their time studying something that honestly really doesn’t matter and cannot be physically observed. But I believe this what Peter was getting when he said that Atheist are becoming scientifically ignorant or something to that nature same with itsnobody. Science is becoming less Empirical and more Theoretical. Something that lacks observable proof but has enough physical assumptions going on that make people believe it’s true.

      What itsnobody plan is that he’s hoping Science will become less Theoretical and more Empirical. And finally that Humanity will progress in Science so much that the Existence of God would be Empirically Testable. He knows God is Empirically untestable at the moment but also keeps in mind that the existence of God is very likely considering the mass amount of nature and likely-hood the Universe has given.

  66. J / Jun 23 2012 5:50 pm

    love you..

    /from sweden

  67. sugarcanegray / May 25 2012 12:03 pm

    There are still many comments here that have not been responded to by the author – interestingly enough they are the ones with the more challenging ideas and the ones that do not use ad hominem attacks and so forth. He’s cherry-picked his way though to them inflammatory comments in the same way a Christian has to cherry-pick the Bible for ideas they can sensibly hold on to.

    Yet, the author continues to update this on his home page, claiming victory somehow, lumping all atheists together as though a lack of belief in something is a unifying idea, whilst ignoring his own hypocrisy (unable to put forward a logical argument, resorting to insults etc)

    Itsnobody, there are some things you should understand if you’re the logical whizz and intelligent man you believe yourself to be.

    1. The burden of proof ALWAYS lies with those making the claim. You have yet to present any.

    2. It is impossible to disprove God’s existence because you could not draw that conclusion 100% without having looked behind every single atom in the universe. And then, people such as yourself would no doubt make claims of God living outside the universe.

    3. It is hypocritical, not to mention stereoptyping, to accuse atheist of using ad hominem attacks when you constantly do the same.

    4. Claiming victory in an argument where you have left most of the arguments unanswered is not only dishonest, but is in itself no way a victory.

    5. Claiming something exists simply because you believe it to be doesn’t make it exist – you have yet to put forward any proof whatsoever.

    There are also lots of holes in your updates in the post. Let’s look at a couple.

    “I have never directly seen, heard, or felt the presence of any God” – You haven’t directly seen, heard, or felt something that cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt? God has been defined as something that cannot be ordinarily seen, heard, or felt. This is simply a form of circular reasoning. Since God is an empirically untestable hypothesis then God cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt by definition. So this argument can be reduced to saying “I have never directly seen, heard, or felt something that cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt”.

    Unfortunately here your argument is erroneous. You mention things like Quarks and so forth and cite that as things we cannot see yet exist. That in itself is erroneous – each and every one of us is made up of them, so we can, and always have, been able to see and touch them in their massive groups which makes up the atoms which make up our bodies. Furthermore, they have obviously been seen by scientists the world over and are very well understood now. So their existence can, and has been, proven.

    “Well I don’t believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible dragon, celestial teapot, [insert something that lacks proof here]” – A common argument used by atheists. The problem with this argument is that it’s a non-sequitur. The existence or non-existence of God has nothing to do with the existence of a FSM, celestial teapot, etc…Contrary to what delusional atheists you can’t refute something by pointing out that you also don’t believe in something else that lacks proof.

    You have entirely missed the point of that argument. That argument in itself does not disprove God, but highlights the realm in which your beliefs lie. Without proof, you might as well be believing in the FSM or fairies or the invisible dragon. You claim that there are things we cannot see yet still know exist, and this to an extent is true – we cannot see Quarks with our eyes, but we can predict them mathematically, use various sensors to see them for us.

    However, there simply is no test possible for God so it’s not the same thing at all. If you can come up with a test for God, then yes that could be a starting point. But in the 2,000 odd years of belief in the God of Abraham, no one has been able to find any way to detect his existence. Put simply, God conveniently exists as a construct in your mind outside the realm of physical testability, making him impossible to detect.

    So I’ll ask again, please cite the physical proof for God’s existence, as we have managed to do for things like Quarks.

    I await your response.

    • Peter A. / Oct 20 2012 12:52 am

      ‘There are still many comments here that have not been responded to by the author’

      Well, why should he respond to commenters who obviously don’t have a clue? All of the comments posted by the atheists thus far have been asinine in the extreme. If I were the author of this article, I wouldn’t bother responding either.

  68. valarissa / May 17 2012 3:06 pm

    I’m assuming you’ve heard of the God of the Gaps, yes? It is a position that everything that e don’t understand is the providence of God. But then, as empirical evidence continues to unfold and be understood, the power and domain of that God recedes. Essentially, as we understand more, God’s power wanes.

    I’m a person that believes in a Watchmaker God, someone, or something, that came along and created this plane of existence and set the physical rules and laws that govern it. It is a convenience argument that allows me to reconcile the fact that matter, energy, anti-matter, etc. exist, and were created from an initial point of nothingness. They have no direct ability to influence our lives, no ability to intervene, and not a single care as to our well-being. For all intents and purposes, a scientist that created an experiment and is simply observing.

    But then comes the question: from whence did this being or force arise? It is JUST as logical to say that a mythical being or force arose from nothingness as it is to say that all the matter, energy, anti-matter, etc. arose from nothingness as well. It is impossible to argue that. If God can arise from nothing, so can pure energy, which can then be converted into matter and anti-matter. To create a semi-fictional being that arose from nothingness is creating a straw man to deal with the concept of SOMETHING arising out of nothing, this something, can of course be everything that exists. In a manner of speaking, you can use God as a proxy for all that exists now.

    This being said: I would ask you to explain how God came into being from nothingness, and explain how that is actually different than the current plane of existence and all the laws governing it springing into existence from nothingness. If you can do that in a logical manner, and successfully, clearly delineate the differences, then you have established a credibility of God beyond the credibility of no God.

    • Peter A. / Oct 20 2012 1:18 am

      ‘I’m assuming you’ve heard of the God of the Gaps, yes? It is a position that everything that e don’t understand is the providence of God.’ – Yes, Valarissa, we all have heard of this straw-man ‘god’, one that no serious theist or Christian actually believes in anyway.

      ‘But then, as empirical evidence continues to unfold and be understood, the power and domain of that God recedes. Essentially, as we understand more, God’s power wanes.’ – Like I said, no one actually believes in that kind of ‘god’; show me someone who does.

      ‘It is JUST as logical to say that a mythical being or force arose from nothingness as it is to say that all the matter, energy, anti-matter, etc. arose from nothingness as well. It is impossible to argue that.’ – Impossible you say, but I think that it is quite easy, so I’ll give it a shot. First of all, no one actually believes that God could ‘arise from nothingness’, for when you say something like this you reveal your appalling ignorance of the very concept of ‘God’. God, as understood by most who believe in it, is that which underlies the reality that we take for granted, for this ‘God’ is not a ‘being’, mythical or otherwise, but as some have said, ‘being itself, the underlying and transcendent potentiality behind all of creation’ or words to that effect.

