Why Don’t Christians Ever Get New Arguments? September 5, 2009

Why Don’t Christians Ever Get New Arguments?

How many times have you heard Christians use Pascal’s Wager in a debate?

Or the canard that “it takes more faith to be an atheist”?

Or the question of how we atheists can have morals or a purpose without religion?

If you’re my inbox, you come across it often. I suspect most atheists who have been outspoken about their beliefs hear the same arguments from Christians over and over.

It gets tiring responding to the same bad arguments all the time.

Greta Christina makes an important point about this, though:

These arguments are old to us. But they’re new to them. As long as there are people who haven’t heard our case — and who haven’t heard it more than once — we have to keep making that case. And we have to make it patiently. It doesn’t make sense for a teacher to get annoyed and impatient with their students for not already knowing the material. And it doesn’t make sense for us to get annoyed and impatient with believers for not being familiar with our case.

We shouldn’t get annoyed, but it’s hard not to. If the questioner is sincere, however, it can lead to some great conversations.


Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Richard Wade

    Why don’t Christians ever get new arguments?

    Because there is nothing behind their arguments. There are only so many ways to argue that an empty lunchbox is actually full.
    Because they never get any new evidence.
    Because they don’t learn by looking at the real world around them. They learn by memorizing what they are told by people who learned the same way.
    Because they are encouraged by their religion to remain child-like, and they go out into the marketplace of ideas naive and unprepared.
    Because they have never been taught what faulty arguments are, and that is because theirs are the archetypal examples.

    I try to treat them with patience and respect when they are sincere. It does however get tediously repetitive sometimes.

  • Jon

    Please. This is a ridiculous post. There are only so many ways to convince an idiot that he’s wrong. The idiot doesn’t get it, because he’s an idiot.

    In the above paragraph, replace the word idiot with atheist, and there is your answer as to why there aren’t new arguments.

    But, if you seriously want to have an atheism vs. theism debate, let’s start with the concept of time and the theory of relativity. Do you accept the Lorentzian version of relativity or the Einsteinian version of relativity?

    And don’t write any shit for RichardWade. He doesn’t want to eat it anymore.

  • Richard Wade

    Jon, I am honored to be singled out for your annoyance.

    Please enlighten us on your brand new physics-based argument. Rather than asking either-or questions of your design, which is an obvious ploy, just make your claim and tell us how all that cool relativity stuff supports it.

  • Physicsguy89

    I’m going to have to agree with Ricard Wade on both of his comments.

  • Shannon

    Hey, I think Jon is pretty funny for a troll. I’m sort of bummed when he declines to post on a topic 😉

    But as to the subject, awhile ago I had to moderate on a list I’m on because a born again Christian was evangelizing and pissing a lot of people (even some other Christians) off. She really was a sweetie who didn’t have a clue why she was annoying people. I wrote her off list and she said she felt that if she just explained it’s “a relationship”, not religion, then people might know Jesus as she did. As politely as I could I asked her if she was a new born Born Again because I had hear that so many times. That if the Christian explains it in just the right way, everyone would convert. Everyone. I tried to be polite as I assured her that we all had heard of Jesus already, but I think I pissed her off because I never heard from her again.

    So yeah, it’s hard, but I try to be polite. Even when I fail miserably, I still try.

  • Greta Christina is right, you have to look at it as though you’re a teacher and be indefatiguable and engage each person where they are. There are no ideal minds out there, you have to talk to particular people one at a time.

    And since there are billions of religious people, each of us needs to get cracking on patiently having each of those one on one debates.

  • Luther

    They could learn from the tea-baggers:

    – Atheists have a plan to kill grandma.

    – Atheists never show their real birth certificates.

  • TJ

    Both sides must have legitimate points and evidence to back them up, be open to changing their beliefs when new evidence arrives, and be open to being proven completely wrong.

    The religion side clearly does not have any of these traits.

    Therefore, there is no debate.

