Well according to Jason Lisle, an Answers in Genesis stooge, an atheist is somebody who does not believe in gods, but does really believe in gods. Or at least, of all the gods that they could choose to believe in, they all believe in just one god. Strangely enough, it's exactly the god he believes in.

Anyhow, there is something that appears recently on the Answers in Genesis website. I'm not going to bother directing you to it because this is what it really says.

God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists

People who do not believe in gods are really people who do believe in gods. The Bible says that one god exists, therefore one god exists. God revealed himself to all, except everybody he did reveal himself to other than in the Bible. God’s existence is so obvious nobody has no excuse for not seeing him, smelling him, tasting him, being physically touched by him or having a conversation with him. Atheists say they don’t believe in God, but knowledge of god is contained in the muscle located in the thorax that pumps blood around the body. If atheists have direct knowledge contained in this muscle, why do they not believe in God (or any other god)?

People don’t believe in God because God is so nice, he is angry at them for not believing in him. You should be afraid of such a loving god. So although atheists find no evidence for the existence of gods, they are strongly motivated by this total lack of evidence to reject this angry god. They suppress the truth because they are wicked, even though being truthful is supposed to be a good thing. The atheist is schizophrenic because they don’t believe in gods but do believe in gods even though they don’t believe in gods.

Therefore, because we have told atheists a load of absolute nonsense, we do not need to provide further evidence because atheists should believe in total nonsense because Jason Lisle does. His mission is to show atheists that although they don’t believe in gods, they do believe in gods because it better to believe in total nonsense than it to not believe in something because if it is total nonsense.

Exposing the Inconsistency

Because an atheist does believe in gods that he doesn’t believe in, atheists are being inconsistent. An imaginary atheist university professor who teaches that human beings are simply chemical accidents goes home and kisses his imaginary wife and hugs his imaginary children as if they were not chemical accidents, but real people.

Consider the atheist who is outraged at watching a violent murder on the ten o’clock news. But he shouldn’t be angry because he finds no evidence for gods. He shouldn’t get upset at soda for reacting with vinegar because this is exactly the same as taking away a human life. Only Christians have value as people, therefore only Christians have the right to be angry at murderers.

Many atheists behave morally and expect others to behave morally. But the human concept of morality which results from being socially interactive, intelligent beings is not the same as the morality of a supernatural being that nobody can prove even exists. Morals should be imposed by fictional gods because otherwise human beings will invent their own moral codes.

Logical Inconsistency

If it snows, it must be cold. This is because it only snows when it’s cold, therefore, logically, if it’s snowing, it must be cold. This is because logic is a reflection of a fictional supernatural being that doesn’t appear to exist. The god who is God is an immaterial omnipresent, unchanging abstract entity therefore the fact that it snows only when it’s cold is also an immaterial, universal, invariant abstract entity. We know God is real because you can read about him in a book.

However, because atheists do not believe in fictional supernatural beings, for them snow can fall on even very hot days. Most atheists believe in things that are real, but because logic is abstract, they cannot believe that logic is real. You cannot put logic in the refrigerator with real things like milk and eggs. Even though atheists can think, they cannot be logical because logic can’t be taken out of the fridge.

Yet, having said all that, no one is denying that atheists cannot think logically. The point is, because they do not believe in illogical things, they cannot believe in logic. This is being inconsistent because although the existence of gods is illogical, only people who belivee in them are being logical. By being logical, atheists prove they are illogical, because it is illogical to disbelieve in illogical things.  

Because atheists do not believe in things that are not proven to be real, they cannot believe in logic, immaterial things that are universal and unchanging with time and can only be believed in human beings. The best proof of the existence of gods is the fact that atheists don’t believe that a piano falling on their head from a great height will hurt them, because only people who believe in God can believe such things. This pathetic argument is known as transcendental argument for God, or tafG for short. Despite the fact it is pathetic tafG is devastating and conclusive argument, apparently.

Proof Versus Persuasion

Though tafG is apparently deductively sound, some atheists will find it unconvincing. Atheists are generally unable to grasp that such spurious arguments are not at all spurious, and even if they do find such nonsense makes sense, they may still remain unconvinced. It must be remembered that people can be persuaded by an argument if some sort of proof can be provided, even though proof and persuasion are mutually exclusive.  Atheists are strongly motivated by lack of proof (or, indeed, nonsense like tafG) to not believe in gods, even though one particular god will be angry with them.

Even though atheists see themselves as nothing more than atoms interacting with other atoms, their denial of the existence of gods will be an emotional one rather than a logical one. A disobedient child who is about to be whacked by his real and solid father cannot wish his father to no longer exist. In the same way, atheists who are about to be whacked by their unreal, non-solid father cannot simply wish this god away.

It is not the job of real people to argue that people who are not real are really actually real. But people who are not real can use the arguments of real people to persuade other real people to believe that they do really exist. It’s just simply that they don’t bother.

