A word on evidence.. Again.

Apparently, my super easy to follow, very basic article on evidence was just too hard for some folks to grasp. So, in the spirit of educating, I’m going to review some mistakes that have been pouring into my comments sections.

First, a sound logical argument is not evidence. This is the favorite trick of lying assho… er, apologists like William Lane Craig.  Use all the correct terminology, construct the argument correctly, and wham-o, proof of God! Only no.

Let me demonstrate: All men are pigs, George is a man, therefore George is a pig, and since he is a pig, he is unable to sweat. (Pigs can’t sweat. Fun fact for the day.)

Clearly, all one needs to do is watch George sweat to demonstrate that SOMETHING is wrong with this argument. So we know it’s bullshit from the start. But where? The premises follow quite nicely? Is logic wrong? Are we going to hell because we believe George can sweat?  Of course not.  Again, George can sweat.  But despite a well crafted argument, it’s the crap you put in the framework that results in the errant conclusion. Crap in, crap out.

In this particular example, premise one is fallaciously equivocating the anthropomorphic term “pig” with an actual pig. Calling someone a “pig” because they are sloppy is not the same as calling them a literal pig. But by slipping a word with a double meaning into the framework of the argument, William Lane Craig is able to make a shit ton of money lying to people.  He frequently equivocates things like “theory” and “create” and “begin to exist” in completely dishonest ways.

Let’s try another one: if an object is not supported from the bottom, it falls down. An object on the underside of a support falls away from the support.  Objects in Australia fall down.  Therefore, Australia can not be on the bottom of the globe.

Again, the logical framework is solid. But once again, crap in, crap out. From our perspective, objects indeed do seem to fall “down”. Add in a solid bit of ignorance, and this conclusion seems to be completely valid. But that’s not actually how things work.

Before we figured out the shape of the earth and the whole gravity thing, merely saying “it just makes sense that things on the bottom of a ball would fall away from the ball” was still wrong. It was wrong because people assumed a particular model, and by demonstrating a very small piece of it, tried to pretend it applied universally.

Any and all god arguments of “design” or “first mover” fall into this category. It is essentially “we can see things being designed, therefore everything must have been designed, and since I can’t think of another option I must be right.” No, you’re still not right.  If your model is wrong, it can sometimes produce what seems like a right answer, but it fails all the rest of the time.

Anyway, to wrap up that dead horse, logical arguments are not evidence. They aren’t “proof”. The premises still require a demonstration and evidence.

Second, I don’t care how many times you think something is cool or amazing or surprising or helpful, it’s not evidence. Let’s use an old standby. “Look at the trees! Only God could create such majesty!”

Okay, for those that have read the first evidence article, you may remember that information is not evidence unless it confirms a specific conclusion or rules a specific conclusion out. So, the first thing to do is pick an alternative hypothesis or two, and then test them.

Here is an alternative hypothesis: The world was created when a giant, pink, invisible, and mentally handicapped unicorn farted magic universe dust and forest pixies, creating the universe as we know it.

“Look at the trees” does not rule out my unicorn hypothesis. Nor your God hypothesis. Nor evolution. So it’s just not evidence. It is merely an observation that doesn’t help us at all.

Other non-evidences include the sun moving across the sky, you found your keys after praying and then conducting a search, sick people getting better, a lost cat turns up, you get a job offer, someone survives a car crash, you miss someone and then they call, and you met someone you get along with well. Every one of these is equally explained by my unicorn fart-expelled forest pixies.  And evolution.  And Hinduism.

A man is walking down the street wearing flip flops, shorts, and an AC/DC t-shirt.  He has short hair and a modest beard.  ALL of this is information about our subject.  If this information can help us conclude something, then it is evidence for that conclusion.  His t-shirt may provide some evidence that he likes the band AC/DC, but it doesn’t help us know if he is married.  It IS evidence that he may like AC/DC, it is NOT evidence for or against his marital status.  Based on the description above, we have no evidence of his marital status.  I say again, WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF HIS MARITAL STATUS.  This despite we may have evidence that he likes AC/DC.

So when I ask a religious person to please provide some evidence that god exists, it doesn’t do any good to point out that there are trees.  I don’t care about who got better after having cancer.  I want evidence that your god exists.  YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY.

The Bible. Holy shit, I can’t say enough about this. Yes, the bible would seem to point toward a particular conclusion. But if you ever want an example of blatant plagiarism, forgery, mistakes, and politically motivated psychological operations, this is your Exhibit A.

If I told you Superman was a real person, and I told you my “evidence” was Lois Lane was a reporter and she knew him, I hope you would think I’m crazy. But this is the technique used by apologists. “The empty tomb proves Jesus was God” and such nonsense.

I’m fully aware that they then go on to explain how Jesus couldn’t be made up because if it was made up, they would have made him better. Again, we are dealing with the most highly compromised documents the world has ever seen, and now you’re assuming part of the story is true to make fun of someone that says it isn’t.

It is as dumb as saying Superman must be real because if we were making up a superhero, we wouldn’t make him allergic to kryptonite. But obviously we did, and it’s because it makes for a better story if he has to also face some challenges. The “woulda invented a better God” argument is the most unimaginative statement I’ve ever heard.