      ‘To create a semi-fictional being that arose from nothingness is creating a straw man to deal with the concept of SOMETHING arising out of nothing, this something, can of course be everything that exists.’ – You’re obviously hopelessly confused. You accuse others of creating a straw-man, but you yourself do this when you invent a ‘god’ that no one actually believes in.

      ‘I would ask you to explain how God came into being from nothingness’ – Oh boy, you just don’t get it do you. Read these words very closely: God – did – NOT – come – into – being. Got it? God always was. Above and beyond time, and in that sense of the word ‘eternal’. Got it? God therefore needs NO explanation, because God IS the explanation (for everything).

      Now come on Atheists, surely there must be one of you who can argue your case better than what I have thus far seen here! Your efforts so far have been truly hopeless.

      • Anonymous / Jul 20 2013 7:07 am

        “God therefore needs NO explanation, because God IS the explanation (for everything).”

        Yes! This is a perfectly sensible proposition!

  69. leebo / Apr 29 2012 4:26 pm

    Burden of proof is on you, buddy. I lack belief in your god, just like you lack belief Zeus. You provide a good argument against Zeus and I will show you one for (insert your god here).

    • Peter A. / Oct 20 2012 1:21 am

      No buddy, the burden of evidence (NOT proof) lies with whoever makes a claim, whether atheist or theist. Zeus does not exist, we all know this. What is your point here?

  70. Starquest / Apr 11 2012 5:29 pm

    Can you prove that God exists?

    • Peter A. / Oct 20 2012 1:22 am

      Again, it’s not about proof, but evidence, and yes, I think I have done a fairly good job of that (above) even if I do say so myself 🙂

      • teen theology 154 / Jul 2 2013 10:30 am

        Look around you, God’s done a pretty good job of proving himself (if you’re not blind)

  71. Anonymous / Apr 11 2012 5:27 pm

    Can you prove God exists?

  72. Anonymous / Apr 11 2012 4:13 pm

    Well, what I might say is that “God” (coloquially known) cannot exist because omnipotence presents a contradiction in itself, omniscience requires omnipotence (if there is indeed no “supernatural”, as you posit elsewhere), and the notion that God is truly omnibenevolent is laughable, given that there is still suffering and evil in the world. That leaves omnipresence, which does not a deity make. It makes space. Beyond this, there are numerous historical and dogmatic anecdotes of God perpetrating logical contradictions. For example, God creating us because he loved us, despite the fact that we wouldn’t exist to be loved until after he created us. For this, one might counter with “God’s omniscience allows him to know all things forward and backward in time,” but this then either means that a) God is not truly omnipotent, and is deterministically bound, or that b) God actually did violate logic and causality, meaning that God acts contradictorily, and cannot exist.

    But before you respond, go ahead and sit back down. I’ll field your argument for you.


    Those unfamiliar with the all-resolving principle of TIMECUBE ought to look it up, you’ll get what I’m saying.

    Disclaimer: I don’t care that my own arguments aren’t necessarily valid. My point’s been made by others here.

  73. Rey / Apr 11 2012 4:04 pm

    Sophistry. If you define God as “something humans don’t understand,” then you’re right, no one can prove this does not exist. If you define God as “a creator who supernaturally causes things to happen in the natural universe,” then the burden of proof is on you. Offer your definition of God, or your game is meaningless.

    • teen theology 154 / Jul 2 2013 10:34 am

      I beg to differ. through a pure act of God, one science can’t explain, my friend received a new heart spontaneously and miraculously. Argue with that all you want but, I’m still right.

      • Anonymous / Jul 2 2013 3:24 pm

        Now kid, you know that didn’t happen. But I assume you have some sort of evidence? Surely this type of situation would be in a medical journal or newspaper? Point us in that direction please.

  74. Harry / Apr 11 2012 3:38 pm

    Sorry buddy, but what you fail to realize is that YOU have made the claim that a god exists, and therefore the burden of proof rests upon YOU. When you state that we need empirical evidence to disprove any gods, you are totally wrong. You must provide the evidence.

  75. theealex / Mar 21 2012 3:12 pm

    Email me – alexbotten(a)gmail(dot)com, we’d love to have you appear on the Fundamentally Flawed podcast, and we’ll happily take on your challenge!

  76. / Mar 6 2012 9:17 am

    I know that because I’m an atheist, regulars here will find some close-minded refutation to my point and laugh at the nonsensical way in which you put me down, but there is a simple problem with your entire post. The burden of proof DOES NOT fall upon atheists. I understand that you already “refuted” the invisible dragon story, the celestial teapot, and others like it as being invalid, but alas, they are not. It’s called an analogy. You may have heard of one before. As an example, you can refer to the ENTIRE Bible. Anyway, the point to these stories is that if I were to tell you that there was an invisible dragon in my garage that could not be physically detected in any way you would tell me to prove it. You would put the burden of proof upon ME, because I am the one making the ridiculous claims. By your logic, if I told you I could fly, and you looked at me and said, “Prove it,” I would look right back at your ignorant face and say “Prove I can’t.” Whereas you would proceed to push me off a building. And if I survived, I would simply say, “I chose not to fly.”

  77. itsnobody / Mar 4 2012 11:17 pm

    What a shame that I’m short on time….I would gladly destroy and ruin all the laughable responses from atheists.

    Just look at their responses it’s something like this “No it wouldn’t”, “I’ve never heard of this before”….in desperation all they can do is make baseless statements.

    I feel bad, all the atheists’ hopes have been destroyed and ruined.

    I was really expecting some type of challenge or substance from atheists, but I guess atheists are either subhuman in terms of intelligence or I guess that I’m just too much for atheists to handle.

    • Fabio García / Mar 5 2012 10:48 am

      Or maybe most atheists don’t really care that we can’t disprove God. 😉

    • Anonymous / Apr 11 2012 6:53 pm

      How convenient that you are short on time when presented with the patheticly HUGE flaws in your reasoning.

    • teen theology 154 / Jul 2 2013 10:36 am

      Correction. Truth is too much for them to handle because it makes too much sense and is too simple and coherent.

  78. Gavin Schofield / Mar 2 2012 5:32 pm

    I’m surprised. If you’re on a “higher level” and superior to atheists then how come you don’t understand the simple ‘celestial teapot’ analogy?

    • itsnobody / Mar 4 2012 11:06 pm

      I’m un-surprised that instead of giving of an explanation of how my refutation of the celestial teapot/FSM argument is flawed all atheists do is make baseless statements…how boring un-challenging

      Atheists should just stick making baseless statements like “I say you just don’t understand the argument”

      I feel bad that I don’t really try at all and destroy all the atheistic arguments with ease.

