My Problem With Atheists

My general impression of Richard Dawkins is that he is an unrelenting d-bag. I don’t know the man and I don’t know much about him. I read his one important book a long time ago and I am more inclined to his side in the great debate between Dawkins and Gould. I think Dawkins is a bit too narrow and reductionist, but Gould is simply afraid to face some tough facts about human biodiversity. None of that stirs much emotion in me. What has always bugged me about Dawkins is his evangelical atheism.

I’m not a religious man and I can’t say I’m a believer, but I’m not an atheist. To be an atheist is to know there is no god and as a matter of simple logic, no one can know that. In the set of things that are possible, no god is one member. A single god is another. Multiple gods is yet another. This set exists in the set of things no man can know, at least not in this life. You can believe, but you cannot know. Christianity incorporates this reality, which is why we have the expression “mystery of faith.”

Now, I accept that many people will disagree with that formulation. Many religious people will argue that they do, in fact, know that God exists because God speaks to them. Many atheists will argue that the lack of a belief in God is the same as believing there is no God. I don’t accept the premise of the former or the logic of the latter, but I don’t care all that much either. I’m indifferent to these things because I don’t have to live with them. I don’t walk around worried about my relationship with God and I don’t worry about your relationship with God, or the lack of one.

What I do know is man is a believing machine. Belief most likely evolved with language, which means it is one of modern man’s defining traits. As is the case with much of evolution, this is a guess, but read enough history and you begin to think it is a damn good guess. There’s never been a time when man did not have strong beliefs about a transcendent order. Even communism is an argument about returning to the natural order. Commies may not believe in God, but they believe they can do his job.

The old saying is that “a man who believes in nothing will fall for anything” and that has been my observation. Humans are built to believe and it is only a question of what they believe and how strongly. Some are deeply devout and others, like me, are over on the skepticism side of the belief range. Those fervent atheist, those devout atheists, are simply believing in something that is just as unknowable and requires as much faith as any formal religion. They just lack the decency to admit it.

Unlike those Christian proselytizers, who knock on my door to tell me the Good News, atheists never fail to let me know they are here to bring the Bad News. Atheists take a great deal of pleasure in making others unhappy. In fact, it seems to be the point of their religion, a religion they never shut up about. I’ve never met an atheist who does not hold his fellow man in contempt. It’s not a reserved contempt either. It’s a public, snotty contempt like you see in this story.

Dawkins has been making war on God for decades hoping that one day God will join the fight. In fact, it’s the reason he gets in the news at all anymore. Like many celebrity scientists, he stopped doing any real work years ago. Now he is just a professional celebrity, who courts the admiration of Progressives by making war of Christians. It’s a shabby way to be famous, but a familiar one. Black Science Guy leveraged his management of an amusement park into wealth and celebrity, by mocking the right people.

Bill Maher is a grubby pervert who got rich running a TV ministry for dimwitted liberals. For those who grew up watching TV preachers, Maher’s act is obvious. His show is church for moonbat shut-ins. Dawkins is on the show not because Maher or his audience understands a thing about genetics or biology. No, the point is to have a show where the atheists jeer at those who believe in God. Pagans lit fires and sacrificed animals to please their gods. Atheists jeer at Christians to please themselves.

Atheism is a religion for those incapable of selflessness, but obsessed with venerating themselves anyway. It’s a religion for those who want grace on the cheap. The major world religions make demands of the adherent. The Mohammedan believes Allah commands him to act in specific ways. Christians believe God has specified rules for those who accept Christ into their life. There’s no one to make such demands on atheists, so they make demands on everyone else. It’s why they always have a look on their face like they just detected a bad odor. You’re not meeting their standards.

That’s my problem with atheists. I don’t care what you believe as long as it does not ruin the limited amount of time I have on this earth. I would not care about Islam if not for the fact Muslims tend to explode in public places. Similarly, I would have nothing to say about atheism if not for the fact atheists go out of their way to be such raging public douche bags. I would have no reason to think about Richard Dawkins, but he keeps showing up to make sport of those who believe in God. That makes him a giant douche, which appears to be only point of atheism.

68 thoughts on “My Problem With Atheists

  1. The vast majority of atheists do not make the claim that there is no god. They simply say that they do not believe in the existing claims that there is a god. They do not believe that the existing ‘evidence’ for any god is convincing.