  • Please. This is a ridiculous post. There are only so many ways to convince an idiot that he’s wrong. The idiot doesn’t get it, because he’s an idiot.

    In the above paragraph, replace the word idiot with atheist, and there is your answer as to why there aren’t new arguments.

    If you idiots would just accept the bible as literally true, then we wouldn’t make the same arguments all the time! Silly idiots, refusing to not think for yourselves and complicating our arguments with your heavily reinforced evidence. If you idiots would just stop doing that, then we could convince you you’re wrong. How do you expect us to change our arguments when you won’t even allow us to change the way science is defined, studied, or understood? Idiots!

    Oh Jon, you do make me giggle.

  • Christianity has had 2000 years to think up good arguments to believe in it, but still fear of hell is most commonly used. I think that says something.

  • Demetrius Of Pharos

    There are only so many ways to convince an idiot that he’s wrong. The idiot doesn’t get it, because he’s an idiot.

    What a perfect description of Christianity. Thank you for sharing that.

    But, if you seriously want to have an atheism vs. theism debate, let’s start with the concept of time and the theory of relativity. Do you accept the Lorentzian version of relativity or the Einsteinian version of relativity?

    I’m no physicist, and maybe someone besides Jon can point me to useful information if I am wrong, but didn’t Einstein’s theory of Relativity (specifically, special relativity) incorporate Lorentzian relativity?

    The main reason their are no new arguments from Christians is very simple – they have no new information. Their entire mythology is based on one book (The New Testament) which was written around 100 AD.

    One final note on Jon (for now, until he Trolls again) – why is it that I hear a Christian (or right winger, or Fox pundit, or whatever) describe their opposition, they sound like they are projecting? I think I’ve been watching to much Colbert Report, they all sound like examples of Poe’s Law now regardless of whether they are serious or not.

    Oh, and Congratulations to RichardWade for being singled out, I’m quite jealous.

  • Valdyr

    There are sometimes new arguments but there are never new types of argument. As above posters have stated, there’s only so many ways to argue an inherently illogical concept with no empirical evidence in its favor. Honestly, I find the Bigfoot believers’ arguments more interesting (if ultimately just as meritless). One of these days I’d like to hear about a pastor getting DNA tests done on an unknown hair sample from a bear trap that he claims caught Jesus.

  • Honestly, I find the Bigfoot believers’ arguments more interesting (if ultimately just as meritless). One of these days I’d like to hear about a pastor getting DNA tests done on an unknown hair sample from a bear trap that he claims caught Jesus.

    LOL Hilarious!

    Regarding the troll–when did he show up? Because the first post I ever read of his, I thought he was just a dissenting, slightly uninformed opinion… but now he’s gone full-on Middle School on us… very boring, if slightly amusing.

  • If you ever had a real, long, in depth discussion about these topics with a believer, would you mind asking them for their permission and posting it?

    I certainly know *our* side of the argument. But I’ve never seen an answer to our Pascals Wager refute. And it’s not easy to google for it either. You get a lot of fundamentalist bullshit or dumb people (FSTDT basically). I’ve never seen an intelligent discussion about it.

  • Gordon

    I was thinking about Pascal’s Wager today and I came up with a follow up question..

    “Is that why you are a Christian?”

    I am betting almost every evangeliser will say no. Which nicely leads to…

    “Why would it make me believe if it is not what makes you believe?”

    Do you think this will work? Is it polite enough?

  • mikespeir

    As usual, Greta is pretty wise. And, as usual, Jon seems to be bored.

  • trixr4kids

    @JohnFrost:

    “…now [Jon’s]gone full-on Middle School on us”

    Yeah, you can tell the post rankles. 🙂 He’s been reduced to “I’m rubber you’re glue!”

    (I must assume even he realizes that his attempt to impress with his scientific acuity looks like a half-assed line thrown in desperation. Foolish coopting of poorly-understood scientific concepts in the service of religious apologia is foolish.)