      • Mike / Mar 4 2012 11:15 pm

        Let’s just face it people…this young person is quite happy in his ignorance and will just make a mockery of anyone who tries to refute it. Be happy ignorant one. You have no idea what you are missing. You can continue loving your deity who gave you two tremendous options ONLY i.e. love and worship me…or suffer in eternal torment. Me? I pass…thank you.

      • itsnobody / Mar 4 2012 11:21 pm

        Let’s face it…atheists have failed to understand what an ad hominem is.

        They really believe that calling someone ignorant and a “young person” someone how refutes an argument.

        Well since atheists are unusually gullible people I’m sure that they’ll believe that throwing personal attacks at someone is equivalent to refuting an argument.

        Just look at how ingenious my arguments and reasoning are, then look at the atheists’ responses.

        Oh yeah, BTW pointing out a “deity who gives you 2 choices” doesn’t refute the existence of the deity, but I’m sure your dumb delusional subhuman atheists friends haven’t realized this.

      • FlipC / Mar 5 2012 4:25 am

        Because the celestial teapot argument isn’t about whether it exists or not it’s about the fact that you can’t *prove* that it doesn’t exist.

        Essentially you’re asking atheists to justify their position when they don’t have to. It’s not up to atheists to state that “God doesn’t exist” and provide evidence to back it up in the same way it’s not up to ateapots to state that “The celestial teapot doesn’t exist”. It’s up to those who believe in the existence of something to provide evidence of that existence.

        Otherwise we’re back to the basic argument of – prove that Thor doesn’t exist, or Ra, or Marduk or (taking it to a silly level) Gandalf or Harry Potter. Because if you can’t prove they don’t exist then you can’t state that.

        So it’s up to you to provide evidence that your particular God exists; not for us to disprove it.

      • Gavin Schofield / Mar 5 2012 3:04 pm

        “Pointing out that you don’t believe in something else that lacks evidence does nothing to refute the existence of God or even indicate that existence of God is unlikely, so this argument is invalid.”

        This shows that you have interpreted the analogy as an argument that God does not exist. This is the not the case – the analogy is there to illustrate that the burden of proof lies upon the person making an unfalsifiable claim.

        If this is not the case then you should be a polytheist – gods like Thor, Zeus and John Frum are (arguably) equally unfalsifiable so you should believe in them to the same extent that you believe in the Christian God. Unless you have a convincing argument as to why the Christian God is the only god.

      • Gavin Schofield / Mar 5 2012 3:15 pm

        By the way, I have read your other comments on this analogy, such as this one;

        “You have un-surprisingly failed to realize that pointing out that there’s no more reason to believe in something else refutes nothing.”

        You’re correct that it’s not proof that there are no gods. I can think of no argument that disproves the existence of God, just as I can think of no argument that disproves the existence of Allah or Ganesh. I just don’t like to put my complete faith in an idea without convincing evidence behind it, especially when so many of those ideas exist.

        I only commented because it annoys me to see you misinterpret the original analogy as an argument against god’s existence.

  79. Unamused / Feb 22 2012 12:58 am

    Is this blog satire designed to make religious people and “anti-racists” look foolish?

    Your ideas are quite silly.

    “The existence or non-existence of God has nothing to do with the existence of a FSM, celestial teapot, etc…”

    You have, not surprisingly, failed to understand the point of this argument. The argument points out that there is no more reason to believe in “God” than in any of these other (quite silly) supernatural entities.

    “Argument from free-will – Another common argument used by atheists.”

    Really? Because I’ve never heard of such an “argument.” What is it?

    “God is something complex – This argument is simply a straw man. God has never been defined as complex except only by atheists.”

    So “God,” in your mind, is very simple. And yet also super-intelligent — all-knowing, in fact. And all-powerful. But simple. An omniscient, omnipotent, very very simple being.

    … Right.

    “If God exists then why do bad things happen?”

    Well, this one actually does prove that your “God” does not exist.

    “God violates Ockham’s razor”

    Another “argument” I’ve never, ever heard or seen.

    “Ockham’s razor tells that we can only assume the very least to be true…”

    No, it doesn’t.

    “For instance prior to General Relativity Ockham’s razor would’ve told us that ‘Newtonian physics is an extremely accurate model in certain conditions’…”

    No, it wouldn’t have.

    “You haven’t directly seen, heard, or felt something that cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt?”

    So you think all the theists who claim to have seen, heard, and felt “God” are just crazy? Presumably this includes every major character in the Bible, every so-called saint, etc.

    “Showing that the Bible contains errors isn’t the same as showing that God doesn’t exist.”

    It is, if yours is the “God” of the Bible.

    “God is defined as causeless and requires no Creator.”

    Tee hee. “God is the following nonsensical definition, therefore I don’t need to think about this LA LA LA LA LA.”

    The universe is causeless and requires no creator. “God” is an elaborate fantasy to reassure us that we don’t really die.

    And so on. Childish, itsnobody.

    • itsnobody / Mar 4 2012 11:11 pm

      How boring and un-challenging again.

      “You have, not surprisingly, failed to understand the point of this argument. The argument points out that there is no more reason to believe in “God” than in any of these other (quite silly) supernatural entities”

      – You have un-surprisingly failed to realize that pointing out that there’s no more reason to believe in something else refutes nothing.

      It’s just like someone saying “In 1907 there was no more reason to believe in General Relativity than to believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster”.

      The only problem is that pointing out that “there’s no more reason to believe in X than Y” does nothing to show that the existence of X is unlikely or false.

      I wonder why atheists can’t realize this.

      Then to summarize to the rest of your responses:
      – I say this can’t be simple
      – I say this shows God doesn’t exist
      – I say X without explaining how or why
      – I’ve never heard of this argument before

      How boring and substance-less, just stick to making baseless statements in desperation. I feel bad for ruining atheists’ arguments so easily.

      • Anonymoose / Apr 11 2012 3:20 pm

        Duh hurr durr! I’m so much better and like to call people smarter than me boring! Durr hurr durr! I can analyze arguments about how supernatural entities don’t exist and that only my god is real and nothing else cuz derp, but in all seriousness there are way more atheist arguments than the jokes on religion you just, “solved.” I want to see you explain in full detail about every aspect of evolution is just false and that creationism is totally how we all came to be.. GO! DO IT NOW! lol

  80. Fabio García / Feb 21 2012 12:21 pm

    Congratulations on winning another argument. You’ve made an excellent job on building an argument that can’t be defeated. You’re basically stating, “look here, there’s this amazing little being I call God, see? It’s untouchable because I’ve defined it so, and not only there’s no evidence for its existance, but there will never be, ’cause I’ve defined it to exist outside the physical realm. Thus, there’s no way you can disprove its existence”.

    And, well, you’re right. We can’t.

    But at the same time, you’re just making the atheists’ point clearer.