  2. By your analysis, we aren’t allowed to declare that the infamous flying spaghetti monster–or Zeus for that matter–doesn’t exist either. Atheists believe that some things are too silly to admit as a possibility and they believe that the Christian/Jewish/Islamic god fall into that category. You’re free to argue with that, of course, but not, it seems to me, that atheists are somehow making a logical error by insisting that not every damn idea is worthy of respect.

    That said, some atheists are a pain in the ass. For them, it’s not enough to dismiss religion as silly, they have to go around proselytizing like some demented evangelical knocking on our doors at 7 AM on Saturday. Of course, atheists have been banned–and sometimes burned–for their beliefs so you can understand their trying to get back a little of their own.

    Most atheists I know don’t care whether there’s a creche in the town square at Christmas and they certainly don’t want to get in anyone’s face about what they believe. They may believe it silly and irrational but most atheists are too polite to say so, at least unless they’re provoked. Mostly they just want to be left alone and not told they can’t buy a bottle of wine before noon on Sunday because they should be at church. The problem is that the “quiet” atheists get tarred with the same brush as their louder and more obnoxious fellow atheists.

    Sadly, Dawkins, who really is a first-rate scientist who has done good work, falls into the nutter category and many atheists consider him an embarrassment even if they agree with his larger point. As for Maher, you characterization of him as a TV minister preaching to dimwitted liberals seems spot on.

  3. I’m an atheist, simply because I’m unable to believe the stories that the major religions are built around. However I feel proselytizing atheism is a waste of time and absolutely see the benefits to belief, and the value of Christianity’s contribution to the West. My wife is Japanese and I’ve become a big fan of their ‘state superstition’: it allows people to have their ceremonies and cultural adhesion, without making any teleological claims about the universe.

    • The Norse language lacked a word for “religion” because they did not have the concept. Instead, they had the concept of a public cult and private cult. That means the cultural habits that bind the community together (public cult) and the private beliefs of people in their homes (private cult). I’ve always thought that was the right system. We were close to that in America except then Liberals insisted on forcing their religion on everyone and now we no longer respect private worship.

    • I chose to reply to this comment because it is an excellent example of what most ” atheists” claim. My first thought is that you are not atheist, just a-churchist. Churches are man’s way of trying to put into words what they “feel”. That’s why there are so many different ones. Being unable or unwilling to beleive someone’s description of a thing is not the same as the thing not existing. If every church on earth is wrong, that still is not proof that God doesn’t exist….it is notoriously difficult to prove a negative.
      That brings me to my second point-the hubristic or self-important attitude that “if I don’t understand it, it doesn’t exist.” To say ” my belief” = “fact” is a logical fallacy. I believe most atheists are actually agnostics who crave certainty, so they harden their doubts and questionings into a belief that someone doesn’t exist so they can get on with life instead of wondering all the time.

  4. I love you for this ZMan, even if I am a believer. It’s the common, logical courtesy that should be afforded any reverent believer. It is also the common, logical conclusions that any thinking person would come to if they were honest about their own limitations.

  5. “Contempt prior to examination is an intellectual vice, from which the greatest faculties of the mind are not free”

    – (William Paley) –

    OR

    “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance.  That principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

    AND

    “Time: That which man is always trying to kill, but which ends up killing him”

    – (Herbert Spencer)

  6. A contrarian point of view, if I may. The Atheists that keep their opinions to themselves because the subject is personal and private would not command your attention or signify as much with their actions, temperament, or interactions with other people. I am one of those people. In the sea of 6 billion, my reasons and conclusions are unimportant. My point of view does not require validation. Very best regards to you.

    • Nobody would disrespect that sort of an atheist. That individual would handle their business and allow me to handle mine. I’ve only enjoyed working with 1 self-proclaimed atheist. This guy told me once “I don’t buy it, but if it helps you, carry on..”

  7. Tocqueville had a similar impression of Atheists–“If their system could be of some use to man, it would be in giving him a modest opinion of himself. But they do not demonstrate such a truth and when they think they have done enough to prove that they are brutish, they seem as proud as if they had demonstrated that they were gods.” And Eric Hoffer, an atheist–“What offends in the literature of dissent is the lack of hesitation and wonder.”

    I have always seen that when good writers or humorists who happen to be atheist proselytize on that subject they lose all their wit, and are as funny or interesting as an imam preaching.