  • medussa

    I checked out Jon the Troll’s website, he claims to be a designer, a photographer, and/or an architect. I’m guessing he’s seriously underemployed at the very least, if not unemployed, for him to have so much time to troll through a website dedicated to the discussion of issues he doesn’t agree with.
    And instead of doing something constructive with his time, like start his own blog (suggested by someone else here), or work to better the world and demonstrate that not all christians are useless, or go join/start/support a church, or *gasp* educate himself on the issues he’s trolling about… no, he tries to make clever contributions to a conversaton well over his head.

  • medussa

    @vcover:
    What is FSTDT?

  • I counter Pascal’s wager with another Blaise Pascal quote;

    “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”

  • I assume that most of you understand this, but for those that don’t: religious people don’t like being patronized any more than non-believers do.

    Because they don’t learn by looking at the real world around them. They learn by memorizing what they are told by people who learned the same way.
    Because they are encouraged by their religion to remain child-like, and they go out into the marketplace of ideas naive and unprepared.

    If this is how you see religious people, why do you bother? And knowing that this is how you see us, why should we listen?

    Furthermore, of the big three of the “New Atheists” (Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens) not a one of them presents an argument that has not been presented before, and usually better. And with all due respect, I rarely see a remotely original argument on this or any other atheism site. Most of the posts seem to be about “Look at what the crazy religious people are doing now” or “Hey, this celebrity is an atheist too!” Neither of which is an argument or particularly original.

  • littlejohn

    In fairness, even Bertrand Russell admitted that he was flummoxed by the Ontological Argument as a student. Of course, he got over it.

    Methinks Jon the troll is trying to impress us with big words he himself probably doesn’t understand. Does he really think that impresses us?

    I will personally confess to a very weak grasp of Relativity, but I know enough to see it has nothing to do with the existence of god.

    By the way, Jon, are you referring to Einstein’s general theory, or his special theory, hmm?

  • Jeff Little

    In 2000 years they have always had dumb people following them. Finally the times have changed and they looks stupid

  • cathy

    odgie, you generally can’t prove a negative. Try to prove that unicorns don’t exist, prove it now! This means that most arguments atheists give are counterarguments. The purpose of a counterargument is to disprove/point out flaws in the origional argument. You don’t need a new counterargument when the origional is still the same. If you make an assertion that was well refuted by Socrates, we have no motivation to move beyond the time of Socrates to refute you.

  • Autumnal Harvest

    Demetrius of Pharos:

    I’m no physicist, and maybe someone besides Jon can point me to useful information if I am wrong, but didn’t Einstein’s theory of Relativity (specifically, special relativity) incorporate Lorentzian relativity?

    Yes, you are correct. Einstein’s theory of special relativity is based on using Lorentz invariance—specifically, the assumption that the speed of light, and the laws of physics, are invariant under Lorentz transformations. (Generally relativity is also locally Lorentz invariant.) There are not a separate ‘Lorentzian version” and “Einsteinian theory” of relativity.

    odgie:

    And with all due respect, I rarely see a remotely original argument on this or any other atheism site.

    I think this is a fair response. Neither Christians nor atheists generally have new and original arguments. Which is to be expected; it’s a pretty old debate, it’s hard for anyone on other side to come up with a good original argument. And each side already thinks they have winning arguments, so really, why bother coming up with new ones?

  • Odgie – For better or worse, the patronizing attitude is reactionary. It’s going to take a bit of healing and time for the atheist community to get over the hundreds of years of dealing with being treated like lesser humans, being marginalized, being killed, and all of the other atrocities religious people have committed against us for the crime of not agreeing with their mythology before we don’t automatically bring up our defenses or in some cases come out swinging. I would be a lot more respectful of religious people if I witnessed you guys defending us against these kinds of attitudes, but that rarely if ever happens. When we’re being patronized, your tisk tisking is conspicuously absent.