I can sit right here at this moment and come up with at least three completely plausible reasons why Jesus was a weak, pitiful character instead of a flashing warrior, and I could support these hypotheses with current day examples of similar storytelling. This demonstrates two things. 1) hypotheses are a dime-a-dozen, and we need evidence to sort out the truth, and 2) apologists are very nearly brain dead in their creative side.

And just to make sure we are clear here, there is a reason tainted evidence is not allowed in court.  Tainted evidence can be wrong, even very wrong.  The bible is the mother lode of tainted evidence, and you wish to use this as a demonstration of your claim?  Laughable.  Think of it like this: A prosecuting attorney in a murder trial stands up and pulls a piece of paper out of his pocket.  He reads it.  “Joe Accused snuck into the house in the middle of the night and murdered Suzy Deceased.”  No signature.

Unless you are a fool, you can identify a number of problems with this scenario.  1) We don’t know who wrote it.  2) We don’t know where they got their information. 3) The account may not match the evidence. 4) We don’t know how the attorney got it, and who had it before it was delivered.

Guess what?  1) We don’t know who wrote most of the bible. 2) We don’t know where they got their information. 3) The accounts frequently don’t match the evidence. 4) We don’t know who kept, copied, translated, modified, or otherwise edited it during much of it’s history,  but we absolutely know that it was copied, translated, modified, and edited.

I wish to restate my assertion.  We have no evidence for the existence of any god.  If there was any, the various apologists that comment on my site would have provided some.

The Spartan Atheist.


101 thoughts on “A word on evidence.. Again.

  1. Thank you for going to the effort to make this all so clear. Somebody would have to work very hard on misunderstanding this post in order to succeed in doing so, but I have a feeling certain people will still manage it.

    I guess the expression “sweating like a pig” should be retired.

    It’s bizarre how religionists point to the amazing complexity of life as evidence that a god must have created it, but never realize that by the same logic, the existence of that god capable of creating everything would be evidence that something even more impressive must have created the god, etc.

    One minor point: In the 4th-to-last paragraph, the expression you want is “mother lode”, which literally means the largest mass of ore to be mined, hence the metaphorical meaning. “Mother load” suggests something a bit different.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. LOL! Yes, indeed that would have a different meaning. Good catch. I should spend more time editing….


  2. Superb post! You’ve very clearly stated what is and isn’t considered to be evidence. The “look at how beautiful the sunset is” argument as evidence for god simply infuriates me. I just heard it the other day and wanted to scream! No! It is NOT evidence! It’s a subjective opinion! AAAAAAAHHH!!! The stubbornness of religious apologists never ceases to amaze and confuse me. It is a chosen, willful ignorance to go on touting such nonsense.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I’m simply amazed at how far people will go to ignore evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

      Liked by 4 people

    2. Sunsets actually look more like something the flatulent pink unicorn would come up with.

      If Beta Lyrae (the star system depicted in my avatar) has planets, they must have sunrises and sunsets far more spectacular than anything here. Yet there is almost certainly nobody there to see them. God did not give us the best of his art.

      The argument that the beauty of trees and flowers is evidence for God always makes me wonder what mosquitoes, scorpions, and smallpox are evidence for. Well, of course, smallpox doesn’t exist any more, but that’s man’s work, not God’s.

      (You have the best avatar! I love that infuriated little god.)

      Liked by 3 people

      1. That’s actually an artist’s life-like rendering of me. It’s hauntingly realistic. 🙂

        Liked by 3 people

  3. Great article
    I always say, You can not argue a being into existence

    If christians deem the bible as all the evidence needed for Jesus why then is the Iliad not accepted as evidence for Zeus

    I once had this thought, if you apply the examination ( or lackof ) carried out by christians on the bible on something we know for a fact is fiction, let’s say superman, superman will pass all the tests

    Liked by 4 people

    1. “You can not argue a being into existence.” I like that. Might steal it sometime.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. I agree! Great phrasing!

        Liked by 2 people

  4. Very well-written. An excellent post. I completely agree with your arguments. And although I can’t see how anyone can possibly refute them, I’m sure some will still try.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I seem to have a minor following of those that will try. I am not concerned.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Well written post, logical and easy to understand for the likes of the lower intelligent ones like me, so therefore the smart theists should have no problem.

    Modern science has picked the eyes out of the so called Biblical facts that sucked in millions for centuries and has systematically destroyed faith based stories one by one and now with less myths remaining the bullshit is running rampant.

    The amazing part is that the Christian fanatics will try and debunk science to “resurrect” (excuse this term) and give credence to their mythical stories.

    Even WLC now admits that Genesis is figurative, but there will always be the many enlightened ones with fantasies of Adam and Evie dancing in the Garden of Eden holding hands and fig leaves who are nothing but just f—–g stupid.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Yep, you can only believe it if you completely insulate yourself from the bigger picture.


  6. I understand what you’re saying. Evidence that doesn’t point to a specific conclusion doesn’t count as evidence for that conclusion. That’s why it’s important to ask ourselves, “What counts as evidence?”

    A man is walking down the street wearing flip flops, shorts, and an AC/DC t-shirt. He has short hair and a modest beard. If we’re trying to determine his marital status, we need more evidence. And since we’re good detectives, we can keep looking. We can check his ring finger. We can look for pictures of wife and kids in his wallet. We can straight up ask him, “You married, bro?”