    I cannot think of a single great scientist, philosopher, or writer from any time that proselytized for Atheism. Voltaire may come closest, but Voltaire was no Johnson. He traded in the wit of the parlor, and then hedged his bet on his deathbed. Or Rousseau, who was said to be so loved that men were not ashamed to be deceived twice by him.

    • I saw a bumper sticker once which I thought was a modern paraphrase of a Voltaire quote: Those who do not believe in God had better be right.

  8. I often have wondered if atheists going on about their belief system of unbelief is really little more than practice for facing the “Judge” on the Big Day. I suppose they are thinking that, if he’s there, they will have their self-righteous arguments and justifications well practiced, ready to argue their case. They will be their own advocate, thank you.

    I say, never try to represent yourself in court.

  9. I share Z man’s biggest gripe about atheists, i.e. that they are generally a bunch of insulting d-bags. I have a secondary gripe too in that atheists have also created the impression that it’s “scientific” to be an atheist. I even suspect the reason that so many claim to “love science sexually” as Ace used to put is because it gives them a good reason to be the d-bag atheists they crave to be. This is completely contrary to the history of the hardest sciences of all, however, math and physics. Many of the early geniuses in the field right up to the end of the 1800’s were pretty devout believers. Newton certainly was to the point of outright fanaticism. I learned recently that Leonard Euler, the greatest mathematician in history, was a devout Lutheran who wrote Christian apologetics. I think even James Clerk Maxwell at the end of the 1880’s was known as a fairly devout Presbyterian. And part of the reason they were devout, I think, was due to their scientific work. They were so amazed at the ability of the human mind to explain the world, they thought that their must be some higher design or divine plan that explained that success.

    I don’t mean this to be an apologetic myself by the way as I’m not the one to write those. I just mention it to point out that absolutely nothing about science forces one to deny the existence of God. It’s possible to be both great scientist and devout believer. It’s possible in fact to be a devout believer because you’re a great scientist.

  10. Apparently there are many atheists you have not met. I am one. I do not slag Christianity as I believe the ten commandments make sense and are good rules to live by. Nearly all the people I know, including many family members do not believe in an imaginary friend in the sky. My position is simple, the invisible has a lot in common with the non-existent. Whether there is such a creature or not, he seems rather detached from the earth these days.

    Further, a kind loving god, which we are told he is …. also made Africa and Haiti and other permanent hell holes mostly for black and or brown people. The yellow folks have a whole other hell to deal with in their quarter. So why would such a benevolent creator be so cruel to so many. Allah, I can understand how that whack operates, but the Christian god … ?? I dunno ….

    I am a kind generous person, and I have helped countless others during my 73 years. Most of those other atheists I know and associate with are much the same .. all good hearted loving folks. I do have some religious friends and we accept our differences like adults are supposed to.

    Mostly, I ignore the who idea of religion as I see it as highly unlikely that a magic guy made the universe for the likes of us.

    I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

  11. No one ever dies as an Atheist. Well maybe as an instant death accident? What do atheists scream at the moment of an epic orgasm “Oh my effing Dog”?:

    • The joke is …. ‘the problem with atheism is that you have no one to talk to while having an orgasm’

      Okay, I have used up more than my share of commenting. Thanks and bye bye. Love this blog.

    • There is no way to know that “no one ever dies as an Atheist.” To know this, the dead person would have to wake up, tell you he/she changed her mind about God, and then go die again.

    • The Usual Suspect – Your claim that no one dies as an Atheist is an arrogant one. How do you know that no one dies as an atheist – other than an instant death accident? It is simple. You cannot possibly know that no one dies as an Atheist.

      Some of the people who commented on this site were very angry that certain atheists said they were absolutely certain there was no god – saying they were very arrogant to make such a statement. I wonder if they would be equally angry with you – saying that you are arrogant – for making the claim that no one dies an atheist.

  12. I think the piñata you’ve hoisted here and we are swatting away at, is the more extreme end of the spectrum of atheists… Like the explosive Muslims or snake handling Christians etc., etc….

    As is frequently the case, the other ‘A word’ seems more apropos for most of us …. agnostic…. and Robert G. Ingersoll (even though he is commonly adopted and embraced by those you mention) was called the Great Agnostic, and has left behind some profound essays and enduring quotes on the subject of Belief and the lack thereof, of our ability to “know”….