  • Richard P

    I think this says it best.

    The word of god is unchanging. It is a living universe. What is in flux is what is alive. An unchanging word must by definition pertains to a dead world. In a universe that is forced to change there is a written word not forced to change? That the world of a taxidermist.

  • BrettH

    Odgie: I grew up a conservative baptist, and I don’t think the statement you quoted was being patronizing. I really was raised not to question. I wasn’t told to go in and listen to my biology teacher carefully, because his “evolution” theory might address weaknesses in my “creation” theory. I was told to try not to listen, that teaching evolution raised unnecessary doubts about what we already knew happened. I know this isn’t the way all Christians are, but on this site people seem to generalize a bit and focus on the sub groups of Christians that keep trying to take our rights away. It is sometimes inaccurate, but it’s practical.

  • To be fair, atheist aren’t coming up with a lot of new and original arguments. But then “there’s just no evidence” is pretty comprehensive and irrefutable.

  • Richard P

    odgie Says:
    I rarely see a remotely original argument on this or any other atheism site. Most of the posts seem to be about “Look at what the crazy religious people are doing now” or “Hey, this celebrity is an atheist too!” Neither of which is an argument or particularly original.

    In one way I would agree. The new arguments, really just aren’t there. However, There has been huge steps in the gathering of evidence that support arguments of our cause. New fossils, that fill in missing gaps in the theory of evolution. Also the development of astronomy, leading to a better understanding of our place in the universe. The list does go on and on. Even things like the in-ability to document even one significant verifiable healing miracle from god. We may not come up with new arguments but we do produce growing evidence.
    Where as the closest thing religion has produced in the way of new evidence is ID and that is just a newly wrapped old sandwich, that still tastes horrible.

    As far as this part:

    Most of the posts seem to be about “Look at what the crazy religious people are doing now” or “Hey, this celebrity is an atheist too!”

    I agree we seem to hold a certain fascination for the stupidity of religion. I personally would like to see more information concerning our world. New insights into evolution and how it pertains to our beliefs, that kind of thing.
    I think for the most part we all know the depth of delusion needed to support the belief in a god. This is like stretching our muscles for the first time. enjoying our new found freedom, so to say.

  • Grendel72

    Patience only goes so far, and a number of their bad arguments are in fact incredibly offensive. It’s not my fault if some people are too stupid to reason through the circular logic fairy tales they were brainwashed into from youth, but I’m not going to let them attack me personally because of it.

  • ChameleonDave

    I think this says it best.

    The word of god is unchanging. It is a living universe. What is in flux is what is alive. An unchanging word must by definition pertains to a dead world. In a universe that is forced to change there is a written word not forced to change? That the world of a taxidermist.

    Says what best? That paragraph doesn’t say anything.

  • Citizen Z

    There are no new arguments for atheism. I agree with that completely. But why on Earth would there be? It’s the null hypothesis. Is there even a way to put forward a positive argument for a null hypothesis? I would expect all atheist arguments to be counter-arguments.

  • Richard Wade

    odgie,
    You used my remarks, so I’ll respond. Those “reasons because” are specifically to answer why I think Christians don’t come up with new arguments, and more specifically, arguments for the existence of God.

    They are not reasons to treat Christians with disrespect. I try very hard to treat them respectfully, and I have been pleased many times when Christians not only show me the same courtesy, but they also set aside the endlessly futile “God is/God is not” debate, for which I have never had much interest. I have had many productive discussions with Christians about matters that are actually important. They became less naively interested in conversion, and started discussing things that could actually be improved if we came to mutual understandings.

    As others here are noting, the arguments are old so the counterarguments are old. The claims never stand up, and the counterpoints never fail to knock them down. So they don’t change.