    It just doesn’t make any sense to believe in God.

    You see, if God existed and was the way religion claims it to be, it would be so freaking obvious that there would be no need to argue for or against its existence. We would have prayers that worked. We would not have alarming divorce rates but everlasting happy marriages. The world would truly look like it was made for us, rather than us changing the world to our favor every time.

    But that just doesn’t happen. And it probably is because God is not the way religion tells ut it is.

    The usual religious response is “God works in mysterious ways”.

    And it does. God works the way it would work if it didn’t exist.

    Yet people insist in their baseless belief, and, much like you do, rationalize that God can’t be experienced physically, that it lies outside the natural world, that we can’t really know for sure whether God exists.

    And that’s precisely the point. If we can’t reliably know about God’s existence, does it make sense to believe in God at all?

    No, it doesn’t. And that’s the only argument for atheism that we need.

    • itssomebody / Jul 26 2012 11:34 pm

      He won’t reply to your comment because you ripped the basis of his pathetic life to shreds.

      • teen theology 154 / Jul 2 2013 10:39 am

        or because refuting a lame half argument isn’t worth the time. Just sayin

    • Anonymous / May 6 2013 11:40 pm

      Handling it like a pro.

  81. itsnobody / Feb 15 2012 10:22 pm

    I feel bad for ruining the atheists’ arguments I’ve responded to so far….I mean just read my responses then read the atheists’ responses…mine are just on a higher level.

    I hope I educated some delusional gullible atheists.

    Atheists should do what other atheists have done after facing me – give up, go home, ignore the whole situation, and pretend that it never happened.

    I’ll be back later to refute all the other atheistic arguments.

  82. itsnobody / Feb 15 2012 7:01 pm

    Man these comments from atheists are boring…I was expecting at least one atheist to seriously attempt an argument. I guess atheists are either subhuman in terms of intelligence, just joking, so gullible that they really believe the laughable weak arguments they copied from other atheists, or a combination of all of the above.

    All atheists can do is copy, they can’t independently think or reason anything at all.

    How can the atheist being foolish, say anything that is not foolish?

    These arguments are just too easy for me to entirely ruin, destroy, rip apart, and kill off, but I guess when I have more time I will refute them all just for the purpose of educating gullible atheists.

    I can’t wait to kill off every single one of these laughable atheistic arguments.

    Since I have nothing to fear I allow everyone to attack any of my positions…

    • Mike / Feb 15 2012 8:02 pm

      You are so unbelievably asinine that I am assuming you are either (1) an atheist doing some research on arguments against religion or (2) really a religious person who is just no naive and closed minded that even common sense is “foolishness”. Either way…I have wasted enough time with this child. Goodbye sonny and keep believing in your deity and putting down common sense. When you grow up, you will understand.

      • itsnobody / Feb 15 2012 8:31 pm

        lol ad hominems is your response?

        Why not post more amazing atheistic arguments that are directly copied from other atheists instead?

        I don’t blame you for becoming upset, I mean what more can atheists do when confronted with their one and only match?

    • FlipC / Feb 16 2012 4:20 am

      “All atheists can do is copy, they can’t independently think or reason anything at all.”

      Oh so funny; presumably these arguments we’re ‘copying’ were created by theists then? But hey feel free to complain that we’re using the same arguments because it’s for pretty much the same reason all wheels are round and not square or hexagonal – because they’re the best.

      Again so amusing that you whine when someone uses ad hominem attacks against you, but you see no reason not to use them yourself against we “subhuman” atheists.

      As for giving up and going home you do realise there are at least two reasons that happens

      1. There is no method of collapsing that person’s arguments; or
      2. There is no method of persuading that person that their arguments have collapsed.

      While I’m sure you consider yourself in position 1 you are in fact the person who has been clearly tagged in the game of the same name who whines and bellows “Nuh-uh you didn’t touch me!”. Do that too many times and no-one wants to play with you anymore.

  83. Mike / Feb 15 2012 6:42 pm

    Yes…I concur with your assessment. Non-believers are incredulous! Just because they do not believe in something, they tend to mock it or try to disprove it. Sheesh…what nerve they have!! Take my case – I believe in the giant spaghetti monster from outter space and people mock my religion too!! Just because they have never seen it is no reason for them to disbelieve it. The non-believers make a fool out of themselves when they laugh at me. I agree with you in that they can not disprove my deity so therefore they are either foolish or idiotic just like you say. So therefore, and using your logic, we should all believe in the giant spaghetti monster from outter space. Whew…thanks for setting people straight with your impeccable logic. Some people just don’t get it. Btw…you are welcome to come to one of our potluck dinners but do not bring any pasta.

  84. TruthOverfaith / Feb 9 2012 5:57 am

    And then Jesus came upon his disciples and said, “What’s this shit I’ve been hearing about a human sacrifice for sins!!? Who in the goddamn hell came up with that Neanderthal bullshit!!!? What are we, a bunch of fucking Cro Magnon retards!!!!?

    Blood sacrifice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Listen, you can take that pile of Stone Age donkey shit and shove it straight up your cave man asses!!!”–Jesus Christ, the lost Gospel.

  85. Anonymous / Feb 8 2012 10:05 pm

    “God cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt by definition.”
    If this statement is true, then any human could not have derived it’s nature by any means.

    If humans could not have derived it’s nature by any means, how is it possible that it’s nature has been derived and described in that way? The state of being precludes the possibility of describing that state of being.

    Following this line of reasoning, either the original statement must be false in some way, the state of being is a purely theoretical one, or anything in that state of being can’t interact in any way with anything in our state of being.

    If the first is true, the definition of god is false. If we don’t know what god is, nothing can fit that description.
    If the second is true, god as it is defined is purely theoretical.
    If the third is true, and God did exist, any actions that it “has taken” in the context of the religion that has been promoting it would be impossible, as it would conflict with it’s own definition.

    If there is no possible way that humans could ascribe the label of god to any being logically, we can’t define anything as god.

  86. Whateverman / Feb 8 2012 11:47 am

    100% of atheistic arguments are illogical.

    This statement is illogical.

    You have not seen, read or heard 100% of atheistic arguments, and as such, can not know they are all faulty.

    PS. I’m not an atheist

  87. FlipC / Feb 8 2012 4:16 am

    Just for fun and because I can’t resist:

    “God cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt by definition” Therefore all those mentioned in the Bible who directly talked to God are either mistaken or liars; coupled with the Biblical inerrancy you’ve stated is incorrect please explain without using this inaccurate and lying Bible exactly what God is and what He wants us to do.

    “Energy has no creator” Excellent; feel free to equate God to a concious-less non-complex property of the universe. I feel no need to believe in energy as experiment demonstrates its existence; on the same hand I don’t think that energy loves me and takes a special interest in what I do (or don’t do).