    “Reason, Observation and Experience — the Holy Trinity of Science — have taught us that happiness is the only good; that the time to be happy is now, and the way to be happy is to make others so. This is enough for us. In this belief we are content to live and die. If by any possibility the existence of a power superior to, and independent of, nature shall be demonstrated, there will then be time enough to kneel. Until then, let us stand erect.”
    Robert G. Ingersoll

    ( A little gushy I’d agree, but it is 19th century parlance….in the interest of brevity, heres a link to many more of his exceptional insights/quotes https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/156323.Robert_G_Ingersoll )

    Scientific method (as his loose homage references) is what I believe in and for one to truly believe in it, one MUST have an open mind…. and once you try to wrap your head around wave particle duality and “Spooky Action at a Distance” ( quantum entanglement ) how can you not?

  13. I’ve always said that maybe Epicurus was right and the gods are living a life of eternal bliss out there in the ether and are indifferent to our travails. How can you disprove that? But if so, what difference does it make to our life here on earth? All I do know is that all the religions on earth can’t all be right, and at least all of them minus one are false, and maybe all minus none are.

    Anyway, I can’t determine the validity of everybody else’s views on these matters and I have no interest in doing so. If everybody will do me the courtesy of leaving me alone on this, I’m happy to reciprocate.

    • And Dr. Pangloss says: “Amen”:

      Around 600 BC the biblical prophet Daniel predicted in the latter days, mankind would travel “to and fro” with great speed (Daniel 12:4). The literal interpretation of this passage caused Sir Isaac Newton in 1680 AD, to speculate how man would one day travel over fifty miles an hour.

      Voltaire claimed this to be impossible and cited Newton’s speculation as proof of how Christianity causes even brilliant men to become foolish.

      Evidently, not all roads lead to Jonestown. Or Mecca.

    • Man, you should change your brand of rott-gut. Islam has nothing to do with God. But it is a perverted belief system.

      • Exactly. Tocqueville–Mohammed drew down from heaven into the writings of the Koran not only religious teaching but political thoughts, civil and criminal laws and scientific theories. The Gospel, in contrast, refers only to general links of man to God and man to man. Beyond that, it teaches nothing and imposes no belief in anything.

  14. I take the line with Dawkins that he makes a living selling books and making appearances in the media because he has a rigid, inflexible view. For some reason (probably only known to God, if He, She or It exists) television in particular these days likes rigid viewpoints. Maybe it’s because the time slots are so small and doubt and uncertainty takes more time to explore, it’s better to get people in, hear their well-honed and rigid viewpoint, and move them on for the next rigidity to appear.

    If you see any old TV (and I did, ‘cos I am old) you get the feeling that people interviewed or featured were once deferential in a quiet, though determined way. Oh they believed, but they accepted that belief was a matter of personal choice, in all matters and not just religion.

    But we do see a lot of rigid thinking these days in so much. Politicians don’t display the flexibility they once did, and Science! is very much now built on inflexible opinions. Probably God thought of all this, but maybe doesn’t give a toss.

    Who knows?

  15. Dawkins. Scientist? Like Paul Ehrlich, his science is biology. Now Richard Feynman was a scientists, a scientists’ scientist, a real scientist of the hard science kind. He wrote of biology which should & could be real science & gave an example of a biology experiment that was real science. It covered the possibilities & properly deduced results. But Feynman complained mostly biologists don’t do that & their experiments & conclusions are non-scientific.

    Definitions, definitions: Feynman said he was an atheist & when challenged that he was no atheist by the definition of agnostic, “a person who thinks it is impossible to know whether there is a God,” Feynman replied: “No, no, no, no, no. That’s too refined. What I mean is this: the probability that the theory of God, the ordinary theory, is right, to my mind is extremely low.”

    Feynman also suggests more than ½ of scientists don’t believe in God. Feynman’s atheists or maybe Zman’s agnostics?

    Many of my closest & best friends are/were STEM profs. We don’t discuss this much but my guess is that many if not most would declare themselves atheists.

    In any case, Z, your characterization of atheists, & libertarians by the way, does not apply to nearly any that I know. Maybe you need to change hoods or at least get some new friends. Those I associate with don’t talk about religion nor any -isms much including libertarian-ism, however, I was told I was one – as a compliment, I believe.

