Why Atheism is Ridiculous

Nowadays, atheists define their position as “lack of a belief in God or gods”. This definition itself is idiotic. By defining their position as lack of belief, that means that bricks, dust motes, and people in comas are atheists.

If we add a reasonable clause to this, changing it to “Atheism is lack of a belief in God or gods, in an agent that is capable of such a belief.” we end up with a psychological property. Psychological properties are uninteresting for philosophical discussion. “I lack a belief in God.” Well, we do believe in God. So what? Do you hold that lack of belief to be rationally justified?

They claim this lack of belief doesn’t have any additional impact on other beliefs.

This is false, as observing and questioning their other beliefs shows. In addition to believing that atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods, they will also believe, with high certainty:

  • That matter is all that exists
  • That theists are delusional, irrational, brainwashed or lying about their beliefs
  • Science is our most reliable way of knowing truth, because it often overturns itself
  • If God exists, human beings are intelligent, wise, and moral enough to pass judgment on God’s actions and motives
  • It is appropriate to worry about the effects of religion on people, but there’s no reason to worry about atheism
  • Morality has no objective basis and some form of preference utilitarianism is the appropriate moral framework

and many others.

It seems pretty obvious to us that these are not merely lacks of belief. They only make sense if the proposition God exists is false. Which means that lack of belief is not what they believe. Someone who believes one thing and says another is either confused or a liar.

Atheists are either confused or lying.

Materialism, the belief that material is all there is, limits what’s explainable. Theists know that everything atheists say exists actually does, as well as more, the supernatural.

For example, a materialist must say that consciousness is an emergent property of matter interactions. That it somehow, in a way we don’t understand comes from matter.

Some theists would say that the mind is related to our soul, which has other properties, and is what our essence is. Such an view allows us to tie together logic, ethics and metaphysics in a direct, useful way. It allows us to talk about human purpose, human dignity and ground these things outside of mere opinion.

Don’t you think that we all have rights that are outside of what people’s opinion is?

If you believe only material things exist, subjective morality is the only reasonable position. And if morality is merely the subjective interests of individuals, that means that might makes right.

There is no grounding for moral action, outside of Pascal’s Wager style gambits, and at that point atheism is making “faith-based” statements as much as theists are. To claim that one is rational, to believe that value exists, for example, with no “evidence” is no more rational than claiming God exists with no “evidence”.

Science is a wonderful tool for understanding the material world. But the material world isn’t all there is. We also have to determine how to act, what is the nature of being human, of human relationships, our place in the world.

Science offers no answers to these. It can’t. To call something “Science” that does offer these is misnaming at best and propaganda at worst.

Herbicide isn’t good for watering plants, science isn’t good for finding existential truths.

Atheism acts like a cult, far more than religions do. If you don’t believe us, try tweeting the following to your atheist friends on twitter:

Theism is as reasonable of a position to take as atheism.

I’m not sure if God exists, but the religious tradition has brought us science, so it can’t be all bad.

I’m not sure what God is, but theists might know. And if they do, maybe they should worship God.

Nobody believes in “sky fairies” we should stop using that insult.

 

*Update December 2016*
TJ Kirk attacks Escaping Atheism and does or advocates almost everything in this article. Andrew the Middle School Dropout must be some kind of psychic idiot savant!

 

 

  • Just stop

    Theism isn’t as reasonable as a position to take as atheism.
    Religious tradition actually forced people away from science for about 1000 years.
    Knowing about something doesn’t make it real, and it also doesn’t mean that something should be worshiped.
    The Christian god is essentially a “sky fairy” of sorts.

    Disagreeing with you on these claims is in no way proof that atheism is a cult.

    • That’s a lie you know. One frequently told by Atheists.

      Atheism is a wholly irrational position in most cases.

      • Just stop

        Where’s the lie?

        • Logorrheic

          Yeah, this guy’s an idiot.

      • France

        In what area is atheism irrational, specifically?

        • Escaping Atheism ن​

          I’d say your repeated need to redefine terms would be one point of your irrationality. The inability to believe in what cannot be seen or touched would be another. There are still others, like the need to pick fights anonymously with people over a supposed “lack of belief”. I can keep going until I’m bored. Oops, look at, that I’m bored.

          • France

            I’d say your repeated need to redefine terms would be one point of your irrationality

            I didn’t ask a question pertaining to my rationality, I’m specifically asking what area of atheism is irrational. I’m sorry you’re you’re finding this so confusing.

          • Escaping Atheism ن​

            “I didn’t ask a question pertaining to my rationality”

            I’m here to help. 🙂

          • France

            How can atheism be demonstrated to be irrational

      • France

        How is atheism irrational, specifically?

  • fuck you

    im indeed part of a cult and darwin is my messiah

  • Rachael Lefler

    So we’re in a cult and brainwashed and to prove it your’e telling people to essentially tweet statements we do not agree with in general and expect us not to say anything at all about how we disagree with those statements? Wow. Nice tactics.

    • We don’t have to prove shit to you, Rachael. All we have to do is document your beliefs, and behavior. You people are as predictable as stumps–no one is more brainwashed and indoctrinated than your average modern Atheist. Sorry, but it’s obvious to anyone who rejects your weird ideology. Just like feminism, though, you probably have to break the spell, that wall of social pressure, before you can even see it.

      Really, you guys are utterly full of shit. It’s obvious to an increasing number of people.

      Just start with the bizarre “it’s not a belief it’s lack of belief!” lie and just go from there. Seriously, all you guys do is lie about religion, and lie about others. You lie to yourself and about yourselves too. All we’re doing is pointing it out. The only ones who can convince you will be yourselves.

      • Logorrheic

        Mate, I hope to God you’re an Atheistic troll. (In case you’re too autistic to realize, “I hope to God” is a figure of speech; I do not think a sky-daddy exists.)

      • France

        Atheism is my definition a lack of belief in God. Look it up in a dictionary sometime.

      • Stefan Bjarnason

        You say that those of us who don’t buy into any of the unproven tales that surround your belief share a “weird ideology.” What you fail to understand is that atheism comes in any number of flavours. There is no atheist ideology, weird or otherwise. The only thing that atheists share is an absence of belief in any god, including yours. Notice that, whether you’re a Christian, a Buddhist, a Muslim or a follower of Hanuman the monkey god, you too are an atheist regarding every other god but the one you have for some reason chosen to buy into.

        • Escaping Atheism ن​

          LOL! Of course there is an atheist ideology. Only militant online atheists seem to think they’re unique in their thoughts. Any repeated discussions, as all of us have had, reveals a rather boring set of a standard philosophies.

          When you believe there is no God, you’re forced into many other presumptions of the world. They end either in communism/socialism or libertarianism (which is simply more practical on the economic front). If anything, true diversity of thought comes from believing or assuming there is a Creator and moving forward.

          • France

            Atheism simply describes a position on whether someone believes in God. I wasn’t aware that there necessary ideologies in the definition.

            Perhaps you could enlighten me, which ideologies are necessary in order to be an atheist?

          • Escaping Atheism ن​

            I can’t help it if you’re out your league when it comes to working through big questions.

            When you’re ready to stop playing silly word games and start thinking, I’d go with this guy: Thomas Aquinas and his Summa Theologica. It’s only 5 volume set in Latin, although he summarized it in a long book here. http://a.co/hVOaamk Extremely detailed arguments about the God question.

            Although most people start with CS Lewis and Mere Christianity because it’s much easier read. http://a.co/iCQsrbh

            Or pick practically anything from our resources page. https://escapingatheism.com/resources/

            God bless.

          • France

            You haven’t answered the question: what ideology must I have in order to be an atheist?

          • Escaping Atheism ن​

            What have you read? What have you done to answer that question for yourself other than harass strangers? I gave you a list of books/videos/articles spanning thousands of years answering your questions. You didn’t have time to even read the list before offering this robotic response, let alone what was on it. Why should I even talk to you if won’t even lift a finger towards your own education?

            Obviously, you’ve read nothing except read propaganda sites reassuring you that insane concepts are rational. You have no desire to learn more and certainly not from people whose answers have stood the test of time.

            What you want is an excuse to be an a*hole to strangers and atheism lets you do that. *shrug*

            Anyway, I’m done for this evening and with you in particular again. Read something, assuming you’re literally not a ‘bot. Good luck and God bless.

          • France

            Again, you have not answered the question. It’s a simple question. What ideology must I hold in order to be an atheist?

            If you are not capable of answering, or don’t know, or need more time to think, that’s ok. Just otherwise, answer the question.

          • Stefan Bjarnason

            Hello,

            I’m out of the office this week and won’t be back until Monday, March 27. I’ll check my email every day and will get back to you as soon as I can. Your patience is appreciated.
            Best regards,
            Stefan

          • Deanjay1961

            There are multiple atheistic ideologies, but there is no atheist ideology. There are multiple (hundreds of thousands) theistic ideologies, but there is no theist ideology. One opinion does not an ideology make.

      • CodeStation

        Max / Dean

        I’m curious, after hearing a couple of interviews with you, and listening to your voice, diction, etc… I cannot be sure that you are not the person who called the Art Bell radio show in 1997, and suspect that you are:

        Are you a parody of theists? If you are… you are a comedic genius, and I salute you.

  • Logorrheic

    You know what’s ironic? Christians are Atheists, too. Because they don’t believe in 99.99% of all other deities in any other religion. And also, Yahweh is an Atheist. So there you go.

  • Pingback: Why Atheism and TJ Kirk are ridiculous - Escaping Atheism()

  • No Name

    You make the claim that it is idiotic to define atheism simply as “a lack of belief in God or gods,” because such a definition would imply that “bricks, dust motes, and people in comas are atheists.” Bricks and dust motes, however, might be reasonably described as atheists, as in fact, they do not believe in God or gods. Your assertion that it is idiotic to define atheism in such a way holds no merit when it does nothing to refute the definition. Bricks and dust motes factually do not have belief in any god. Obviously, that is saying next to nothing, since inanimate objects do not have the ability to believe in anything in the first place. However, you have not proven that the definition is unsuitable. It’s just that you pushed the definitions to its very limits which still holds true. As for people in comas, in it is not the same, as they DO have conscious minds which are not in use. It might be debated that while a mind is unconscious, they cannot have belief, but that still does not refute the definition. I would argue against the notion that unconscious minds are necessarily atheist if those minds are in fact conscious at other times, but that’s not relevant. The gist is still that the classical definition of atheism has not been reasonably proven wrong, even though you might approach ridiculousness by attributing metaphysical stances to inanimate objects.

    Furthermore, I for one, do find that my atheism is rationally justified, and I find theism to be based on, at best, incomplete logic. For example, a popular argument a theist might use is the cosmological argument for the existence of a deity. That is, everything we can observe has a cause, and causes cannot go on into infinity since the cause for anything at all could not be explained without a first cause for the entire set of finite causes. Aquinas called that first cause God. However, an atheist CAN agree with this argument while still asserting that the logic is incomplete. There is nothing in the argument which gives any evidence to the idea that the first cause must be God rather than something else. That is, unless you define whatever at all the first cause actually was as God. If God is meant as the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Being that theists often refer to Him as, then there is no reason to assume the existence of this being from the cosmological argument. An atheist can therefore come in and shed doubt that it IS God which is the first cause rather than something else. The problem of evil is a huge barrier in the way of sound argument for such a being as well. Basically, if there is a god who is entirely good, who knows how to do everything, and CAN do everything, then why does evil exist in the universe He decided to create? He could have made it any other way. And if He is perfect, why is the universe not perfect? We might be able to formulate an argument as follows: 1) Any perfect God would be willing and able to produce a perfect universe. 2) Flaws exist within this universe. Therefore, 3) there must not be a perfect God. The counter that free will is a consideration too is only relevant 1) if there is a moral standard greater than God which dictates that free will is a good thing, and 2) if we do in fact have free will at all. Many atheists will concede that free will does exist at least in part, but determinism is a valid argument against it as well. Still, if there is a moral standard above God, then He cannot be truly able to do everything, as He cannot defy the moral law while still being all good. So, to be under the necessity of implementing free will seems to undermine his power, while creating free will despite it not being necessary clearly undermines his benevolence, as he is indirectly responsible for the existence of evil, sin, Hell, and the Devil. Any way you look at it, it is rationally justified to reject the existence of such a deity.

    No atheist who has reflected on their beliefs would ever honestly claim that the lack of belief in God does not influence other beliefs. By not believing in God, certain logical conclusions necessarily follow, such as the lack of belief in an objective purpose to life. This, of course, does not mean that an atheist cannot have purpose or happiness in life, but simply that it is decided upon by the atheist rather than the perception of a divine dictator. The lack of belief in God, however, does not automatically imply that an atheist must be a materialist, as in, they can only believe in matter. In fact, you can be an atheist and believe in things beyond matter. Although, due to the probability that an atheist’s views tend to come from their placement of reason above faith, it is unlikely (but not impossible) for an atheist to accept such things besides matter and energy. Atheists probably all do believe that theists are at least irrational, or misguided in reason, but so too do theists think that about atheists. I see no problem in rational disagreements. It happens between atheists as well. Also, there is no reason not to assume that humans are wise enough to judge God’s actions. If God exists, then He would have given us the ability to contemplate about His nature. If He didn’t want us to, then He wouldn’t have made it so that we could.

    What you say about atheists not believing in objective morality could not be any further from the truth. Most ethics philosophers, atheist or otherwise, DO believe in the existence of objective morality. This goes to show how ignorant you are about the history of moral philosophy. To say that there is no objective standard would be to agree with moral relativism. However, very few philosophers accept that theory. Atheists may be utilitarians a lot of the time, and Utilitarianism is actually an objective claim about morality following the Greatest Happiness Principle. In ALL cases, the right action is the action that promotes the greatest amount of happiness or well-being for the greatest number of people, all people being taken in equal consideration. Atheists may also follow Kant’s deontological theory of the Categorical Imperative which states that one should act on a maxim only if that maxim could be at the same time made into universal law, as well as that no persons are to be treated as mere means, but as ends in themselves. Kant explicitly stated in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals that the Categorical Imperative was suitable for atheists, and in fact, it is. It does not inherently contradict the lack of belief in God. These, along with many other moral theories, are followed by atheists as well as the religious.

    Your premises only work if God is real, which is unknown, so I cannot fathom how you are able to assert that any position which works only if God is not real is a dishonest position to take. If we have valid reasoning for our claim, and you have nothing to discredit it with, then you are nothing by a hypocrite. You go on to say that conscientiousness must come about through physical means to a materialist, which is true, but you try to discredit this with the idea that because it is unknown how exactly this happens, it must be false. That is an ad ignorantiam fallacy, otherwise known as appeal to ignorance. Our lack of understanding does not disprove that consciousness actually does derive from material interactions in the brain. And in fact, I would argue that we do have some understanding that this is the case. You can take brain cancer patients as an example. When a tumor grows in the brain, it is a common symptom for the personality of the individual to change drastically. This is a physical interaction which causes a change in consciousness. Brain injuries can also cause this to happen. When a large piece of the brain is removed through surgery, the person is permanently different. Prolonged usage of psychotropic drugs mess with consciousness as well. And dementia or Alzheimer’s. Need I go on? There is no evidence of a soul, however. Your position is lacking support.

    As I already explained, atheists do accept moral arguments validly. Where you came up with the asinine idea that materialism excludes the possibility for morality is beyond me. Science cannot explain things beyond the material world. That is true. But you have no reason to believe that there IS anything beyond the material world, and you are being dishonest if you say there is. Either that, or your logic is faulty. There may be something beyond the material world, but there is no way for anyone to know that. If science cannot go beyond the material, than neither can human reason, which is also grounded in the material world, just like science is. Science IS a form of human reason, so if human reason could reach beyond the material world, so too should science be able to.

    As a final point, the religious tradition did give us the first prototype of what we now call science. However, these were fields such as alchemy and astrology. We now know that these fields were wrong and have replaced them with chemistry and astronomy. Once we find out more about the world, we learn just how wrong we used to be. Religion is no different. It is subjected to the corrective nature of knowledge through the falsifiability of science. The authors of the Bible had nearly nothing to work with all those thousands of years ago. Of course they were always going to be found out as having been wrong in their early hypotheses.

    • Escaping Atheism ن​

      “Bricks and dust motes, however, might be reasonably described as atheists, as in fact, they do not believe in God or gods. ”

      So…you’re comparing yourself to bricks and dust motes voluntarily. Impressive.

      The only reason you can talk yourself into this ridiculous concept is a fluke of English grammar. “I don’t believe in God” sounds like a lack of belief. The actual statement is “I believe there is no God”. Most other speakers in languages are forced into the positive assertion that atheism is. The level that you’re lying to yourself about your own beliefs already speaks volumes.

      “Where you came up with the asinine idea that materialism excludes the possibility for morality is beyond me. ”

      If it’s beyond you *and *you’re thinking you’re a dust mote, you might want to re-consider your atheism. *grin* It’s pretty simple, in the end. If you’re nothing but a bag of chemicals and there’s no consequences for immoral behavior in this life or the next,we’re left with empathy as a basis of morality. Well, empathy varies wildly from person to person and even the most empathetic person can find it dries up in emotional moments. (AKA when the moment when they need it most).