    ““There’s no scientific evidence for something that there cannot be scientific evidence for”” So why do you keep asking us for evidence? If you can’t have any evidence on your side and we can’t have evidence on our side then the two states are equal and the least complex explanation should be the one used. In this instance a concious and complex being versus no such being means no such being should be assumed to be the correct situation. You’re the one pushing for the least probable answer and expecting everyone else to agree with you for no adequate reason.

  88. StandardIssues / Feb 7 2012 8:34 pm

    What now atheists? All of your illogical arguments against god have now been smited.

    • Anonymous / Feb 7 2012 8:48 pm

      Yes…I believe in a god that kills babies. I believe in a god that sends bears to tear apart children. I believe in a god that creates a man…who is a god but really isn’t…but then is….sends him to take away our “sins”…and then does a grand finale of a crucifixion. I believe in the trinity where there are 3 gods we speak to…but they are really one…sort of. I believe in a god that allows his sons to have sex with earth women and to have babies as well. I believe in a god that says that we have free will and then tells us how we will die and how things will end. I believe in a perfect god who gets jealous, changes his mind, and has favorites. I can continue…and I do not believe…but some of you do believe this without question. And everything above is in YOUR bible…or did you not know that. It is a shame that we atheists have to teach you about your own bible. Wake up people. How can you possibly worship that????

  89. TheDancingGeek / Feb 6 2012 10:38 pm

    “Knowing my beliefs to be true, flawless, faultless, and without error I encourage people to question, criticize, scrutinize things so that they can see that I am correct.”

    “Since I know my statements are true I intentionally encourage criticism.”


    You think that your arguments have no faults? At all? Not a single one? Hoooooooo boy! And I thought you were just bad at arguing. You’re delusional too! What’s next, did God instill this knowledge in you?

  90. Cole m. / Feb 6 2012 7:03 pm

    For the love of science tell me this is satirical

    • Anonymous / Feb 6 2012 7:09 pm

      Not satirical….sad but true. And don’t bother to change anyone’s mind here. They are asleep and happy being so.

  91. Ric / Feb 6 2012 3:25 pm

    You are actually pretty bad when it comes to logical argumentation. For one thing, “No compelling arguments for the existence of a God” is not the same thing as “no scientific evidence for the existence of god.” I would think a logic master such as you would have clearly seen this distinction. Since you did not, the most logical inference at this point is that you are actually pretty bad at what you strangely call “argumentation logic.”

    • itsnobody / Feb 15 2012 6:33 pm

      lol…except that in my argument I defined “compelling arguments” as “scientific evidence” so no flaw occurs….maybe you atheists should try harder with your unusually weak arguments

  92. Foxblood / Feb 6 2012 12:56 pm

    Happy Trolling!

  93. peteykins / Feb 6 2012 12:25 pm

    It’s the mystery of faith: I simply don’t believe in God and see no need to force myself to.

  94. MNb / Feb 6 2012 12:17 pm

    “God is defined as causeless”
    Wrong, buddy. God is usually defined as the first cause. That’s why he is also called creator.

    “Many atheists believe that the universe is eternal and always existed.”
    Again wrong, buddy. The vast majority of atheists assumes that the universe began with the big bang.

    Anyhow, my rational argument is called Quantum Mechanics, which states that the fundamental principle of the universe is randomness. That’s not compatible with a causal god.
    My emotional argument is called the theodicy.

  95. Bryan / Feb 6 2012 10:48 am

    “Knowing my beliefs to be true, flawless, faultless, and without error I encourage people to question, criticize, scrutinize things so that they can see that I am correct.”

    Epic troll is epic? How can one seriously pretend like they are here for open and free discussion if they are that entrenched in arrogant self-assurance?

    The supposed atheist arguments listed, particularly biblical inerrancy and what created god, are actually just responses to theist arguments. The subjective experience argument can go both ways. I’ve heard some skeptics offer it as a reason not to believe, and I’ve heard it as a rebuttal to claims of subjective experiences, and the all too common argument “I know because I felt him.”

    “Bible inerrancy”. Many theists claim that the bible is the inerrant, infalliable word of god, and that every word in the bible is 100% accurate and historically true. If this were the case, the bible shouldn’t be self-contradictory according the the commonly held definition of god as being omniscient, omnipotent, eternal and unchanging. One can even use biblical self-contradiction when arguing with someone who is not a literalist just to point out the logical inconsistencies in an effort to get them to actually consider what the believe instead of blindly accepting it because it’s in the bible and they have just always been told to believe it..

    “What created god?” is a response to a common theist argument that nothing that exists can exist without beginning to exist, and anything that begins to exist must have a pre-existing creator, therefore god. In essence, this is a case of special exception.

    1) Nothing that exists can have existed without beginning to exist
    2) If something begins to exist, there must be a pre-existing creator to cause its existence
    3) God exists
    3a) Rule 1 doesn’t apply to god

    “I have never [experienced] god.” I don’t think this is a good argument against the existence of god as there are many things that I believe (though I do not assert with absolute certainty) exist that I have never personally experienced. However, it is a valid response to those who claim to have had a god experience. A very common Christian phrase is “a close, personal relationship with Christ”, yet none of them have ever been close or personal with Christ. Personally, I don’t consider a “feeling” close or personal.

    “No evidence to support existence of god”. There is also no evidence to support the existence of Carl Sagan’s “dragon in my garage”. Making unsubstantiated claims does not make it the responsibility of the skeptic to refute the claims.

  96. Anri / Feb 6 2012 9:43 am

    What definition of ‘god’ are we working from here? My prediction is that we’ll never get anything like a strict definition of that, so that’s a non-starter.

    That being said, let me clear something up for the blog owner:

    No compelling arguments for the existence of a God: Compelling arguments as in scientific evidence for something can only exist for an empirically testable hypothesis. So this again is circular reasoning, just the same as saying “There’s no scientific evidence for something that there cannot be scientific evidence for”. If no one finds a way to test the existence of God, multiple universes, the string theory or anything else empirically untestable then scientific evidence cannot exist for it. All hypotheses and theories in modern science that have scientific evidence today were unproven and lacked evidence during the time period that they were empirically untestable.

    The reason that string theory, multiple universe scenarios, etc are not widely accepted as defnintive theories is that they lack emperical evidence for them. It is correct to refuse to accept a hypothesis with no support evidence. If you later gather evidence to demonstrate the point, then you should accept it. That’s the way science works.
    If you are saying there can never be evidence for god, we are correct to refuse to accept it. If you are saying there isn’t sufficient evidence for god yet, we are still correct to refuse to accept it – yet. If you are saying there is evidence for god, present it.
    It really is just that simple.

  97. Hoops / Feb 6 2012 4:43 am

    What do you mean by “God”? It’s a very vague concept, I’m surprised that a master logician like you can claim certainty about something that’s so ill-defined as to be meaningless.