    • I was a double major in biology and chemistry before med school. Got an A+ in the capstone course on evolution that seniors and grad students took. I suspect that most of the “atheists” you know realize that they are such based on faith because they know of no experimental evidence giving them absolute proof that what they believe happened in the primordial soup ever happened without a great deal of help.

      • Of course (nearly?) all belief is based upon faith. I wasn’t there when Eddington showed the sun bent light as predicted by Einstein. I believe it totally out of faith.

        One need not have absolute proof to believe something and what is absolute proof but your faith that someone proved it. Few have absolutely proved anything except for mathematicians & their field (mine) is all a mind game. All (nearly?) belief is really faith based upon, . . .well, faith that other things believed are true & reasonable & beliefs therefrom.

        Occam’s razor suggests selecting hypotheses (which is not the same as believing, but as the most likely) as those requiring the least assumptions. A Magic Man is a big assumption & unnecessary. If you want “Spooky,” quanta mechanics suffices. It makes no rational sense to our senses & might be considered as complex math whose “unnatural” predictions just seem to be so – all this on my own faith, of course – I don’t do physics. And by necessity, on faith of all believers.

        My gripe with Z may be all semantics. My “atheists” may well be his agnostics which seems his leaning. Perhaps, likewise, my “libertarians.” Mine are certainly different that Z’s pronouncements, though I admit to having read some “crazy” stuff from some calling themselves libertarians.

        Anyway, maybe Z & I could come to terms & agree with something like “Radical-atheists, Radical-libertarians, etc” like some use to discuss Islam, but I don’t have faith, especially with his on-going, over many posts & unrelenting arrows/digs at “Libertarians” having unusual characteristics to my observations. It is not worth a helluva lot of time, though.

    • Tomato, tomatoe? Why the big to-do and splitting hairs about ZMan’s symantics about all this when it doesn’t count for a hill of beans that you and your friends don’t even deem it worthy of discussion? Ever ask yourself why this subject is taboo among yourselves?

      • Big “to do” or not? You choose. As far as I know, atheists don’t get much press. I never heard of Dawkins before & I ain’t gonna study him. I do see more references, stories, etc re Libertarians – Seems like Ron Paul called himself one or some did. I’ve been told I R 1. I don’t read such lit, or visit such web sites but surely many do. What I understand is along the lines of “I ain’t bothering anybody so leave me alone unless we agree otherwise” & sometimes Z sounds like that himself. I think it’s common among STEM prof-types, and many others, but have no stats to share – maybe I’m wrong.

        As to Z: His denouncements of atheists (rarely?) & libertarians (quite often with little aside jabs as though maybe his wife or gf ran off with one – he seems unseemly pizzed) does not reconcile with people I know. As I wrote, maybe Z needs to move to another hood or find some new friends.

        You probably know who Feynman was – one of the world’s best & most colorful physicists. If you read some of his books like “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!” you could hardly avoid liking him. He’s dead, but were you to read this article, meet him & ask if he’s an atheist (scientists are frequently asked that) he would say yes. Then, in your mind Feynman is an azzhole (Z: “I’ve never met an atheist who does not hold his fellow man in contempt.”). Same with Libertarians in my admittedly limited knowledge of such, but people I know who self-proclaim & others who are so tagged just don’t fit Z-speak.

  16. My atheist in-laws come over all smug in their logic. Then they start preaching global warming, absolute faith in the state, multiculturalism, and all the other ridiculous tenants of their faith. They grow wonderfully outraged when I observe that they have replaced their Christianity and Judaism with an even more absurd set of beliefs.

  17. Not only fall for anything, but harder, all my atheist friends are much more liberal than their religious parents are Catholic, for example, if that makes sense. Neither do the later believe that the four rides of the apocalypse will ride into town anytime soon, but climate doom, it’s just a matter of time… And don’t get me started on people identifying themselves as progressive, which means what? Further along, more evolved, or simply better. How full must one be, to identify as better? Someone should start selling holographic halos to those hipsters…

  18. The great French mathematician, Blaise Pascal, provided a very good reason (Pascal’s Wager; look it up) why one is better off believing in God than not.
    Also, Nassim Taleb, and mathematician and author of The Black Swan and Fooled By Randomness, cautioned about rejecting religion because invariably it will be replaced by another belief system. In the past the “other” belief systems have been, for example, communism , national socialism, reading chicken entrails or actually believing (despite a 100% perfect record of being wrong) that a few PHD economists at the FED and other Central Banks can manage or guide an economy (a complex system; see Mandelbrot’s The Misbehavior of Markets, not a popular book amongst economists).