    You are 100% correct that trees are not evidence for invisible, farting unicorns.
    Are trees evidence for anything?


    1. Minor correction, INFORMATION that doesn’t point to a specific conclusion doesn’t count as evidence. That might be a semantic point but important.

      Yes, we can figure out what information, if we had it, would help us determine the man’s marital status. Then we go find it.

      Tree’s are evidence for lots of questions. They grow annual rings, they only grow up to certain altitudes, they have unique reproductive features. So we can use them to determine if the area had fires in the past x-many years, for example.

      But they aren’t evidence for the unicorns, and they aren’t evidence for God. Just like flip-flop man, I keep waiting for someone to suggest what could be evidence for God, and actually present it. Until such time, I maintain there still is no evidence for God.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You would have the responsibility of deciding what counts as evidence for God’s existence. You would first need to decide what you mean by “God”.


      2. Mostly, but again minor correction that may seem unimportant, but is in fact very important.

        I (the person just kicking back not believing your claim) have absolutely zero responsibility to define “God.” This is because by proper debate structure, you are making a god claim, and also I can’t define your God, because I could mess up the definition.

        Once god is defined by the person making the claim, I would be more than happy to suggest what may be evidence for God, in order that we then search for it. We could brainstorm all sorts of possible evidences.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Yes. God is defined by the person making the claim. You made the claim there is no evidence for God.


      4. Yes, so you have to define your God, and I have to demonstrate a lack of evidence.

        If I were to publicly address thousands of believers all over the globe, and specifically solicit apologists and various defenders of the faith and ask them specifically for evidence of God, and they were unable to do so, that provides us with a fairly strong confidence level that my claim is correct.

        What is my evidence? You are.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. No. You have to define what God is like so you can determine what evidence supports your definition. You said there is no evidence for God. So what evidence are you expecting to find?


      6. Depends on the God. Define one for me.


      7. Again, you made the claim that there is no evidence for God. So you must have defined God in order to say that. What evidence are you expecting to find?


      8. Well, I defer to every God that can be found in a Google search or Wikipedia.


      9. As you have already said, evidence needs to be specific. I can’t tell if a guy married by looking at his shirt. I can’t tell if God exists by looking at trees. So what can I look for to see if God exists?


      10. So what can I look for to see if God exists?

        Very good question, JB. How would you answer it?


      11. I didn’t make any claims about God.


      12. JB, I care not whether you or anyone else made “claims about God.”

        My question is simple and directed to you … What would you look for to see if God exists?


      13. If you have been following the conversation, you know that you first need to explain what you mean by “God”. I have no evidence for an invisible, tree-farting unicorn. I have no evidence for a bearded man in the sky either. We need to have at least a basic agreement on the what we think God is before we can evaluate evidence.

        What characteristics would a being need to possess in order for you to call that being, “God”?


      14. I have been reading along. And I think my question is quite pertinent to the conversation. So … what would YOU look for to see if God exists?

        Liked by 1 person

      15. I would look for things that can’t be explained by nature. How about you?


      16. John, I think I know what you’re trying to say, but you’re being so vague as to be a nearly useless criteria. Many things people once believed couldn’t be explained by nature are now explained by nature. So “I can’t figure out a natural way” is not evidence of anything except our ignorance. I would accept something like “demonstrably not of natural causes” or something like that.

        Also, something that is demonstrably not natural causes doesn’t rule out the farting unicorn.

        Liked by 1 person

      17. When you are certain that everything has a natural explanation even if we don’t understand it, then there is no evidence that could possibly lead to God.
        You are correct again.


      18. ? When did I say that? I said many things we didn’t think could be explained by natural causes are now explained fully by natural causes.

        Demonstrate something can not be natural and I’ll be interested.

        Don’t put words in my mouth again, John.

        You believe in a God. Provide some evidence or go away.

        Liked by 1 person

      19. I didn’t put words in your mouth.

        Before I can offer evidence that the man in the AC/DC shirt is married, you would need to tell me what would serve as evidence.

        The same thing is true for the existence of God. As you have said repeatedly, evidence that doesn’t point to a conclusion is not evidence. It is your job to explain what evidence you expect to find.

        Or, you can assume there is a natural explanation for everything though we may never have evidence that proves it.


      20. No, John. You are the believer. Explain yourself and present evidence.


      21. Where did I say I was a believer?
        You’re putting words in my mouth!


      22. Lol! John, you’re a public figure, and we’ve talked many times. But it’s clear you have no evidence, and now you’re just wasting my time, so good bye.


      23. Lol! It’s clear that you have no idea what evidence you require and now you’re just pretending that’s my fault.


      24. The first half of that sentence is true. I can guess what may be evidence, but since I’ve never seen any, I don’t know what the evidence could be. Sometimes we know what evidence we are looking for, and sometimes we stumble on it. But on the existence of God, none has yet been found.

        The second part of your sentence…. is also true. It is your fault. You adhere to some dumb-shit religion with no evidence whatsoever, and take issue when I point that out. It’s not only your fault, but you should apologize for being a hypocrite, a liar, and a charlatan. Again, all qualities you have helped me confirm over our many conversations.