  98. zilch / Feb 6 2012 4:41 am

    Gosh, I’m all choked up- lots of good atheist action here. Nobody- I don’t know what sort of bizarre world you live in, but at least you’re stirring the soup. Kudos.

    cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch

  99. Fabio García / Feb 6 2012 2:13 am

    Occam’s razor. The god hypothesis can’t be empirically tested, so it is automatically superfluous and unnecessary.

    (Of course, the claim that there is a god can’t be proved or disproved empirically, but the related claim that a god intervenes in the physical world can be tested. It has, in fact, been tested and found incorrect: a study about the effectiveness of prayer for the ill found prayer is useless at best and detrimental at worst.)

  100. sminhinnick / Feb 6 2012 2:12 am

    itsnobody wrote: “Since God is an empirically untestable hypothesis then God cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt by definition.”

    How is that definition any different from “God does not exist”?

    • Hoops / Feb 6 2012 5:57 am

      Firstly, if “God cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt by definition[sic]” then all these Christians who claim to “know” Jesus/God, and that He is working in their lives are obviously no different to paranoid schizophrenics hearing voices in their heads, their so-called “experience” of God is just a delusion – by definition – since God is undetectable.

      Secondly, if what he actually meant was that God is not detectable at all then what exactly is it that he is claiming to be certain about? With no detectable effects, including purely subjective ones, there is no way to differentiate between any of the hundreds of versions of God. Any claims to certainty are transparently false.

  101. seungmin282 / Feb 6 2012 1:25 am

    LOL @ all these serious comments

  102. LCR / Feb 5 2012 11:29 pm

    “I challenge any atheist to propose any argument they have here so I can explain how and why it’s illogical. ”

    The request/challenge is itself illogical. Someone experienced in logic understands the issue of burden of proof. It isn’t possible to demonstrate the absence of something, only it’s existence, Ever return a library book and then have the library claim they never received it? It’s impossible to prove that you DON’T have it. There is no need to argue against the existence of something that has no evidence of it’s existence to begin with. It’s like asking us to provide an argument against the existence of Smurfs or pixies or elves. To a logical person, this shouldn’t be necessary.

    It is your burden of proof to demonstrate the validity of your claim that a god exists. We could throw a mountain of arguments your direction and regardless of your success (or lack thereof) in shooting them down, it won’t change the fact that theists have yet to demonstrate the existence of a supernatural being in the first place. Evidence, or the lack thereof, and logic are already on our side for this debate and desperately missing from yours.

    • FlipC / Feb 6 2012 5:02 am

      Or to put the argument in a way most people will argue for – You owe me $10; either prove you don’t or pay up.

      As to Smurfs; there’s more ‘evidence’ that they exist than God – books, films, toys. An archaeologist digging up that sort of stuff may well imagine a now-extinct race of little blue people. Not as if someone could just make that up now could they?

      • LCR / Feb 6 2012 9:55 am

        FlipC — Good point on the Smurfs, though I would say the evidence is the same… stories of these beings passed down for some purpose, be it entertainment or information, with no evidence that the stories themselves are factual, not fictional.

  103. Anonymous / Feb 5 2012 10:56 pm

    There is no reason to believe in anything without evidence.

  104. John / Feb 5 2012 10:09 pm

    Sorry, Mr. Logical Genius, the burden of proof lies on the ones making a positive claim. I can claim that Carl Sagan’s intangible, invisible dragon and Russell’s celestial teapot exist. So, unless you can prove they don’t, by your ‘logic’, they must, right?

  105. ben0mega / Feb 5 2012 10:07 pm

    God is unlikely to exist due to the ideas expressed in Occam’s razor. Something that is both unobservable but still exists is a complex hypothesis because God must fall inside of the set of items in reality but never form any interaction with any of them. This means that an infinite number of rules must exist for the item (God) instead of no rules needed for a non-existent item, and because the larger number of rules (the larger sequence of concurrent acts that must happen) denotes a lower probability, God is unlikely to exist.

    In layman’s terms, a coin landing on heads is more likely than a coin landing on Tails twice in a row and by this principle (a lower number of actions/rules existing), God is unlikely to exist (in comparison to just the universe, without any unobservable phenomenon).

    This, of course, does not disprove the existence of God, as it cannot be done because there is no metric to disprove an inherently unverifiable phenomenon.

    But, it does also disprove “[there] is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument,” for the preceding argument is perfectly logical. So would be the argument “I see a cat, therefore God does not exist.” The word you are looking for is not logical, but rational. Logic denotes a relationship, but not whether that relationship is externally or internally valid/consistent. Rational and useful are used to denote external and internal validity, respectfully. Furthermore, atheism, in general, is logically sound based on probabilistic theory (which is based in induction, which is based in perception). And it would be better to compare yourself to Descartes than Aristotle or William of Ockham, because he started with no assumptions and concluded the only purely logical (without need for arbitrary axiom or assumption) statement available (I doubt, therefore I am).

    If you have any question/critiques/follow-ups, reply. If not, I will hold this argument self-evident.

  106. Nova / Feb 5 2012 9:36 pm

    God is very unlikely to exist simply because the concept is very complex. There are trillions of things that might or might not exist, and the concept of God does not stand out among them as special. As for the common response to this “God is by definition simple” this is simply a logical contradiction – it doesn’t matter if God is material or “spirit” or whatever, God is by definition complex because what he is supposed to do is very complex. The common retort “God is simple, he is not a material thing so he does not have seperate parts” ignores the fact that God, as he is normally defined, is not complex because of what he is “made of” (if anything) but simply because of what he is supposed to do.

    Obviously complex things and phenomena can exist, but because any one complex thing out of the trillions that could be thought up is very unlikely to exist, we expect evidence, of which there is none for God. So God sits along with the fairys, angels, ghosts, dragons, demons, and all the things that nobody has yet imagined, as one of the trillions of things that might or might not exist.

    And your assertion that God is empirically untestable is also false, and far from being the most rational person ever as you laughably claim to be, it shows you have serious problems with rational thought. If God has affected reality in any way, then that is not off limits to empirical inquiry – if something affects us we can detect and measure it. If God has never affected reality then how is that any different from him not existing?

  107. Chris P / Feb 5 2012 9:08 pm

    You cannot even agree as to which religion is the right one. You have no right to question atheism until you can agree amongst yourselves as to which inerrant god/bible/creed is the right one.

    It’s preposterous when there are even just Catholics and Mormons. They won’t even let the people from the other religion into their churches – how daft is that.