    What really puzzles me are the many books about near death experiences (NDE). Either these accounts are all fiction (can they all be fiction?), are just honest recollections of dreams, or are mostly true (i.e., these folks actually visited heaven or hell).
    Just yesterday I read an account of NDEs of folks who have been totally and completely blind since birth. Yet, they actually described “seeing” while in their NDE state. Apparently researchers have questioned many of these blind NDE folks and they all recount “seeing.” How is this possible?? How can this just be a dream? Are the book’s authors making up all this stuff?

    And as for normal, sighted folks experiencing a NDE, they all describe looking down at their body and viewing (and later being able to describe what they saw) all the activity surrounding their “dead” body. Further, these NDE experiences transcend nationalities, religions and ethnicities.
    How is this possible? How can a “dead” person describe any of this? Is this just all BS concocted by book writers seeking to make a few $$$.

    As for me, well, the Big Bang Theory is just as fantastical (presumably ALL universes – and there are billions of them – erupted from basically nothing, a quantum burp of waves/particles/energy that has always existed with no explanation from whence they came ) as the biblical version of the origins of the universe.

    Think about it; E=mc^2 and imagine the mass of all the universes (billions of stars almost all bigger than our middling size sun, plus planets, black holes of infinite density, etc., etc, ) Now take the “inflation” energy – you know, the quantum nothing that burped and birthed the universes – and divide that by c^2 to yield all the masses of the universes, and presto, you have gotten an awful lot of mass from basically what? – a quantum fluctuation of energy.
    Hmm…. ?

    And the atheists will tell you with 100% certainty that the existence of any sort of God is a myth because, unlike science, there is no empirical evidence. Give me a F’n break. They are clueless like all of us and like all scientists.
    I think I will side with Pascal.

    • Regarding NDE…a surgeon in the UK did a little experiment. He put various incongruous objects around the operating theater — up on top of cabinets where you can’t see them from the floor level. Not one of his patients who reported having a NDE ever mentioned these objects 😛

  19. Z, I can’t tell you how much I agree. There’s a reason why pride, that is, self-preoccupation, is the first deadly sin. For Dawkins, Maher, et al, to be so certain there is no God is the height of self-importance, from which the fall will be very hard. Thank you.

    • James – I have never heard these guys say they are certain there is no god. What they HAVE said is that there is no evidence for a god. I have often heard them say they do not know what the origin of life is. On the other hand, I have heard many believers say they are certain there is a god. Personally, I don’t think anyone can know with absolute certainty whether there is a god or not.

  20. My thoughts concerning the existence of a deity closely mirror those of the thezman.
    I am not a believer, but I have problems with the scientific explanations concerning the origins of life on our planet. I just can’t believe that one night billions of years ago, in southern Africa, a bolt of lightning hit some nice warm slimy mud, and an amoeba crawled out, (or whatever bullshit theory is being put forth by whatever bullshit scientist). I guess I believe there exists a lifeforce that we can never explain.

    The atheists are just like most of the gays. They are compelled to be in your face at all times.

    • The measure of a belief lies not in what it is, but, rather, in what it does (in your face at all times, mass murder, etc.). ‘By their fruit shall you know them.’ I’ve often wondered how belief in a cause/effect reality can stand in light of the missing original cause (that which caused the original effect – the big bang). I observe that atheists seek certainty, thereby projecting their assumption on believers, without ever realizing that faith is NOT certainty, but rather a creed adopted to transcend certainty and doubt. Perhaps that sounds nebulous in the extreme, and yet, even the Romans noticed the change in behavior of converted Christians, something they thought impossible.

  21. Atheism’s main appeal is that it convinces you that you’re way smarter than at least 6.3 billion other people.

    • More like 108 billion, if we include all the people who have ever lived on Earth, who pretty certainly believed in some sort of deity.

    • As I observe this planet and it’s various societies for many decades, I would say that it’s not a stretch to be smarter that the 6.3 billion others who put their fate in the hands of others. Faith eh wot?

  22. Atheism is so boring that even Zman can’t make it interesting 🙂

    • Not as boring as the idea that if you behave all your life you get to spend all eternity somewhere with god and all the other well behaved people who have ever lived …. I mean c’mon … eternity? Just how much golf can you play … and without your body …. It’s all nuts ….

      • Eternity is not ‘forever’ God created time when He created the universe. God is timeless. Our souls are timeless, unlike our bodies. The question is… do you want to be stuck in a self-imposed hell without any possibility of changing your condition or do you want to bask in the direct love of God? You choose. Jesus is the way to God. The only way. Amen.

        • Stargazer – How do you know that souls exist? And if they do exist, what makes you think they are eternal? How could a human being’s so-called soul exist without its physical body? When a person dies, where does this soul go?

    • Actually, I find it fascinating. It’s like making government your god, liberalism your religion and faith, and being fervently fascist about it. At least evangelicals offer you the Word for your choosing but Liberals are forcing their life view on everyone as a way of life, as a religion … kind of like Islam.

      You might expect that in the human endeavor there would be a range of beliefs. What is so fascinating is how different those beliefs can be and to what extent some will go to push those beliefs on others.

      For me, when I go up into the mountains and trek around in the beauty of nature and see what I consider “God’s” creation, and consider the variety of creation, plant, animal, mineral, microscopic, macroscopic, and as some mention human biology, I can only marvel at something that shouts “Intelligent Design.” Such variety, beauty existing or having “evolved” in spite of the second law of thermodynamics, is truly astounding to me. Every system in the human body, the birth process, the life cycle, nature, entropy, it is all so magnificent.

      So if someone wants to believe that there is no god, or is not sure, that is their business. But why should they get paid with tax monies to educate young minds that their beliefs are the truth? That is really what gets me about the entire scam of religion posing as science. And it is a religion of another kind.

      • LetsPlay – I would never make government – or anything else my ‘god’. As for those who try to push their life views onto everyone else? I have had that experience with many religious people. In America, many politicians are trying to push the idea of a national religion onto all of its citizens. I do not see any atheists trying to push their views onto the entire country.

        But believe me when I tell you that atheism is not being forced onto anyone in this country – certainly not in any significant manner. Atheists are one of the most denounced and criticized groups in America. If a person publicly says that he/she is an atheist, he/she will never be elected into a major political position such as Senator, Governor, Congressperson or president.

        Atheists do not have any programming on cable TV. Religious organizations have several programs on cable TV.

        Just for clarity – atheism is neither a religion or a belief system. It is simply the statement that they lack belief in any of the existing god claims. If people are threatened by this, perhaps it is more because they do not want anyone challenging their beliefs.

    • Solomon – You must not have been listening to the right atheists. I have found most of their discussions to be reasonable and very interesting. You might want to check out “The Atheist Experience” on YouTube.

  23. Orwell said something about people “who don’t so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him.” That’s evangelical atheism. My biggest problem with them — and I speak as a former atheist — is the assumption that because they thought of something for *their* first time, it’s the first time that thought has ever been thunk. Christian apologetics go back 2,000 years; Aquinas has better arguments *against* religion than I ever thought of. You may not agree with their answers (a lot of them do seem to be question-begging), but I guarantee you one of the Church Fathers has an answer to any argument you can come up with. Short version: I’m not Smart enough to be an atheist anymore.

    • This is something you see with the snarky set in general. They think if it is new to them, it must be new to everyone. It’s solipsism.

      • For them as believe only the self can be known, they sure spend a lot of time butting into other people’s (and nature’s) affairs.

    • This also applies to the gotcha arguments atheists like to spring on average Christians. Just because *I* can’t explain why a loving God would permit suffering to exist doesn’t meant that *no one* can explain it. Or has explained it. But these questions aren’t asked in hope of getting a real answer; they’re just rhetorical cudgels to strike down and humiliate the believer. They’re very uninterested in doing the actual research necessary to find out what the history of Christian thinking on difficult questions has been.

      • Ah yes, the ol’ Problem of Theodicy. Personally, I’ve never understood why that was supposed to be such a knockout argument. If there’s no God, then it’s not Evil, is it? “That horrible stuff happens” is just a fact about the universe, like the speed of light or gravity. By calling it Evil, you’re trying to argue with me in moral categories that you by definition must reject. It’s at best an argument against Christianity, not against the existence of God in general (and here, I’ll solve that problem for you: I’m a Cathar. There are TWO gods, one good, one evil. Whoa!)

Comments are closed.