        Liked by 1 person

      25. You don’t have any evidence that I am a hypocrite, liar or charlatan.


      26. I totally do. You demonstrated it quite well on my “hypocrite” post. I could do a clinic on your hypocricy.

        For example, in my first evidence article, I claimed there was no evidence for God. You have in various places across the interwebs claimed there was. Yet you clearly don’t have any, and now that you know you have none, do you stop? Nope. You and Mel talk about all the evidence for God.

        You are demonstrably a hypocrite.

        Last call for evidence, buddy, or you remain a hypocrite.

        Liked by 1 person

      27. You totally don’t.
        Evidence that doesn’t point to a conclusion is not evidence.

        What would you accept as evidence that the man wearing the AC/DC shirt is married?


      28. You just told me I don’t have any evidence.

        What evidence would convince you the man in the AC/DC shirt is married?


      29. My article was about evidence. If You don’t have evidence for your God, I feel no need to continue.


      30. Right. Evidence.
        I am using the illustration from your article.
        You’re not even able to tell me what evidence you would accept for marriage?


      31. Is it fair of me to ask why you believe in something (the lack of any god) yet you cannot imagine what evidence for a god would be? Can you explain how you claim (the non existence of any Google able God) could be falsified? Other than a cop out answer of “I’ll know it when I see it” set an actual bar of evidence please.

        if you need a definition of god, I’ll give you the simplest philosophical definition. That than which no greater can be concieved. Something that trancends time and space with sufficient power to create the universe we see.


      32. Hi, JRRRD. The short answer to that question is no it isn’t fair.

        If I were on a jury, it wouldn’t be fair to ask me what evidence it would take to convince me that the defendant was guilty. It is up to the prosecuting attorney to present evidence and explain why it supports the guilty claim.

        Especially when I am talking to people as hypocritical as John, it does me no good to offer what I may think would be evidence. No matter what I say, he will try to attack it and twist it. Basically, it’s a useless mental exercise to dream up potential evidence for an ill-defined deity with someone that is just waiting for me to make a mistake.

        Instead of playing mental games, I just want a believer to provide some evidence, or admit they have none.


      33. I thought this was a scientific endeavor. For you. And your claim is not falsifiable, which makes it a crap scientific hypothesis.

        John is in the process of giving evidence. But I’ll give you simple evidence that is part of why I believe in God and you can tell me why you reject my evidence.


        Neither view can be conclusively proven so it is a question for a jury, which hypothesis fits the evidence better. The historical events surrounding the resurrection of Jesus, the rumor that the deciples stole the body, their dying for the belief He was resurrected, and the massive quick spread of this belief with no obvious criminal motive and no evidence based attempts to stop the religion by people who were eyewitnesses. 

        LIfe coming into existence from nothing, aka breaking the Scientific Law of Non-neogenesis. And the universe being non-chiral but life and DNA being chiral, a statistical imposibility. 

        If you can propose a worldview that better explains those 3 things than Jehovah creating and redeeming humanity, I will seriously reconsider what I believe. 

        That’s my evidence why do you reject it?


      34. Well, if I get your proposed evidences, they are 1) stuff in the bible, 2) life arising from non-life, and 3) chirality.

        On the first point, the bible is the worst sort of evidence. Even if we assume it has survived intact since written, it is at best a third-hand eyewitness account. And we can not corroborate a single piece of the story, except the names of the Roman rulers. Further, we know for a fact that some of the stories must be wholesale false, because they directly contradict other stories. And we also know for a fact that they went through material editing for hundreds of years, the “he who is without sin” story is an example of a known forgery. We also know, by many examples, that writers of the period frequently took their favorite leaders and added many mythical and God-like attributes to people. So I reject this information not because I don’t like it, but because it is demonstrably unreliable at best, mostly anonymous, and passed through the hands of politically motivated editors. It is highly tainted.

        It’s pretty easy to see why your second two offerings are rejected. They are not any more evidence for god than “see the pretty tree!” You clearly don’t understand what they are, so you just posit an answer. This is not evidence, it’s guessing.

        Also, not only is there no such thing as the “non-neogenesis law”, but neogenesis has been observed. See link. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21551953/

        I’m also not sure where you got that only life was chiral, because lots of molecuoles are chiral. See this link. https://chem.libretexts.org/Textbook_Maps/Organic_Chemistry/Map%3A_Organic_Chemistry_(Vollhardt_and_Schore)/05._Stereoisomers/5.1%3A_Chiral__Molecules

        So to sum up, 1) a classic example of highly tainted evidence, and two ideas, demonstrably false, that still don’t actually point toward any conclusion at all.


      35. So you claim the Bible is “the worst sort of evidence” you insinuate that it has been corrupted since its writing, despite more than 100 preserved manuscripts dating to within 100 years of the originals, and over 25,000 handwritten copies, with absolutely no variation in meaning and message. You claim no corroboration despite Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and Phlegon all corroborating Jesus lived taught and was crucified. You claim it is a fact and say because they contradict they must be false, that sounds dangerously like the logic that you claim is not evidence for God. also you are a terrible jury: “Do not automatically reject testimony just because of inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider whether the differences are important or not. People sometimes honestly forget things or make mistakes about what they remember. Also, two people may witness the same event yet see or hear it differently” (Section 105, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, 2006). You claim material editing for hundreds of years in spite of the afore-mentioned manuscripts that reveal no editing between any of them, except spelling and grammar, and the curious addition of a few minor stories that completely do not change the narrative. You call one story a forgery simply because it is not in all the oldest manuscripts regardless of the possibility that it was added by the original author (John) given that he lived a substantial time after writing his gospel or some other eyewitness of the events. You claim it was passed through the hands of politically motivated editors despite all of the early church leaders both quoting the Bible as we currently have it without edits and proclaiming Jesus the same as we currently know him. You claim it is highly tainted but we know that all of the early church fathers both agreed on the scriptures and what they said and who Jesus was, and we can see that (until the catholic church started) the story of Jesus was not noticeably changed from the time that the eyewitness gospel accounts were written.

        so. there is corroboration and a very large amount of historical evidence that you either have ignored, dismissed due to bias, are unaware of, or have misunderstood.

        Also, it appears that you do not have any understanding of how to make a circumstantial case.
        I will admit that I do not have a “PROOF” of god. but I can make a very significant circumstantial case (which is a legitimate thing legally for you on the jury) which I have been unable to do for any worldview including atheism.


      36. I stopped reading this after the first sentence because you are dearly mistaken. We have copies of the gospels that differ. “He who is without sin” was added in the 5th century. That is a fact.


      37. okay. throw that story out. i don’t care. Jesus still lived and died and started a religion completely unlike any other, that spread massively through the whole roman empire in less than 100 years. how? and you are going to completely ignore everything because of one addition.
        I found a science book that had a contradiction with another one, and there was this one part that was written in the margin, should I throw out all of science?


      38. Wrong again. There’s zero record of Christianity in the roman empire before the latter part of the first century. It’s almost like Jesus lived, died, then everyone forgot for 20 years, and then Paul started talking about him. The gospel stories of Jesus weren’t written for another 20 years, and early in the 2nd century, religious leaders were fighting about who Jesus was, if he was born the son of god, or only became a demigod at baptism, or if he was ever even really alive. We know this because we have letters from these church leaders. It wasn’t until 200 years after THAT, that Constantine rounded up everyone and made them come to a consensus at the council of Nicea.

        So everything you said was wrong. It took 300 years to spread, it was so diverse in the beginning that it could almost be called a different religion, the Jews, who were waiting on their messiah and were in Jerusalem, were not convinced, and it took Paul’s doctrine of spreading the religion to outsiders before it finally took off to any degree.


      39. Um. Nero blamed a fire on Christians in 64 AD.

        Also, of course they didn’t write in the first 20 years they were busy talking about it and running around getting beaten. It’s not unusual for people to write their biography at the end of their life.

        An no, there was not disagreement in the early church. Prior to the earliest church councils (circa 370AD) we have agreement with major church heads and disciples of the disciples. Ignatius, Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Hyppolytus, Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Dionysius, Alexander Athanasius, Didymus, a different Clement, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Ptolemy, Heracieon, and Marcus. All quoted New Testament scripture, and agreed that the Gospel accounts are accurate. Aka, agreed Jesus was God, the Messiah and born of a virgin, died on the cross and was ressurected.


      40. Yes, 30 years later. I said 20 years, 30 is more than 20.

        Oh, and I can’t help but notice that by your standards, Scientology must be a true religion…..


      41. And thank you for your very thorough evaluation of the evidence presented. If you won’t even look into it, I can’t help you. You want evidence but you ignore everything we present. If you want to waste more of your time learning about how stupid Christians are, why don’t you check these out?


      42. When every single sentence you say is wrong in at least 3 ways, I have no time or energy to deconstruct your fervent mouth-frothing.


      43. I am sorry that you do not know about chirality. I do appreciate your cute google search, but I did not say only life is chiral. I said DNA is chiral, which cannot be explained by a big bang resulting in an achiral universe. The more time, the more possibility of the coin flip falling right, but the more time, then Gibbs free energy will drive everything to absolute lowest energy and all the coil flipping will be useless. So Time and random chance is not the answer. Given that we are here, we are EXTREMELY INSANELY UNIMAGINABLY LUCKY. There must be a reason we are lucky. If you want to decide for yourself that you are just special enough that you got lucky, and that better fits the information (what I call evidence) of the improbability of life and the complication of time with Gibb’s energy. If it is better than a God who loves you. that is your choice

        Also please excuse my use of logic. because it is the only way that a case can be made.

        So please explain how we can conclude that the man walking down the street is married without using logic.


      44. No, you specifically said in a non-chiral world, DNA and life are chiral. But chemical molecules can be chiral, and they are neither DNA nor life.
        So molecules can be chiral. And CARBON molecules specifically. And we are…. carbon based life forms. If our very basic building blocks are chiral, why would you think it impossible for us to also be chiral? It makes MORE sense that we would be chiral.

        And by the way, entropy doesn’t apply here, because we have the input of energy- namely, the sun. If you add energy into a system, all of your conclusions are wrong, if Gibbs free energy is your premise.

        You have to use logic to conclude the man is or isn’t married. But you can’t use logic alone. You need evidence. Quit making up stupid arguments and pretending I said them.


      45. No. We would be racemic.

        No. If you add energy, equilibrium is acheived quicker. And equilibrium of carbon is graphite. This is not entropy. This is Gibbs free energy and equilibrium. I do actually know what I am talking about. And I had this conversation with a PhD chemistry professor, so please try to understand what I’m saying.