Views: 129


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by kathy: ky on September 14, 2014 at 9:51pm
That's just funny.
Comment by Travis Hedglin on September 14, 2014 at 9:32pm

I am unsurprised at the mental gymnastics this fellow went through to trivialize atheism, and it only shows what a threat it must be if it forced him to write such a piece. If logic and reason were a woman, she could take him to court for rape for the crass and obvious violation in just a single section of the above. This isn't worth anybodies time unless they enjoy stoner comedies.

Comment by Michael Penn on September 11, 2014 at 11:46am

Yes, Luara, and I was commenting on the writer of that AIG post.

Comment by Luara on September 11, 2014 at 11:05am

God must be fitting that "god hole" in my heart, but what does my body blood pump have to do with knowing something

The original poster was parodying the post on AIG

Comment by Grinning Cat on September 11, 2014 at 10:57am

The first paragraph of Lisle's piece was enough to make me wonder, "Is this a Poe?"

And yes, Luara, we are self-aware, empathetic, thinking, feeling, very specially organized collections of atoms. No contradiction there! No spooks needed.

Comment by Michael Penn on September 11, 2014 at 10:42am

This moron and Pascal could have been good friends. God must be fitting that "god hole" in my heart, but what does my body blood pump have to do with knowing something? Maybe I could feel god just as well in my reins. King James thought so. Stop with the jacking around of nonsense here, please. Why is logic considered abstract? Jack this around a bit and you can believe anything that you want to believe, and you can prove it too.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. There are no Answers in Genesis. Ken Ham is really a ham, and these people are batshit crazy!

Comment by Luara on September 11, 2014 at 10:25am

My responses to what it says on the website:

consider the atheist university professor who teaches that human beings are simply chemical accidents—the end result of a long and purposeless chain of biological evolution. But then he goes home and kisses his wife and hugs his children

How does it follow that understanding that human beings are collections of atoms, should cause someone to not love?  What's illogical about one collection of atoms loving another collection of atoms?  The reasoning seems to be:  Nobody loves one atom.  Therefore, it's illogical to love a collection of atoms.  But a person is a collection of atoms, very specially organized :)  Seeing a person as a person is a different way of looking at reality, than seeing a person as a collection of atoms.  Why should seeing a person as a collection of atoms, be a "more right" way of seeing them?  Someone might be able to see a person in both ways at the same time, actually. 

Consider the atheist who is outraged at seeing a violent murder on the ten o’clock news. He is very upset and hopes that the murderer will be punished for his wicked actions. But in his view of the world, why should he be angry? In an atheistic, evolutionary universe where people are just animals, murder is no different than a lion killing an antelope.

Murder is different from a lion killing an antelope because it's killing our own species.  We have empathy with other humans that evolved so that groups of humans could function well.  And perhaps an evolved tendency to value human life.
Murder is killing another human, in a way that's morally disapproved of - either by society in general, or by an individual.  
I do not actually want violent criminals to be punished, as such.  I don't think that's ethical.  Some people have to be kept in prison to protect others.  But I want them to be treated well while they're in prison.  Hopefully it will teach them to treat others well. 

When push comes to shove, no one really believes that morality is merely a subjective, personal choice.

Morality isn't merely a subjective, personal choice.  There are universal aspects to morality, that evolved and are innate in people.  People have an innate tendency to empathize with others, that is crucial for getting along in groups.  Reciprocity is probably also universal and innate.
We also have cultural and individual morality.  Different cultures have different ethics about when killing is justified, for example.  So do individuals.  
There's no contradiction in making moral judgements when commonly-accepted standards or innate morality is being used.  So the question becomes:  when you have a moral standard that others don't share, is there an inconsistency in applying it to others?   People would consider doing this to be excessively judgemental for the most part, I think.  If one doesn't think euthanasia is ethical or the death penalty is ethical, it would be rather judgemental to think someone else who euthanizes someone or carries out a death penalty, is bad - as long as they're acting in accord with their own moral judgements.  We would tend to say "they're acting according to their own lights" and be unhappy with what happened - but not necessarily think they're evil. 

the atheist cannot account for laws of logic. He cannot make sense of them within his own worldview. How could there be immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract laws in a chance universe formed by a big bang?

Who said the universe was "chance", anyway?  
And how do laws of logic imply the existence of a deity?  Here's a law of logic:  if A implies B and B implies C, then A implies C.   Somebody infers the existence of God from that???

Comment by Loren Miller on September 11, 2014 at 7:09am

AiG can throw that crap around until St Swithin's Day 2027 (or later!) and they will get nowhere with me.  I am sick to death of hand-waving arguments which supposedly demonstrate the necessity of such a being existing while providing absolutely nothing substantial to bulwark their position.  Such arguments do nothing more than waste my time.

I remain a pragmatist, and as such, if they want to convince me of the existence of their god, They Can Produce EVIDENCE, and I mean cold, hard, tangible, testable, irrefutable EVIDENCE.  Do that and then and only then will they have my attention.

I don't want to believe; I want to know.
-- Carl Sagan


Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service