    Most atheists, like myself, do not take the initiative to challenge someone’s belief in gods. Almost always, they come to us with their claims, wanting various sorts of support or compliance with their dictates. We ask for something substantial to convince us that their claims are true and that their dictates are valid, and that is when, having nothing substantial to show us, they start repeating all those ancient arguments, the ones with all the holes built into them.

    So odgie, please do not think that I hold all Christians in permanent disdain. When they move beyond those early, artless attempts to convert or defeat atheists, I find many of them to be a pleasure to know and to talk with.

  • ChameleonDave

    I disagree with Hemant’s basic idea that theists aren’t inventive with their arguments. I think there is a wide variety of nonsense that they come up with. Even if you deal with them so often that you become very well acquainted with it, they can still occasionally surprise you with new, minor variations on the nonsense.

    Indeed, in general I’d say that it is characteristic of people who are wrong to have many arguments. People who are right are always at a disadvantage, because they have only one thing to work with: the truth.

    For example, the ‘birthers’ that America is having trouble with at the moment have no qualms about inventing all manner of lies, saying that Obama was born in this place or that place, at this time or that time, and that his birth certificate has this problem or that problem. Opponents are restricted to pointing out that he was born on 4/8/61 in Honolulu, or replying to specific lies.

    Theists will tell you about Vishnu and Yahweh and Jupiter and Woden and Gautama. They’ll make you read the Koran and the Bible and the suras. All atheists can do is point out that the world is fundamentally the one we see around us, not the one invented by their priests.

    People who are wrong can say that 2+2=1 or =3 or =4 =5, etc. People who are right can only say that 2+2=4.

    The truth is a fort being attacked from all directions, and a siege often takes its toll.

  • @medussa
    Quote: “An archive of the most hilarious, bizarre, ignorant, bigoted, and terrifying quotes from fundies all over the internet! The FSTDT archive is the largest collection of fundie quotes on the planet.”

    http://fstdt.com/QuoteArchives.aspx?Archive=1

  • medussa

    @vcover:

    just checked it out, that is amazing, and not a little terrifying.

  • In the software world, where newbies always ask the same old questions over and over, they create a FAQ with all the dumb newbie questions. Then when a newbie asks a question, someone just links the FAQs and that’s the end of it. If the newbie still has a question, either he didn’t read it or it’s not actually a newbie question.

    We need a good Atheist FAQ, so when someone gives us the newbie questions we just link to it and we’re done. We would also need a printable offline version for those pesky offline encounters (or is that too much like bible tracts?).

    We already do have an Official God FAQ (type “god faq” into Google and hit the lucky button), but I don’t think that will cut it.

  • Chris, what looks like a potentially good
    ‘Ultimate Atheism F.A.Q.’ is being put together by Luke at Common Sense Atheism;

    It’s thin now, but ambitious, with about 50 question categories (currently mostly placeholders), and he’s open to corrections and additions.

    That said, what’s wrong with the current God FAQ? It looks complete enough to me! :-}

  • Gordon: Do you think this will work? Is it polite enough?

    Gordon, it works and I don’t think it is rude at all.

    I’ve been using the same type of wording for a few decades and I’ve never had someone reply that they became a Christian because of Pascal’s Wager or that they think it is a good reason for me to consider Christianity. At most, they push a watered down version as a side issue, and mostly shift to other topics.

    Unfortunately, most of the time it tends to completely silence those who propose Pascal’s Wager and the conversation dies. By pointing out the absurdities of what they propose, and that even they don’t rely on it, they are embarrassed. Either that, or they had nothing else to say or were just attempting a cheap tactic that may be effective on some people and they had no intention to be honest about what they are proposing.

    To me, Pascal’s Wager is often no better than a high pressure sales tactic worthy of a time share salesperson. Most people probably are duped by it because they haven’t thought about it. Yet, most of the salespeople haven’t either — leading to the silence when it is effectively challenged with basic questions as you have proposed.

  • The Other Tom

    I don’t have a lot of experience arguing with deists about my atheism, but I do have a lot of very similar experience arguing with deists about my homosexuality.

    I agree that acting annoyed with them doesn’t achieve anything. However, I’ve found that acting bored with their arguments can be educational. They start telling me what a terrible sinner I am, I ask them something to the effect of “don’t you realize I’ve heard all these arguments before and rejected them? You’re not going to convince me.” And then as they trot out all their tired arguments, I sit there and yawn and repeatedly remind them that yeah, heard that one before, don’t believe it. Occasionally I ask them to please try to be more original.

    Sometimes I also point out to them the absurdity of not their arguments themselves, but of attempting to use those arguments to one of the very people they’re trying to denounce. For example, they claim to me that all gay men have thousands of sex partners per year. (Yes, they’ve really claimed this.) I point out to them that I’m gay, and I know how many sex partners I have had, and I know that it isn’t thousands per lifetime let alone per year, “so you’re really not going to get very far trying to convince me of that, now are you?” This is very good at forcing them to stop and re-evaluate because they have to try to figure out a new tactic. I suppose a similar case would be if a deist tries to argue to you that atheists have no morals; you could reply that you’re an atheist and you know you have morals so perhaps they should consider that they’re not going to get anywhere with that argument with you.

    It probably won’t convince them that I’m moral and normal, but it at least tends to drum into their heads pretty fast that their arguments are ancient history and aren’t getting them anywhere and they’re going to have to work much harder if they want to win people to their position. I consider that a victory, because it will force them to think about it, at least a tiny bit, which is good because I believe that their not thinking is what makes them susceptible to indoctrinated bigotry in the first place. Every time they’re dragged kicking and screaming into turning on their brain for a brief moment brings them one tiny bit closer to realizing the stupidity of what they’re pushing.

  • The Other Tom

    @Gordon: Actually, I’ve had people tell me that yes, that is why they’re a christian (or in one case a jew) and they made it quite plain that they think that’s a fantastic reason and refused to consider any argument to the contrary.

  • CatBallou

    I don’t have any general hostility or scorn for religious people. Most of my family and friends are religious, and I know they’re good and intelligent people who have just this one blind spot. I’ve no doubt they’d describe me the same way. And we never talk about religion, so I never have to respond to silly arguments.
    What Greta Christina describes, though, does remind me of my early days as a feminist. I felt like I was having the same arguments over and over again (the Playboy argument, the ERA argument, the family name argument…).
    But with those arguments, as with religious ones, there does come a time when you just have to say “Fergodssakes read a book. I’m not your teacher.” People who approach you with religious arguments, expecting that you’ll be knocked over by their cleverness, don’t deserve a debate because they clearly haven’t done their homework. If they’d really wanted answers to their questions, they could have found them easily.

  • sven

    @odgie

    That´s another tired religious bore:
    Act like a victim.
    Than slightly belittle the atheist.
    Than leave without an (new or old) argument.

  • Gordon

    @The Other Tom – I’d say that you can make yourself act religious but if there is a god he’s unlikely to be fooled, what with the omnicience and all…

    @Hermes – If it shuts down the Wager I’m for it. If you want to continue the conversation you can always follow up with

    “OK so why are you a Christian?” and examine their actual reasons rather than the same ired old talking points…

  • Of course, if a Christian mentions Pascal’s Wager, an amusing response is to look at them, think, and say “you’re right”, then pause and think again and say “I’d better convert to Islam straight away”. Then see their reaction…

  • I would agree that there are no real new arguments coming out of the Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christian camp.

    What they have done, though, is refined the manner in which they introduce them, such as their doctrine of Hell.

    I’ve actually written an entire book on this topic–“Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There’s No Such Place As Hell,” (for anyone interested, you can get a free Ecopy of my book at my website: http://www.ricklannoye.com), but if I may, I’d like to briefly share from it.