        Okay. But, a letter saying he is married that may have been edited, and a marriage license may have been edited, so it’s up to you to decide where you draw the line. It will be a circumstantial case. Which means there is no “evidence” that proves it, but each small piece adds to a picture that can only be fit by one theory.

        You said “a sound logical argument is not evidence” my understanding of a sound logical argument is that is has sound premises (unlike your stawman examples) I took that to mean that logic cannot be involved, sorry if I misunderstood what the technical term sound logical meant.


      46. I’ll fully admit that I am no scientist, I simply pointed out that molecules can be chiral.

        A marriage licence MAY have been edited, but since licence information is stored in government records, we have a little bit more confidence that they weren’t. Enough confidence that you’d probably have to demonstrate that they were tampered with.

        The bible is not only demonstrably tampered with (you even agreed on the one clear tampering example), we have no idea who had it or where it was stored or who wrote it or anything. It is absolutely the worst case.

        If you say a sound logical argument includes sound premises, then yes, I agree with that statement.


      47. Oh, and your god is a magnificent, wonderful, amazing, pink, invisible, giant fairy farting unicorn.


      48. Look for people that say he exists but have no evidence. Again, you are Exhibit A that there is no evidence for God. And again, thank you for popping in and demonstrating the veracity of my claim.


      49. If God is a tree farting unicorn, you are correct. No evidence for that.


  7. As the default state is “no knowledge,” “no god” and “no belief” however the theist cannot define the god they claim exists and the thing they worship, therefore with nothing to look for and consequently unable to find any evidence of existence it has but one conclusion, that is obviously there is NO GOD.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. God has an existence within Johns head. He believes that this is evidence to people outside of his head, and sure enough if we were to be indoctrinated as he was we would also have this God or any other god we may choose living inside our heads, talking to us, leading us to righteousness and eternal life and we would become religious buddies.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. “Second, I don’t care how many times you think something is cool or amazing or surprising or helpful…..I don’t care about who got better after having cancer.”
    I do. I rejoice over the fact that the trees are majestic. I also care a great deal about who got better after having cancer. So God is the force within that allows me to see genuine Truth and beauty in the world. I become the manifest evidence of God’s presence in the equation.
    So on my side there is purpose, Truth and beauty, the manifest evidence of God’s presence in the equation, but on your side there is only farting unicorn dust that cannot see the majesty in trees and cares nothing about people healed from cancer.


    1. Hi, Insanity. It isn’t that I don’t care about the people.

      I don’t care for lame excuses. Hospitals are full of minor children with leukemia, and many will die before they even have the ability to walk, let alone make informed decisions. Your stupid fucking god, if real, saves one random person for no reason while killing millions of children. If you gave one damn about people that die with cancer, you would reject your God, as he is the most prolific killer of children in the world and in the history of mankind.

      If you gave one damn about beauty, and your god is real, then you must reject your god for the absolute ugly, disgusting way he kills without reason. For the way he kills without care. Millions of children, Insanity. Millions. Children die from birth related afflictions caused, if your god is real, by your God. Your god has killed millions of children because 6000 years ago, a woman made a mistake. So not only does your god kill children for sport, he also blames it on others.

      Your God, if real, has killed nearly 2/3rds of every child ever concieved by virtue of a most inefficient reproductive system. If you aren’t a fan of abortion, you should probably know that your god has aborted more fetuses than the number of people that have ever lived.

      In the bible alone, your God, if real, killed over a million people for the crime of not having heard what he wants. Children who never learned his way, and their children, and their children, and their children. God ignored them, never bothering to come around and check up on them, and then just decided they were wrong on an arbitrary rule and killed them.

      I give a damn about people that have cancer. Your god doesn’t. And you support him.


      1. God gives meaning and purpose to even short lives filled with suffering. He enables us to see the beauty in our pain and He gives us hope.

        You offer all those dying children nothing but cuss words and condemnation. Your so called “caring” amounts to nothing more than waving your angry little fist at God and telling children God hates them.

        You think you give a damn but you actually lack the intellectual and emotional skills to understand what “caring” even entails. For you, “morality” is really nothing more than shrieking out your rage and feeling totally powerless.


      2. Killing millions is not beautiful. It’s disgusting. That you can’t see that demonstrates just how twisted religion makes you.

        Luckily, there is absolutely no evidence your genocidal god exists. And might I add, “thank God” for that.


      3. There is evidence for God.

        IB is correct. Your articles are nothing but rage-filled rants. Anger is not intellectualism.


      4. John, does your Jello coming to life rule out my giant, pink, invisible, farting unicorn?


      5. Your giant, pink,invisible, farting unicorn rules out itself.
        If you weren’t blinded by anger, you can see the obvious flaw.


      6. How does your Jello rule out my unicorn? Explain.


      7. No.
        I’m explaining myself, as you requested, on my blog. I’m not repeating myself here. If you are afraid to comment on my blog, that is evidence that you’re not interested in understanding my position.


      8. Lol! Blog traffic? That’s what you are worried about?

        John, I have a few dozen atheist followers that could be saved if you are right. This is the page you should be presenting evidence on. On your page, you’re just attending to the “saved.” That’s like a doctor asking to only treat healthy, uninjured people. How lazy.

        Your Jello isn’t even an observation. It’s just a starting point for you to dream up a ridiculous scenario. Then you refute your own made up, unobserved scenario. It’s a clear straw man.

        But it gets worse. Even if your example was correct, it still leads nowhere. It rules out nothing. It points to nothing. Could be your God, or any of the other thousand gods. Could be aliens. Could be a natural cause you haven’t heard of. It is “see the pretty trees” on the level of useless information.


      9. I don’t give a shit about blog traffic. And I don’t give a shit about “saving” your atheist readers.

        I’m wasting my time repeating myself. You refuse to engage in a meaningful dialogue, preferring instead to call names and LOL.

        You’re a coward. Enjoy your echo chamber.

        …and the pink, invisible, farting Unicorn is still incoherent. That you can’t see the problem is why you’re not worth my time.


      10. I keep explaining myself and I provide evidence and examples.

        You keep spouting random assertions that are almost always demonstrably false.

        The time you are wasting is because you are doing everything in your mental capacity to ignore the quite obvious evidence I’ve laid out. Once again, Johnny B, you are Exhibit A.

        Good bye.


      11. Oh, and I see lots of problems with my unicorn. However, every problem with my unicorn is the exact same problem your god has. This is why it’s such a great example.


      12. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the devout Christian who considers, sociopath and Christian apologist, David Wood, a man who once tried to brain his father with a hammer before he ”found Jesus”, to be someone of integrity and to look up to.

        Oh, Johnny. Look at you. Getting all how under the collar and ”cussing”.
        Tsk Tsk… what would the grand-kids say?

        Do you think it’s okay to swear on an atheist’s blog but you have to use all those f*****g asterisks on your own blog
        because your indoctrinated groupies might get upset if they realised what a hypocritical T***T you are?

        Liked by 1 person

      13. John demonstrates every time he visits just how big a hypocrite he really is.


      14. The way he behaves varies depending on who he is trying to wind up.
        Probably just a way to inspire another post for him.
        Pop over to his spot and you’ll notice that pretty soon if he has visited you there will be a post.

        I used to think it was all a wind-up but then I noticed he goes completely ”godical” when discussing stuff solely among his groupies.

        So of it is all a sham then he is one helluva actor.
        But if it is all for real ( as I suspect) then he most certainly comes across as mentally unstable.
        You have to feel for the grand kids.

        Liked by 1 person

      15. You live in a world of your own creation with a genocidal, mass murdering god who hates children and is disgusting, and you get to live in this world, angry and powerless, just awaiting death yourself. That sounds like a miserable condition to exist in. I’m so sorry.

        There is another way, a better way, where you soften your heart and allow yourself to receive some of the Truth and beauty in the world without demanding “evidence,” and without rejecting everything good as if it were all just an elaborate hoax designed to deceive you.


      16. @Insanity Bytes.

        The worst part of your self-imposed delusional life is you feel obliged to hang your hat on a narrative construct in the indoctrinated belief that adherence to this death-cult means you will be spending eternity in some nonsensical place called Heaven; a belief, brought on largely because of death anxiety – ask Francis Collins.

        As bad as this scenario is from an emotional and psychologically damaging point of view, it pales in comparison to the punishment of eternal torture which you claim awaits those, including yourself for not believing in this unsubstantiated pig swill, and especially the emotional trauma inculcated into children who are forced to swallow this vile doctrine that you lovingly ram down their throats bit by little bit.

        That you believe you are doing the ”right thing” demonstrates beyond doubt this is the behaviour of one very disturbed individual.

        Liked by 1 person

      17. Well Ark, it kind of seems to me as if we need not even worry about eternal torment as if it were something that awaits us in the future, because so many of you are already there. Life must be a very hellish existence indeed. I cannot even imagine what it must be like trapped somewhere between believing God is a homicidal maniac and denying He exists, while not even being able to see the majesty in trees or the Truth and beauty in the world.

        You do the children no favors by robbing them of hope, by indoctrinating them with tales of a genocidal god who hates them, who wants to murder them. That truly is disturbing.


      18. Well Ark, it kind of seems to me as if we need not even worry about eternal torment as if it were something that awaits us in the future, because so many of you are already there.
        Really? I’m having a ball!
        And as for beauty and truth, if you have ever visited my blog and looked at some of my bird and insect photos you will surely know this already. Add this to a fantastic family, nice friends, and adorable pets. Also a good strong business and a smashing home. I have pretty good health too which is not to be sniffed at.
        So, please, tell me where I am missing out?

        If you truly think there is something so much better that awaits after you kick the bucket why on earth are you hanging around for?

        I have never indoctrinated any child with tales of a genocidal god.

        My children are old enough and intellectually savvy to have realised Christianity is nonsense. And there are enough bibles in our house for them to read if they wish.

        Liked by 2 people

      19. Insanity, bible god is a genocidal, homicidal, petty, jealous prick. That’s just a fact of the character, as described in the bible.

        Luckily, I don’t believe in this God. Believing in this god as a good god absolutely, because of the fact of his character as described in the story requires mental gymnastics of a,high degree, or just ignorance of the bible. Which are you?


      20. The “genocidal, homicidal, petty, jealous prick,” is actually you, Spartan. You are projecting the truth of your own self onto the image of God. We all do it, we all are pretty depraved and quite frightened about it. What is always so tragic is that when we reject and cast out this god of our own imagination, what we are really doing is rejecting and casting out our own selves. We see ourselves as we really are and we rightfully condemn ourselves to death, to non existence, because we cannot bear the truth of the reflection we see in the mirror, the reflection we now try to call “god.”


      21. I have never committed genocide. Bible god did numerous times. I have never committed murder. Bible god did numerous times. Bible god’s adherence to law changes with his mood. I uphold my values and those of the law. I celebrate my peers in success. Bible god wants everyone to kiss his ass, and his alone.

        But yes, I can be a prick. I won’t let you keep lying, and I do so by calling you out.

        And then you diarrhea from the mouth after that again….

        Why don’t you just admit there is no evidence for your god and go away.

        Liked by 1 person

      22. “Why don’t you just admit there is no evidence for your god and go away.”

        Because I am actually the manifest evidence of God’s presence in the world, the crazy, irrational, scandalous truth of His grace. And I assure you, I am quite real. Evidentually real, even.

        You are indeed, a prick with a potti mouth, terrified of your own murderous temptations, and absolutely petrified you might someday have to “kiss God’s ass and His alone.” The part you cannot see is how gracious He is, how kind, how forgiving. He would even reach His hand out to the likes of you, not to try to control you, but simply to help you become who you were really meant to be. God’s love for us really knows no bounds, it is infinite, merciful, and He invites us in, in spite of who we are or how we feel about ourselves. He sees us as we really are and He loves us anyway.

        I am not lying. It is the Truth.


      23. You keep saying it’s the truth, but you never actually give me any evidence….


      24. Because there is evidence. but you would rather be upset that my God is bigger than you and makes you feel uncomfortable because He made you and you are responsible to Him. Your objection is that He is mean, so then you don’t want to believe Him or even truly consider the evidence. But He is the one who continually breathes life into you. You are saying that He is a mean evil God if He stops giving you the blessing of life that He gifted to you? you are spoiled! it isn’t your life to do what you want with, it is His. and despite you rejecting, misunderstanding and hating Him, He came and experienced what you experience, He was afraid of death, and He died for you, to experience the pain of death. Never follow someone who wouldn’t do what he is asking you to do. Jesus died. I will follow him through death.
        And yes the Bible is not the originals. and yes there are some copy issues, but all of the writings agree that Jesus died for me and was resurrected. No one proved that wrong. Not the jews who had access and protected where the body should have been, who could have paraded the body and squashed this “cult.” The Romans weren’t able to end it, even with murdering as many Christians as they could. That is completely unparalleled in history. Yes Christianity is special. even if the Scriptures aren’t perfect. You really think that a fake religion would thrive under threat of death? you really think people with nothing to gain in this life would fake this whole thing and die for it? I don’t.


      25. Now you’re just ranting dozens of ridiculous, unproven, and un-evidenced statements. I feel no need to reply.


      26. Insanity, the only reason this life would be unbearable is if someone was directly responsible for all the death and misery. If I knew there was a powerful person pulling the strings, that would be the worst possible angst.

        Instead, I can see the beauty of the world for what it is.

        And thank you for yet again confirming that there is no evidence for God.

        Liked by 1 person

      27. ” If I knew there was a powerful person pulling the strings, that would be the worst possible angst.”

        There is indeed, a “powerful person pulling all the strings” and it really is the worst kind of angst, but also the very best kind of angst, too.

        You are trapped in a world of death and misery, devoid of all hope, terrified God might exist, angry about the majesty of trees and the healing of cancer survivors.

        You cannot see the “beauty of the world for what it is,” because if you could do that, you would know God.

        So you are like a blind man demanding evidence for the existence of colors in a world that you cannot even see. The manifest evidence of God within me, wants so desperately to enable you to see the beauty in the world simply because it is pleasurable, food for our soul, an awareness of how much we are loved, and what amazing truth and beauty there really is in the world.

        And yet I cannot make a blind man see. I have nothing to offer you but empty hands. The very fact however, that my soul would ache for a unknown man on the internet who cannot even sense the majesty in trees, a deaf man who cannot even hear the music, is actually the manifest presence of God within me, the very same evidence you cannot receive.


      28. “I have nothing to offer you but empty hands.”

        Exactly. You have no evidence. All you have is a really, really, really, really strong desire that there is a magic sky daddy out there.

        I have a strong desire to know the truth. You, clearly, do not.


  10. You think you give a damn but you actually lack the intellectual and emotional skills to understand what “caring” even entails. For you, “morality” is really nothing more than shrieking out your rage and feeling totally powerless.

    That such a post causes people like you and Branyan to venture forth from you evangelical dirt boxes strongly suggests a raw nerve has been touched.

    Understanding the necessary intellectual and moral skills, and also the requisite emphatic traits to fully function as a human being are generally pat and parcel why most former religious people walked away in the first place.

    Your blatant lack of almost any of the above qualities are manifest.

    That you believe your moral worth is derived solely from a Bronze Age deity which is merely a narrative construct perfectly illustrates that you are still in a state of delusion caused by religious indoctrination.

    Any deconvert will tell you …

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Branyan:

    I didn’t make any claims about God.

    This has to be one of the most hilarious lines espoused by a Christian.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. @JRRD

    if you need a definition of god, I’ll give you the simplest philosophical definition. That than which no greater can be concieved. Something that trancends time and space with sufficient power to create the universe we see.

    Excellent! Now provide the evidence to support this statement.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close