Creationist Wisdom #648: Atheism Debunked

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Pueblo Chieftain of Pueblo, Colorado . The letter is titled Contradict atheists. The newspaper has a comments feature.

Because today’s writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Louis. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

In another attempt to disrupt a Christian symbol, atheists in Minnesota demanded that a Nativity display be taken down by threatening a lawsuit by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. This group is doing so with the endorsement of the ACLU.

Oh, how disgusting! Louis says:

I find it interesting that the founder, R.N. Baldwin, is a confirmed atheist who defends this group when they deem something to be offensive and are against anything religious.

An atheist? Gasp! That’s very interesting. Louis is well on the way to a solid debunking by identifying his target. Let’s read on:

Gnostic atheists claim to know God does not exist and claim no religion or faith.

We’re not sure what a “Gnostic” atheist is — but Louis does, so we won’t worry about it. He continues:

I guess you can hope you are not wrong.

Ah, that’s Pascal’s Wager. An excellent point! Here’s more:

I find it amusing atheists use moral absolutes to evaluate the God they claim not to believe in. Why spend your time trying to disprove something you know doesn’t exist?

That’s because they’re fools! Moving along:

Some atheists, along with some liberals, do not believe in any religion, they just know they are against it. When you belong to the Church of the Perpetually Offended, you have no problem attacking Christians at every turn.

Louis knows the behavior pattern. Another excerpt:

It is notable that these groups never insult radical Muslims and defend their right to pray on their rugs. Why not show how tough you can be with a religion that doesn’t turn the other cheek?

That’s something we never noticed before! Atheists never talk about Muslims. Louis is a keen observer! Now we come to the end, and this is where Louis makes his most devastating point:

Something to ponder: Without God, there would be no atheists.

Brilliant — without God, atheism wouldn’t exist! We congratulate Louis. His debunking is perfect!

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

18 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #648: Atheism Debunked

  1. “Something to ponder: Without God, there would be no atheists.”

    And without leprechauns, there would be nobody lacking belief in leprechauns.

    On a strictly cognitive level, I guess he has some kind of point, but hardly the point he is trying to make.

  2. Newsflash for Louis: No atheist I know cares which of the thousands of sky fairies that people have invented you happen to like. And I’m pretty sure everyone is born an atheist.

  3. abeastwood—-No one is really born an atheist, more like they are born with a clean slate ready to be writ on.
    Louis is one of those who is so stupid he does not have the intelligence to know he is ignorant as cow dung.

  4. Ceteris Paribus

    Louis says:

    “Something to ponder: Without God, there would be no atheists.”

    Ah, yes Louis, but in your Christian heart you must find room to take pity on those poor atheists. After all, you have just your own single God to bother with. The atheists are doomed to spend their days and nights fretting over the countless multitudes of gods that inhabit this planet. Not to mention the eerie underworld of demons, gobblins, and fairies.

  5. As an agnostic liberal I have been critical of all fundamentalist religions perhaps even more of Islam and its inherent tendencies towards misogyny and sexual apartheid. Religion is delusion, as Louis so aptly demonstrates in his commentary.

  6. I would suppose that, in context, a “gnostic” atheist is someone who claims that we can know, or at least be reasonably sure, that no God exists. After all, an agnostic claims not to know whether any God exists (or, in the strong form, to know that no one can know whether any God exists), and such an agnostic might well, in fact, believe, without claiming to have any sort of proof, that there is no God. This would be an agnostic atheist.

  7. Louis trundled out the phrase: “a confirmed atheist”

    Does anyone know where you can get these confirmations? Is it a certificate? Maybe a week long course?

  8. I find it amusing atheists use moral absolutes to evaluate the God they claim not to believe in. Why spend your time trying to disprove something you know doesn’t exist?

    And by the same token, Louis, why are you and other creationists wasting your time trying to disprove evolution, which you’re sure isn’t real?

    Something to ponder: Without God, there would be no atheists.

    Without evolution, there would be no creationists.