    The Evangelicals have learned that they can’t scare most adults into believing as they used to, with fire and brimestone preaching. They not try to appeal to them in other ways, how God will be their friend, their guide, fix their problems, make them happy, etc. But once converted, THEN they start pouring on the fear! Hell doesn’t win as many over, but it’s very useful as a tool to keep them from leaving the faith.

    Of course, they have also become very aware of the weakness of their arguments, which is why they are trying so hard to have the only voice in the room, and why they want so badly to get their hands on the minds and tender emotions of young children, the real motive behind the so-called Get Prayer Back In Public Schools Movement. Though, of course, by “prayer,” they really mean PREACHING.

  • Gordon: If you want to continue the conversation you can always follow up with

    “OK so why are you a Christian?” and examine their actual reasons rather than the same ired old talking points…

    Yep. That works, though I’ve found that I need to slide it in right behind the rejection of PW or they will frequently give up on the conversation. The phrase I usually use is something like this;

    “I take it that you are not a Christian because of Pascal’s Wager***, as such why do you think I would be convinced by it? I am more interested in the reasons you have for being a Christian.”

    *** Or a description of what they said; many Christians don’t know that Pascal’s Wager is what they are using. They just take it as ‘common sense’, even though they themselves aren’t a Christian because of it.

  • Aj

    odgie,

    And with all due respect, I rarely see a remotely original argument on this or any other atheism site.

    You want atheists to develop original counter arguments against already well defeated arguments? No thanks. Look at the title of this post, theists don’t get new arguments, so that pretty much explains why there are no new counter arguments. I wouldn’t have thought I’d have to explain this, but then again you are religiously naive.

  • @Medussa — “Fundies Say The Darndest Things” (go on, click it; you know you want to….)

  • Heidi

    @ The Other Tom:

    For example, they claim to me that all gay men have thousands of sex partners per year.

    Clearly arithmetic and time management are not strong points for these people.

  • Another Atheist

    So atheists are supposed to be respectful of all religious people at all times, and never be condescending or patronizing, meanwhile, the pope can blame atheists for the world’s environmental problems?

    I do try to be patient with religious folks, as long as they are being somewhat reasonable – but for the accident of birth, I might have been one of them.

  • Buttons

    I haven’t heard many good arguments from the atheists side either. The most common, I think, is “God can’t exist because if He did, suffering wouldn’t exist.” That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. In posing such a theory, you’re assuming you know as much or more than God – a God you don’t even believe in. What’s up with that?

    You seem to think that Christians, as a group, are ignorant, brainwashed and flat out stupid. Your article here is basically laughing in the face of their arguments supporting God’s existence.

    I have yet to hear a good explanation for God’s nonexistance. Is this because I WANT to believe in God and, therefore, won’t allow myself to see the logic in the atheists argument? Believe me, I think my life would be easier without such a belief and I’ve searched for anything to convince me God does not exist. I haven’t found it yet. I’m interested in the truth and if God does not exist, I’d happily accept it as fact WITH GOOD EVIDENCE. I will say this, however. Even if I did find substantial conclusive evidence against God, I would never call myself an atheist. It’s just as dirty a word to me as Christian is in this day and age. Man is so full of evil and hate, everything has been soiled. You can’t even be comfortable in your beliefs or non-beliefs enough to keep them to yourself. You have to constantly pat yourself on the back for being so much more intelligent than the other side. I’m ashamed to belong to the same species as people like you, religious or not. Holier than thou, even as nonbelievers.

  • Everson

    Atheists can’t prove their case to Christians any more than Christians can prove their case to them. Once someone’s mind is decided firmly on something they’re not going to change it. So why doesn’t everyone just stop their pathetic bantering and move onto some real problems in the world. If we all blogged about something useful instead of who’s more retarded, or who’s right, the atheist or the Christian, we’d have a lot better world to live in today. Christians and atheists are always coming up with new arguments. Atheists would refuse there is a God if He came down from Earth and punched them in the face. So why bother arguing with them?