  108. Mike / Feb 2 2012 8:33 pm

    Okay…going to give this one a shot. Probably a waste of time though. And this is coming from a former extremely devout Christian. Man and angels are different in that man is given the option to choose…freedom of will. That’s why (supposedly) things are wrong on earth i.e. man’s sins. But I am sure that we agree on having freedom of choice as a standard biblical concept. Then why is there a Revelation in the bible? It points to a clear and concise end to this world. It offers no options. We have no choice as this will happen…according to all Christians since it is in the bible (and I refer not to a simple “mistake” in text – I refer to a So…please explain what happened to our free will. Our ability to choose. We can not change what is already foretold…what is “written”. And God does not make any mistakes. Yet…since time began…it was written that we will fail. Do you not deem that a gross contradiction? Or will I get the standard “God works in mysterious ways…”?

  109. Sugarcane / Jan 24 2012 3:52 am

    I’m an atheist who is pretty certain, but not 100% of course, that God doesn’t exist. I have believed during the course of my life, but more research into what these beliefs were based on has left me a non-believer.

    All Christian faith is based on the Bible. If you research who wrote the Bible you’ll find that it was not written in it’s entirety after the life of Christ, but rather it’s a patchwork document which started life somewhere around 600BCE, and was edited and updated by subsequent authors over the following centuries. It started life as a polytheistic book, slowly turning into a monotheistic book when it was rewritten and updated after the life of Jesus.

    It’s been shown to be a completely inaccurate document when it comes to anything that’s researchable. Exodus, for example, could not have happened like we’re told – the Egyptians did not enslave an entire race to build their statues – this is what the archaeological evidence clearly shows us. Genesis, too, has been shown to be completely false, along with the age of the Earth and the order in which the world came to be. Let alone how man came to exist.

    Also the accounts in the Bible change significantly depending on the author, which of course has to make you question God’s input.

    It was also written by people who had no encounter with Jesus, so were relating stories through 2nd or 3rd person accounts. These people were also incredibly primitive – and their versions of God reflects this. The people who may have encountered Jesus were, by today’s standards, very simply people with little or no understanding of the world, so it’s no surprise supernatural claims are made.

    There are also an incredible amount of logical flaws in all religious arguments. Let’s take morals. Ask yourself the question: are morals right because they’re what God tells us, or are they moral because they’re right? The first one has to be false, because otherwise, if God decides, rape, murder and abuse could be moral behaviour, yet we know these are wrong, irrelevant of who tells us they’re right. So, it must be the second one, morals are right, irrelevant of God. In which case, why bother having God in the equation at all? He is unnecessary for morals to exist.

    It’s also worth considering religious experiences. Religious people cite an unprovable and untestable feeling that they know for 100% there’s a God. The human mind can be thoroughly deceptive, and is more than capable of fooling us into believing a God is talking to us, looking after us etc, without there actually being one. The God experience can quite easily be chalked up to a deception in the mind.

    As for your claim:

    In reality however there is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument. 100% of atheistic arguments are illogical.

    I’m afraid this is false. Needing proof isn’t so illogical. Admitting you don’t know is not illogical. Following the evidence is certainly not illogical.

    Religious beliefs, however, are nothing but illogical. When it comes to creation, the answer of God is not a logical one at all, none of the evidence bears out this hypothesis. And, for God to be the creator of anything, he has to be able to bend the laws of nature, but this has never been observed.

    What is more illogical is believing in a worldview over 2,000 years old. Religion was a way of explaining reality before science came along. Now it’s been superseded by a superior worldview – one based on observation, testing and evidence.

  110. Todd / Jan 23 2012 5:05 pm

    Can you tell me why you either ignore people’s comments or accuse them of resorting to Ad hominem? Your overuse of the word is pathetic. I surmise you believe yourself cleaver because you know the phrases definition yet if your so cleaver why can’t you answer half of the comments people leave or provide me proof god exists?

  111. Gilbert Smith / Jan 23 2012 2:32 pm

    Some of the most brilliant thinkers of all time were Christian, you know. Existentialism began with Christian monks.

    You should try it sometime. You know, critical thinking.

    The trick is that you have to put your faith on the line. If everything you think is just you trying to prove to yourself is right, you’re not a philosopher, you’e a coward. The great Christian theologists only made any breakthroughs by challenging their OWN beliefs, not everyone else’s.

  112. Gilbert Smith / Jan 23 2012 2:26 pm

    I’ll give you a logical argument against the existence of God when you give me one against the theory that you are a brain in a jar and everything you think is happening to you is an illusion created by a machine you’re plugged into.

    You can’t prove a negative. It’s a cute little riddle you’ve worked out here, but it’s not real thought.

    • Anonymous / Sep 15 2012 9:10 am

      The theory you mention about the brain in the jar was one of the meditations of Descartes, he resolved it himself, summing up the resolution as Cogito ergo sum ( I think therefore I am ). I’m against blind belief in the existence of God too, though, and agree with this hardheaded idiot itsnobody no more than you do.

  113. Drew / Jan 23 2012 1:21 pm

    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing?
    Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him God?

  114. mytreacherousfriends / Jan 23 2012 12:44 pm

    I don’t know that logic really has a place in proving or disproving the existence, or lack thereof, of a higher power. Scientific arguments cannot point one way or another the presence of an omnipotent force in our lives. Creationists claim that their god created them, and evolutionary thinkers say that we’re a result of creatures that came before us. In both of these circumstances, the theories are flawed. For instance, if we were created as human beings (homo sapiens sapiens, as we are today) then why are there so many fossil records and genealogical studies that prove that we’re a relatively new species, descended from previous forms of humanoids? The same goes for evolutionists. If humans evolved from something else, then where did those things come from? Life, as has been proven time and again, doesn’t spontaneously begin; it is a process.
    I hesitate to even use this word, but I don’t see how it is “fair” to challenge people to justify their beliefs and then tell them that they’re wrong based on the fact that you don’t think the same way. If I may be so bold, it’s a very ethnocentric claim to make. You’ve mentioned in other posts how you’ve tried to “change” atheists with little result. Did you consider that, as rude and as brazen as your accusations against atheists are, that perhaps people don’t give any weight to your complaints against atheism?
    Personally, I classify myself as an agnostic, though I would almost tend to lean towards an atheist viewpoint. It’s not that I would completely deny any possibility of a higher power, but I don’t understand how such a power could allow such suffering, ignorance and corruption to exist on a world that he/she created populated with beings that are supposedly in his/her own image. What would that say about this deity? That they are as flawed, as tragic, as malleable as a human being? That they, in truth, are only better than us because they have the cosmic power?
    My mother, however, attends church regularly, teaches Sunday school classes, and listens to and reads religious texts. I wouldn’t say she places a strong emphasis on her faith, but I understand and respect that she uses it as a way to comfort herself and find meaning in her own life. I don’t try to make her believe the things I do, and I don’t think we should all believe the same way.
    Maybe I’m not the kind of atheist you were attempting to harangue, but I think that what I’ve said needed to be put out there. I could only hope that perhaps some day you could at least tolerate the thought of someone being different from you, and accepting that difference instead of being threatened by, scared of, or angered by it.