  9. @Eric Lipps
    There is no description – and this is particularly true of “Intelligent Design” – of creationism without “somehow, something is wrong with evolution.” If the creationists were deprived of the word “evolution”, they’d have nothing to say.
    Take a typical “definition” of “Intelligent Design”: “there is a better explanation than that offered by evolutionary biology”. (Not telling us what that explanation is, only that it isn’t evolution.)
    Before evolution became conceivable, there were no creationists (in the modern sense of the term).

  10. Why spend your time trying to disprove something you know doesn’t exist?

    Because you apparently still think it does. Because you make it your life’s work to indoctrinate others to believe in your foolishness. Because you want to impose non-sensical and perverse rules on the rest of us because of your mistaken belief in a nonexistent entity with bronze age morals. Because you actively seek to block scientific progress, because you are responsible in part for overpopulation through denial of birth control measures, because you seek to marginalize women, because… it’s a long list. All because you believe in something that isn’t there.

  11. Eric Lipps:
    “Without evolution, there would be no creationists.”

    Very good!

  12. The whole truth

    L. Long said:

    “No one is really born an atheist, more like they are born with a clean slate ready to be writ on.”

    But that is atheism. Atheist means not a theist, and everyone is born not a theist, with a clean slate. Some people try to define atheist/atheism in other ways but not a theist is really all it means. Any other beliefs or lack of beliefs requires other labels.

  13. The whole truth

    Reflectory asked:

    “Does anyone know where you can get these confirmations? Is it a certificate? Maybe a week long course?”

    Pay me $39.95, plus $9.95 shipping and handling, and I’ll send you an atheist confirmation certificate. No course is necessary.🙂

  14. The whole truth: “But that is atheism. Atheist means not a theist, and everyone is born not a theist, with a clean slate. Some people try to define atheist/atheism in other ways but not a theist is really all it means. Any other beliefs or lack of beliefs requires other labels.”

    With the huge caveat that words have multiple meanings – which by the way, makes the anti-evolution movement’s job infinitely easier – I would say we are all born agnostic. As I understand it “atheism” means “there is no God,” which by the way is very different from “there is no evidence of God” (there’s no evidence yet of extraterrestrial life, but it’s reasonable to suspect that there’s plenty, just not yet discovered). Many self-described theists, myself included, will admit the latter. Then again, it’s tempting to think: “Everyone is agnostic – most don’t know they are, and most of the rest won’t admit it.”

  15. There was a time when “atheist” did not refer to what one’s opinion was, but how one behaved – one was an atheist by not obeying God. An “atheist” was not trusted in giving his word. Satan was an “atheist”.
    The prefix “a-” often just means “lack of”. So “asymmetric” or “aseptic”. Algebra is “atheistic” (despite the frequent offering of prayers before exams).
    “Agnostic” can refer to any simple lack of belief, such as I am agnostic about who will win the Superbowl (maybe with the suggestion that one doesn’t care). Or it can mean that one is of the opinion that it is impossible to know the answer, or even that the issue is not well defined: any attempt at an answer is meaningless.
    And then there is the rare word “adevism”.

  16. Louis is making a common mistake: he thinks that these taking-down of nativity scenes and the like are because atheists (or whomever is advocating for that) are offended. Like, it would offend religious people if some kind of shrine were erected to a god different from their own.

    People, whether atheists or not, want these religious displays taken down because they are *unconstitutional*, not offensive to their beliefs. It’s always something on public land, and, as we know, the government cannot endorse any religion or lack of it.

  17. @Garnetstar
    There are Christians who are offended at Nativity scenes. They regard them as idolatry. A couple of centuries ago, conservative Christians – and Jehovah’s Witnesses yet today – objected to celebrating Christmas. It was considered Papist, or pagan.

  18. Louis says “Some atheists, along with some liberals, do not believe in any religion, they just know they are against it.”

    That there is one heckuva sentence.
    1. Only some atheists do not believe in any religion.
    2. The two groups (atheists and liberals) are mutually exclusive.
    3. There are some theist liberals who do not believe in religion.