      The rest of us have no reason to imagine that person who genuinely believes he’s an accident is going to have some sort of superior moral compass or empathy as compared to the rest of humanity. That you can’t even understand why other people believe in God is in fact a demonstration of your lack of empathy.

      “As a final point, the religious tradition did give us the first prototype of what we now call science. However, these were fields such as alchemy and astrology. We now know that these fields were wrong and have replaced them with chemistry and astronomy. Once we find out more about the world, we learn just how wrong we used to be. ”

      First, your history of science is simply wrong. The vast majority of science advances came under Christian religious societies. At this point in time, it’s easy to argue that our science is going downhill fast as practitioners increasingly worship science rather than practice it as an extension of their faith in God.

      Second, you have a specific framework of history that is progressive viewpoint. I’m sorry to say that Christianity and most religions actually, specifically suggests that we are no more moral, smarter, or advanced than the people who wrote the Bible. Our technology and knowledge of the material world may advance, but there’s nothing significantly different about you versus someone living in 6000BC, an assertion that evolution backs up. The people who wrote the Bible were brilliant observers of humanity and in that their work is timeless.

      • France

        No rock has ever rejected the claim “God exists”, but every atheist has. The thing about analogies, is they only work when they’re analogous

        • Escaping Atheism ن​

          In other words, atheists have a positive belief about God and the supernatural, unlike rocks. Thanks for confirming my thesis.

          • France

            Are you suggesting that by rejecting that God exists it becomes necessary to accept God doesn’t exist?

            You’ll never be able to prove this thesis, because it’s unsound and not logically consistent.

          • Escaping Atheism ن​

            I like you. You’re funny. Although it strikes me that your language skills would make it difficult to hold down a job, which is a bummer.

          • France

            Before you engage in further analysis of the God question, I’ll give you some friendly and unsolicited advice: it’s going to be very important for you going forward that you understand what a sound argument is, and basic logical principles such as why rejecting that X exists is distinct from accepting that X doesn’t exist.

            If I reject the claim that life definitely exists outside the solar system, does it follow that I am now compelled to accept that it necessarily doesn’t?

            If you can’t understand key distinctions like this your arguments simply won’t hold up to scrutiny

          • Deanjay1961

            Except for the millions of atheists who have a negative belief about God(s). Negative atheism and positive atheism, look ’em up.

      • CodeStation

        Escaping Atheism, you wrote:

        “If you’re nothing but a bag of chemicals and there’s no consequences for immoral behavior in this life or the next,we’re left with empathy as a basis of morality”

        That is a fallacy of composition.

        Your argument is essentially:
        1) We are composed of bags of chemicals
        2) Chemicals do not have morals
        3) Therefore we must not be capable of morals

        Consider:

        1) Cells are microscopic
        2) We are composed of cells
        3) Therefore we must be microscopic

        Do you see the fallacy?

        I’d add regarding morality that empathy is not the basis for a usable and objectively measurable set of moral values and duties. Valid reasoning is.

      • Deanjay1961

        The ‘ist’ in ‘atheist’ connotes a person with a position, A person with no God or gods who is aware that they have no God or gods. Many people think the base construction is a-theist, ‘not a theist’. It’s athe-ist, ‘person without gods’.

  • De Ha

    Nowadays, atheists define their position as “lack of a belief in God or gods”. This definition itself is idiotic.

    ***ME***
    *sigh*
    Here we go. Why do Theists find the word “lack” so complicated?

    ***YOU***
    By defining their position as lack of belief, that means that bricks, dust motes, and people in comas are atheists.

    ***ME***
    Yes, and?

    ***YOU***

    If we add a reasonable clause to this,

    ***ME***
    For the purpose of…?

    ***YOU***
    changing it to “Atheism is lack of a belief in God or gods, in an agent that is capable of such a belief.” we end up with a psychological property. Psychological properties are uninteresting for philosophical discussion.

    ***ME***
    Then why did you just turn something into one?

    ***YOU***
    “I lack a belief in God.” Well, we do believe in God. So what? Do you hold that lack of belief to be rationally justified?

    ***ME***
    Yes.

    ***YOU***

    They claim this lack of belief doesn’t have any additional impact on other beliefs.

    This is false, as observing and questioning their other beliefs shows.

    ***ME***
    How do you think we deconverted in the first place?

    ***YOU***
    In addition to believing that atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods,

    ***ME***
    You don’t even see how awkward that sentence was, do you?

    ***YOU***
    they will also believe, with high certainty:

    That matter is all that exists

    ***ME***
    Bullshit

    ***YOU***

    That theists are delusional, irrational, brainwashed or lying about their beliefs

    ***ME***
    Well, yeah. You are trying to tell me what I think right now. Thinking that you can argue with people about how they think means that you are either extremely stupid or extremely insane.

    ***YOU***

    Science is our most reliable way of knowing truth, because it often overturns itself

    ***ME***
    Uh huh

    ***YOU***

    If God exists, human beings are intelligent, wise, and moral enough to pass judgment on God’s actions and motives

    ***ME***
    Anyone can pass judgement on anything. My dog passes judgement on me for forgetting to feed her.

    ***YOU***

    It is appropriate to worry about the effects of religion on people, but there’s no reason to worry about atheism

    ***ME***
    I don’t even know what you’re talking about there.

    ***YOU***

    Morality has no objective basis and some form of preference utilitarianism is the appropriate moral framework

    ***ME***
    Philosophy is the subject Atheists disagree on more than anything you moron.

    ***YOU***

    and many others.

    It seems pretty obvious to us that these are not merely lacks of belief. They only make sense if the proposition God exists is false.

    ***ME***
    Several of the above, I disagreed with. Raeliens, Buddhists, conspiracy theorists etc might disagree with the ones I agreed with.

    ***YOU***
    Which means that lack of belief is not what they believe. Someone who believes one thing and says another is either confused or a liar.

    ***ME***
    No, someone who says Mars has water and believes Firefly should have lasted another season believes 2 things.

    ***YOU***

    Atheists are either confused or lying.

    Materialism, the belief that material is all there is, limits what’s explainable.

    ***ME***
    “Materialism” is a theist straw-man. It’s an exaggeration of the significance of something that isn’t even a theory and barely counts as an observation; all living things and inanimate objects are made of “Matter”. “matter is anything that the above can be made of. In other words, things are made of stuff”. You’re not even exaggerating Atomic theory! You think you can get all this philosophy from “Things are made of stuff”.

    ***YOU***
    Limits what’s explainable. Theists know that everything atheists say exists actually does, as well as more, the supernatural.

    ***ME***
    You’ve clearly never heard of Presuppositionalism. Those guys argue against logic itself! They think Mathomatics and gravity doesn’t exist.

    ***YOU***

    For example, a materialist must say that consciousness is an emergent property of matter interactions.

    ***ME***
    That is an oversimplification of Neurology so stupid, I wonder if you even know which organ you’re talking about.

    ***YOU***
    That it somehow, in a way we don’t understand comes from matter.

    ***ME***
    *FACEPALM*
    OK… you know less about Neurology than you can learn from a Mel Brooks horror/comedy.

    ***YOU***

    Some theists would say that the mind is related to our soul, which has other properties, and is what our essenceis. Such an view allows us to tie together logic, ethics and metaphysics in a direct, useful way. It allows us to talk about human purpose, human dignity and ground these things outside of mere opinion.

    Don’t you think that we all have rights that are outside of what people’s opinion is?

    ***ME***
    And now you’re talking about “rights”. You know, I might not have instantly lost 50% of my respect for you as soon as you said “rights” if I hadn’t seen thank You For Smoking.

    ***YOU***

    If you believe only material things exist, subjective morality is the only reasonable position.

    ***ME***
    I’m a humanist. I have a human concience. I believe that anyone who needs threats of hellfire to tell them good from bad is a sociopath. So, go on.

    ***YOU***
    And if morality is merely the subjective interests of individuals, that means that might makes right.

    ***ME***
    No it doesn’t.

    ***YOU***

    There is no grounding for moral action, outside of Pascal’s Wager style gambits,

    ***ME***
    What about the Moral Zeitgheist? You know, that slowly evolving standard that once said Slavery was OK but now says homophobia is wrong?

    ***YOU***
    and at that point atheism is making “faith-based” statements as much as theists are.

    ***ME***
    Pascal’s Wager is YOUR argument you idiot. And it’s not very good.

    ***YOU***
    To claim that one is rational, to believe that value exists, for example, with no “evidence” is no more rational than claiming God exists with no “evidence”.

    ***ME***
    Let me get this straight… you think people don’t understand their own brains?

    ***YOU***

    Science is a wonderful tool for understanding the material world. But the material world isn’t all there is. We also have to determine how to act, what is the nature of being human, of human relationships, our place in the world.

    ***ME***
    That’s philosophy.

    ***YOU***

    Science offers no answers to these. It can’t. To call something “Science” that does offer these is misnaming at best and propaganda at worst.

    ***ME***
    What are you talking about?

    ***YOU***

    Herbicide isn’t good for watering plants, science isn’t good for finding existential truths.

    ***ME***
    The universe is big and you are insignificant. There! Existential truth based on Science.

    ***YOU***

    Atheism acts like a cult, far more than religions do.

    ***ME***
    The only difference between cults and religions are the size.

    ***YOU***
    If you don’t believe us, try tweeting the following to your atheist friends on twitter:

    ***ME***
    Go my satan you’re encouraging trolling.

    So, that’s the kind of “morality” your religion teaches you, is it? Trolling?

    ***YOU***

    Theism is as reasonable of a position to take as atheism.

    ***ME***
    What reaction is that supposed to provolk, exactly?

    ***YOU***

    I’m not sure if God exists, but the religious tradition has brought us science, so it can’t be all bad.

    ***ME***
    And anti-masturbation hysteria braight us breakfast cereal. What’s your point?

    ***YOU***

    I’m not sure what God is, but theists might know. And if they do, maybe they should worship God.

    ***ME***
    Ok, i see, that’s supposed to fool us into thinking it’s another Atheist talking. That is pathetic!

    ***YOU***

    Nobody believes in “sky fairies” we should stop using that insult.

    ***ME***
    Really? THAT’S the worst insult you’ve ever heard? We need to try harder then.

    • Hey kids, look at the ludicrous Atheist ideologue keep trying to defend the ABSURD “lack of belief” trope, AND, while doing so, that Atheist the predictably lies about other things too. Remember, once an Atheist starts with the “lack of belief” lie his cult taught him, NOTHING else he says can be trusted or believed

      • De Ha

        The inability to comprehend the word “lack” is a sign of Nuance blindness. Neuance blindness is a mental disease common amongst terrorists, communists, Faschists and other political/religious extremists, the main symptom of which is accusing people of being one extreme or the other rather than recognising complexity, since they themselves are too stupid for their minds to be complex.

        I don’t think you’re smart enough to even comprehend the dea that someone’s position on a given subject can be “probably” or “probably not”.

        • Escaping Atheism ن​

          The properly stated assertion is “I believe there is no God”. “I don’t believe in God” sounds like a lack of belief, but it’s simply a re-arrangement of the sentence structure that English makes possible.

          It appears that many English speaking atheists have chosen to build a whole worldview around a literal fluke of English grammar. So Max is correct: you’re lieing and you haven’t even started the conversation.

          Cows lack beliefs. Walls lack beliefs. Humans who lack them are considered insane because they cannot organize coherent thoughts or have meaningful relationships.

          Also communism is organized, militant atheism. I’ll take my theism merely on body count numbers alone, thanks.

          • De Ha

            “The properly stated assertion is “I believe there is no God”. “I don’t believe in God” sounds like a lack of belief,”

            There’s just no getting through your thick skull, is there?

          • France

            His skull has amazing thickness. It would appear to be nearly impenetrable.

          • CodeStation

            De Ha, there is probably no way of conveying the data to Escaping Atheism. Sadly, your assessment of his disability appears to be accurate.

          • France

            “I don’t believe God exists” is not analogous to “I believe there is no God”.

            You can legitimately say “I don’t believe in God” and not believe that “no gods exist”.

            Rejection of a claim is does not necessitate accepting the opposite position.

          • Escaping Atheism ن​

            To even attempt make those two statements different calls into question your basic English comprehension skills. The need to redefine language to suit your whims is the sign of an discussion lost before it was even started.

          • France

            Are you actually suggesting that by rejecting God exists, it is necessary to accept he doesn’t?

            If I reject the claim “God exists”, it can be said that I do not believe God exists. It’s trivial to have to point this out.

            By rejecting the claim “God exists”, I am not making the claim that “god doesn’t exist”. Again, it’s trivial to even have to point these things out to you.

            If you want people to actually take what you have to say seriously in the discussion of whether God exists,you’re going to have make sure you understand basic logical principles like this, or your opinion on these matters will simply be dismissed.

          • Stefan Bjarnason

            My decision not to simply accept someone’s prima facie claim that they were born in France does not mean that I am certain that they were not born there. You really need to spend some time reviewing (or perhaps learning) fundamental rules of logic. In particular, you need to understand that the decision to not accept an unsupported assertion is not the same as accepting the contrary assertion.

          • Escaping Atheism ن​

            Atheism is where logic and reason goes to die. Atheism is itself unsupported assertion. There is evidence for God, but even if there were no evidence God could still exist. It is impossible to prove the absence of any occurrence or concept. Thus the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

          • France

            It is impossible to prove the absence of any occurrence or concept.

            Where was @stefanbjarnason:disqus arguing that no god exists, exactly? perhaps I missed it and you could point it out for me?

            His exact point seemed to fly high over your head with such force it has now escaped earth’s gravity, never to return. I believe his point was that not accepting a claim (god exists) is not the same as accepting the contrary assertion (god doesn’t exist)

            If you can’t grasp these simple logical distinctions, having conversations about gods existence is going to be very vexing and problematic for you.

          • Stefan Bjarnason

            Hello,

            I’m out of the office this week and won’t be back until Monday, March 27. I’ll check my email every day and will get back to you as soon as I can. Your patience is appreciated.
            Best regards,
            Stefan

          • CodeStation

            Escaping Atheism wrote:
            “It is impossible to prove the absence of any occurrence or concept.”

            I have a colorless blue bridge that is a circle with an infinite radius, a circle with four corners, and a married bachelor for sale.

            It is impossible to prove that I don’t, therefore I do.

            Right? I hope you see where you went wrong.

          • Escaping Atheism ن​

            That’s the impossible definition error I see all the time. A negative is the absence of a an occurrence or concept, it is not conveniently defining an opposite or impossible concept.

            The opposite or inverse of 1 is -1, which retains most of the properties of 1. It’s negation is zero, as it is with any real number.

            No God is not the inverse, but the negation of God, which is why denial of God is the appropriate definition.

            As for your other posts, they are usual arrogant atheist tripe. Nobody has the burden of proof but you, who believes the universe to be an accident. If you’re interested in rebuttals to all of your claims, we have many resources: https://escapingatheism.com/resources/

            Go read or watch something more than hideously bad science and history and you might see what the world is seeing.

          • CodeStation

            Ha ha, no. Nice try, but you are now the one engaging in the semantic shifting games that you accuse others of in your article (which is what I thought might happen).

            You need to understand what an analytic negation is.

            You wrote: “No God is not the inverse, but the negation of God, which is why denial of God is the appropriate definition.”

            Wibble. There is no extant referent to which your empty concept applies in reality. That is all that is being said by the strong atheist. The agnostic atheist is merely, for whatever reason, trying to acknowledge some “epistemic humility.” I suspect s/he feels bad for you.

            I don’t.

            It’s simple: is the negation of a colorless blue married bachelor the denial of an extant colorless blue married bachelor?

            By the tripe you wrote, you have to acknowledge that you think it is, and therefore you think such a thing can actually exist. You’ve lost this exchange before you even put finger to keyboard.

            “If you’re interested in rebuttals to all of your claims, we have many resources”

            You have nothing but logical fallacies. I’ve heard them all.

            I find it interesting that you haven’t dealt with a single thing I wrote. As I suspected.

            You will never be able to tell me exactly what your God actually is in a way that distinguishes it from what it isn’t. The best theists can do is claim their God is “supreme or ultimate reality.”

            Because reality is all we have, and you know it.

          • Escaping Atheism ن​

            “Nice try, but you are now the one engaging in the semantic shifting games that you accuse others of in your article”

            Yes, because only you get to re-define commonly used words. We know that projection is your friend. 🙂

            “You have nothing but logical fallacies. I’ve heard them all.”

            You’ve heard them all, but you haven’t listened, because that would totally mess up your self-proclaimed smartest guy in the room role. It is what is. We’ve only met you about a few thousand time before at this point. Y’all boring too.

            “Because reality is all we have, and you know it.”

            Then why are you here? Seems a d*mn foolish waste of time…losing out what chemical reactions you’ve got left. Shoo.

          • CodeStation

            “Yes, because only *you* get to re-define commonly used words.”

            Interesting that you still haven’t dealt with the issue. What exactly is your claim when you say “God?”

            Now, on to the assertion you have made which I have quoted.

            Which word is it you think I’ve tried to “re-define?”

            I agreed with your claim that the word “atheism” is being used by atheists in a way that is different from the way theists are using it. In that sense, you are demonstrably correct.

            Nice try at ad hominems and red herrings, but you won’t get away with it if you’re going to deal with me.

            Answer the question.

          • Escaping Atheism ن​

            I will (and love to) talk to humans. Not interested in fundamentalist dictionary thumpers. Please change the subject, as I do ban people for spam.

          • CodeStation

            “I do ban people for spam.”

            Is this some form of a threat? LOL… if that’s the best you have.

            Interesting that you resort to this when you cannot defend your assertion. Your failure is complete.

          • Escaping Atheism ن​

            Only if you think this is a free speech zone. I have limited time and atheist “questions” are redundant in the extreme. No time for head games.

          • CodeStation

            Either you can address the incoherence of your assertions or you can’t. Hiding behind your highly localized capacity to censure and censor the exposure of your contradictions is not addressing the problem, and worse, is utterly unconvincing.

            I’m laughing at the intellectual cowardice your entire blog displays. I suspect you are a parody of theism.

          • Escaping Atheism ن​

            Yeah, spam. I’m bored and I need to pull the other post for just weirdness.

          • Stefan Bjarnason

            “There is evidence for God, but even if there were no evidence God could still exist.”

            Leaving aside your assertion that there is evidence for a god, the rest of your sentence is correct! You’re right! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Logic 101. And that’s all rational atheists have been saying all along. You call atheism an “unsupported assertion,” but that’s because you fail to understand (or refuse to accept?) that sensible atheists would believe in god if extraordinary evidence were presented to adequately support the extraordinary claim of god’s existence.

          • Escaping Atheism ن​

            “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ”

            I’m not sure you understand that what that means.

            A skeleton that lacks evidence of disease does not prove that he or she did not die of disease, because most disease do not appear on bones. It only proves that they did not die of diseases that appear on bones.

            Likewise, when there is a gap in the Earth’s rock record in particular place, it does not prove that time did not exist in that place or nothing happened, only that at some point the rock that was there was eroded away. We only know we don’t have any evidence of what happened then.

            What it means is that there could be no evidence for God and He could still exist. It means that atheists have a completely unprovable position from the outset of their argument. God could have merely tided up after himself – even the absence of evidence would not prove that He did not exist.

            If you insist on the smart position without committing one way or another, it’s being a declared agnostic and taking Pascal’s wager. Atheism is from even a logical point of view is the risky and kind of a dumb position. And it’s certainly unsupported in the sense that it’s completely impossible to prove.

          • CodeStation

            “You really need to spend some time reviewing (or perhaps learning) fundamental rules of logic.”

            Well said. Specifically, for Escaping Atheism, who needs to learn about how to spot a “false dichotomy.”

            His/her claim about the usage of the word atheism is a false dichotomy.

            Imagine someone who knows nothing about Star Wars. I know, hard to believe, but let’s suppose it’s possible 😀

            They view a section from the second Star Wars film “Empire Strikes Back” in which Luke is depicted levitating rocks (sans music).

            Say that snippet of footage is all that is available to them.
            What is the most logical position to take when you ask him whether or not Luke Skywalker actually exists based on the footage (which is more evidence than they have for their God, BTW).

            If he says, “I don’t believe Luke Skywalker actually exists” how is it true that this necessarily means he believes Luke Skywalker does not exist? Could he not be certain as to whether or not Luke Skywalker exists? And is it not reasonable for him to not be convinced either way while pending further corroborative data?

          • Escaping Atheism ن​

            “His/her claim about the usage of the word atheism is a false dichotomy”

            Gosh, thanks for trying to save us from using commonly used words correctly. We need to use your definitions your way, because… well we don’t really know why.

            Which is not at all like a fundamentalist preacher telling me why is his “literal” interpretation of the Bible is right.

            By the way, most of us at EA were long term agnostics or full on atheists at one point. We get it, which is why this project exists.

            So shoo…you’ve done your God given duty to make sure everyone in the room understands how brilliant you are. Your electro-chemical energy is fading as we type.

          • CodeStation

            “trying to save us from using commonly used words correctly”

            Hmm… Not sure where you’re getting that.

            Say I have a container. It has black and blue marbles in it. I say there are 500 marbles in the container, 251 of which are blue.

            You can see the container, and see clearly that there are black and blue marbles, but you cannot count them (cannot falsify the claim).

            What is the most logical position to take?

            If you say “I lack the belief that there are 251 blue marbles in there” does it necessarily imply that you believe there are not 251 marbles in the container? Would not the most logical position be to withhold belief either way?

            Sure, the usage of the word “atheist” is changing. I personally don’t like it, as I know there is no such thing as a creator God. But I don’t get to control how people use words. Nor do I want to.

            “make sure everyone in the room understands how brilliant you are”

            There is nothing exceptional or special about me at all, nor do I ever make the claim.

            You’ve simply titled your article “Why Atheism is Ridiculous” and failed to demonstrate that it is ridiculous. I acknowledge that it certainly can be ridiculous!

            Just as you’ve repeatedly failed to answer the… three? questions I’ve asked (I’m old, and I forget how many I may have asked).

          • Deanjay1961

            I don’t believe you have a fifty dollar bill in your pocket.
            I believe you don’t have a fifty dollar bill in your pocket.

            You really can’t tell the difference in meaning between those two sentences?

          • Escaping Atheism ن​

            No, because they are actually the same sentence, rearranged because English grammar is a pretty flexible beast. That you think there is suggests the highly unstable nature of atheist ideology.

            I’m going to answer once here. The need to play games with plain word definitions suggests a discussion lost before you’ve begun it. We use the definitions of atheism as found at dictionary.com and explained here: escapingatheism.com/def

            Any more attempts at spamming the site with definitions we do not use will result in a ban. Definition games are a way to avoid discussions, not have them.

          • Deanjay1961

            No, it just indicates your grasp of English isn’t very subtle. If I don’t believe you have a $50 in your pocket, that’s not saying you don’t have one, just that I don’t believe you do. What are the odds, right? But if I say I believe you don’t have a $50 in your pocket, I’m making a stronger claim…it implies more certitude about what’s not in your pocket. In either case, you could settle the matter by showing what’s in your pockets, but in the latter case I should be more surprised that you have a $50 because I’ve indicated that I’m pretty sure you don’t. It’s the difference between probably not and almost definitely not. And it’s connotation not denotation, so you shouldn’t feel bad about not being able to pick up on the distinction.

          • Escaping Atheism ن​

            Last ban warning.

            I do not indulge in ridiculous attempts to make clearly equivalent statements different for the purposes of smoothing out your ego. If you cannot say “I believe there is no God”, then you cannot engage in an honest discussion.

            You’re welcome to post here on other topics or ask real questions and yes, I get to determine what’s a real question.

      • France

        How is atheism not a lack of belief in God, specifically?

    • Deanjay1961

      And atheists have been stating in one way or another that they lack belief in any deities for at least 150 years. I first read the description of that position in a book written in the 1950s and have since learned of references to it in humanist journals in the 1800s.

  • CodeStation

    I’ll go with some of this, sure.

    However, I think the current/recent attempts to alter the usage of the word “atheist” are more rooted in trying to make sure you theists are honest about your burden of proof. As you have generally (as a group throughout history) been at times brutally dishonest about it, you’re just going to have to deal with it. Atheism is becoming “a lack of belief in a God or Gods.”

    That said, I am the “Strong Atheist.” No, the burden of proof is not on me. It is on you.

    However, since you cannot handle it – and I know you cannot; and I can handle proving your assertions to be incoherent wibble, I take up the cross daily (LOL) and study to show myself approved ;p

    Now of course it depends on the claim, but let’s be real: you’re talking about a “creator of everything that exists out of absolute nothing who is conscious, intelligent, intentional, volitional, and could have done otherwise.”

    You’re not talking about The Great Old Ones, the World Turtle, or any of the Gods in the Enuma Elish. No, some of those are at least potentially coherent, and I have to admit might actually have existed (in the case of Azathoth, though I’m almost certain it isn’t real ;D).

    But it’s worse for you.
    You can’t even begin to tell me what your God actually is. You can tell me what you think are the effects of your God (begging the question); you can assert you know what your God isn’t; and ultimately you will admit that it is beyond comprehension (because it is incoherent and doesn’t exist).

    From your article:
    in addition to believing that atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods, they will also believe, with high certainty:

    That matter is all that exists

    (Nope. Consciousness may be the energy in the curvature of space-time for all I know, and may have primacy. Couldn’t care less what the nature of reality is – I care only about the most accurate way of determining what is real, and employing it).

    That theists are delusional, irrational, brainwashed or lying about their beliefs

    (OK. Sure. Though not all theists are irrational. We cannot help but be convinced by what we find convincing.)

    Science is our most reliable way of knowing truth, because it often overturns itself

    (No. “truth” is a binary value of propositions. Nothing magical about it. The scientific method is our most reliable way of knowing anything about the world we live in. The natural world. Because it builds on itself, not overturns itself. Relativity did not overturn Newtonian physics. It picked up where Newton left holes in his models, and augmented them.)

    If God exists, human beings are intelligent, wise, and moral enough to pass judgment on God’s actions and motives

    (I’ll pass judgement on anything anyone does or tries to do to me. I give anyone fair notice to stop bothering me. If they do it again, I will destroy them).

    It is appropriate to worry about the effects of religion on people, but there’s no reason to worry about atheism

    (Sure. Atheism is irrelevant to this. That morons think atheism necessarily leads to nihilism is part of the problem of religion.)

    Morality has no objective basis and some form of preference utilitarianism is the appropriate moral framework.

    (Morality has no absolute basis – it is not a law of physics. However, given a usable definition, and given life forms capable of reasoning and modelling probable future events, morality has objectively measurable properties.)

    It’s unavoidable, however unpalatable it might be. There are brute facts, and there is nothing we can do about it.

    There is no such thing as a creator God. Any argument you might have for the proposition is inevitably fallacious, and you can never demonstrate the soundness of them even if they were valid. I’ve heard them all across the decades.

    Though I remain open to the possibility that you – of all people – may have the one I’ve never heard before 😀

  • CodeStation

    Within the first few lines I see a non-sequitur.

    “By defining their position as lack of belief, that means that bricks, dust motes, and people in comas are atheists.”

    How is that true?

    Surely a belief (and lack thereof) is only something that can be held by an aware, conscious life form.

    Are you now engaging in pansychism on top of theism?

    To say that bricks, dust motes (at the very least) lack a belief should be obvious. They also lack the capacity to have a belief.

    Interesting blog you have here. I’m skeptical that you actually believe most of what you are writing, but I could be wrong about that. Most entertaining, keep up the good work!

  • CodeStation

    Here is another interesting, but confusing (and potentially comedic) assertion from your article:

    “a materialist must say that consciousness is an emergent property of matter interactions. That it somehow, in a way we don’t understand comes from matter.”

    How is it true that a “materialist” must – as in has no choice but to – say “somehow in a way we don’t understand?”

    It appears you don’t understand emergentism.

    We can demonstrate that we do understand.

    Consider the “eye” of a hurricane. It is a property of the hurricane, which is a result (partly) of pressure / temperature differences (2nd law of thermodynamics, etc.). Even our ancestors attributed volition and will, anthropocentric properties to storms and other phenomena before their descendants falsified these claims.

    So there is no need for someone who acknowledges the preponderance of evidence suggesting that consciousness is a product of the brain to say that it does so in a way we don’t understand. We can demonstrate that we do, in fact, understand it.

    I fully acknowledge the problem of induction (keep an open mind) but not to the point that I can accept contradictory nonsense (so open one’s brain stops functioning). I remain open minded to the possibility that there could be other factors we don’t know about which contribute to consciousness.