  115. Patches / Jan 3 2012 2:07 pm

    I love how all of you folks keep on asking atheists to disprove things. How is that possible? To an extent, yeah, it kind of is. It’s like asking us to disprove unicorns, for example, which is stupid. How? They may not be on Earth for all we know, asking us to disprove something is incredibly illogical and stupid. Instead, how about that we ask YOU to prove that God and the holy spirit exists.

    Also, I just want you to know I’m using the word “we” loosely. I’m not actually atheist, simply agnostic.

    • Drew / Jan 23 2012 1:24 pm

      I have a pink and purple striped flying bunny rabbit tied up inside my tool shed. I can’t unlock the door, but trust me I have one, and he’s AWESOME!!

      What? You don’t believe me? Why would you question my belief that I have one? Prove I DON’T have a striped flying rabbit!

  116. Think about it. / Jan 2 2012 3:08 am

    Being an theist is no different than being an atheist, so no i am not going to argue that a higher influence or power does not exist i am join to argue that your almighty man in the sky/omnipotent being “God” does not exist.

    Now to start there is absolutely no mention of christianity anywhere before the first century, a fact i don’t really think needs to be cited as the religion itself claims that it arose then.

    However if we look back there are the Egyptians the Sumerians the Greeks and even more with their own gods, many thousands of years before christianity. They however bowed to as many as 29 gods, yes i said TWENTY NINE.

    This shows that long before christianity started there were other religions that if they still existed widespread today would have the same arguments as to why they are correct as you do, much like muslims argue many of the same things christens do.

    By saying this is is obvious the god as you know him is just the latest incarnation of a long string of gods.

    Now if we look at were christianity came form it is clearly obvious it came from Hellenistic Judaism, a religion that in most senses took its ideas from the Greeks and Egyptians when they went back to saying there was one god and one evil. Now from here the idea of being resurrected after 3 days and the like al come from he Egyptians, and from that they come from the Sun. Yes the winter solstice, the sun goes down for three days then come up, it dies and is reborn. Now lets think here… Jesus… What happened to him… Yes i can tell you your god is non existent, but i cannot tell you there is no god, quantum mechanics and entanglement actually point that together we all form a collective god of sorts, and experiments are proving entanglement works at a level of consciousness.

    Also as a last moot point if god is omnipotent, then why does he sentence you to eternal suffering if you commit very silly and easily doable crimes? With seven billions people it seems he is rather stupid to even care if this is all under him! And on that science proved the universe is technically infinite, therefore life is infinite, and he has an infinite about of creations, caring about Earth is quite silly actually, such a narcissistic view form us eh?

  117. Sandeep Bhalla / Jan 1 2012 9:18 am

    The whole argument about existence about God arise from the simple fact that many a time we get what we want and on occassions we are frustrated. We want to change that. There the very object of enquiry being self expansion, the result shall always revolve around object not the truth. Sorry for intrusion but comments were open.

  118. Anon / Dec 10 2011 3:19 pm

    Well, I have never directly seen, heard, or felt the presence of any God.
    I also think that the Bible is probably inaccurate, considering that it’s been rewritten and translated multiple times (that always leads to mistakes and inaccuracies).
    I also don’t see how a God could have existed since the beginning of time. I’ve heard some theists use the argument that there must be a God on the grounds that the universe couldn’t have been created without a creator, but then how did that creator get there without its own creator?
    And I haven’t yet heard any compelling arguments for the existence of a God.

    If there doesn’t seem to be any compelling arguments either way, why doesn’t everyone just assume that there is no answer and stop arguing? 😛 No matter how the universe was created, we’re all here anyway, might as well enjoy it… That’s my view on the matter, pretty much.

    • jason roberts / Dec 16 2013 2:12 pm

      you sound like a reasonable person, Anonymous . so , perhaps you might rethink a few matters ; regarding translating the bible and inaccuracies for example, it is often spoken in theological circles that the mistakes are mere matters of spelling or such, nothing that would change the meaning of the message .

      God exists outside of time , there’s no other way for Him to exist and still be God .

      Regarding compelling arguments, perhaps you have heard many compelling arguments but weren’t willing or able to accept or trust them ?

      I agree there is way too much arguing and not enough genuine investigation and civil discourse on the matter . As a christian i strive to be sincerely investigative and civil in the discussions but alas i make plenty of mistakes because i try to do it in my own strength and not let the spirit of Christ guide me . this is the hardest part , to bend the will of the flesh to the wise spirit of god .

      check out our debate groups on Facebook such as Gods Friends and Foes, Theistic and Atheistic Dialogue

  119. NotAScientist / Dec 6 2011 9:14 am

    “some how more rational or logical than”
    “such thing as a logical”
    “is no such thing as a logical”

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    • itsnobody / Dec 8 2011 4:37 pm

      Instead of giving a reason as to why I don’t supposedly know what it means you just make the baseless statement.

      What typical atheistic reasoning, here we have an argumentum ad hominem – attacking the person instead of attacking the argument.

      • Anonymous / Jan 23 2012 10:22 am

        Perhaps you would prefer if the question is presented differently:

        When you use the term *logic*, how do you define that term? (meaning: what do you understand it to mean?)

      • Anonymous / Jan 23 2012 10:25 am

        While you are at it, could you layout your evidence/argument that supports you claim that “100% of atheists are racist”?

  120. squiznit / Dec 6 2011 3:45 am

    i agree with this, that athiesm is an illogical belief system (or lack of), however, there are some people (those who haven’t given it much thought) that mean agnosticism when they say the are athiests. I am not an agnostic but would like to know your views on it?

    • itsnobody / Dec 8 2011 4:38 pm

      Yes I know there are people like that, which is why this challenge is specifically for atheists who either believe that God does not exist or that God is unlikely to exist.

      • Hoops / Feb 6 2012 6:03 am

        Shame on you! Lacking a belief in God is not at all the same as believing that God does not exist. Immediate,glaring logic fail. Back to the books for you, my friend, you’re out of your element.

      • itsnobody / Feb 15 2012 6:53 pm

        Don’t make me laugh. Well Mr.Fool can you point out where I claimed that lacking a belief in God is the same as believing that God does not exist?

        I did not, so your argument is just another laughable straw man. All I claimed was that this challenge was for the atheists who either believe that God does not exist or that God is unlikely to exist.

        It’s funny to see how atheists are so confident in their foolishness, lol.

      • / Aug 15 2012 11:17 am

        Those aren’t atheists, though. The true atheist rightly acknowledges that there isn’t any evidence to prove the existence of the god or gods of any religion. Anyone who states there is no god is as much a fool as the believer and no true atheist. Get it?

      • Zider / Oct 10 2015 6:16 am

        Those are called ANTItheists, not atheists.

Post a Comment

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: