The Irrationality of Atheism 

I think they are referring to this link: apologiaradio.com/answering-the-fool-wsye-ten-bruggencate/

It is in the embedded audio player from their retired website

Revelation 22:18. I found this. Hope it helps. The context may be arguably only referring to the singular book of Revelation, but I would argue this to be true of the whole Bible.

Jalen Carter thank you!

@Incarnation Art so as useful as a fart in the wind then? What's the point if it doesn't convince others that your argument has merit. It turns into a circle-jerk like the other guy said.

The idea of a god is a result of humans believing in something without a reason. Reasoning is really just a tool to explain reality/universe as we perceive it, such as math. For example, a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same manner. Therefore, the argument that reasoning cannot occur without a god is equivalent to saying that the universe/reality cannot occur without a god. And of course, there is no compelling evidence for this statement.

Because we need to have the inherent ability to be able to reason. For this to happen, we need the laws of logic ( in turn with reason), and a logical ability. Atheism/naturalism assets that we basically came out of nowhere and the universe did not have an actual cause, some say that it is eternal. Thats a terrible explanation which is a mere stab in the dark. Or we can base it off intelligent design and copulate what or who designed us; this is the point we should be having a discussion about. Not naturalism, as its simply inferior to explain logic.

@@TimberWulfIsHere Theism asserts that a magical unfalsifiable being came out of nowhere and did not have an actual cause, some say that it is eternal. That's a terrible explanation which is a mere stab in the dark. Or we could just say that we don't have the information to know yet.

These presuppositional apologetics prey on the fact that it is seemingly impossible to internally justify a sound epistemology without some yank of the bootstraps. They bring up issues like the problems of induction and hard solipsism and then naively claim to "solve" these problems by appealing to the Christian God and saying reality can only make sense under the purview of the -Christian worldview- Calvinist dogma. This is more or less a god of the gaps argument and falls apart once you expose the fact that they too can't get by without bootstrapping it.

The closest anyone gets to playing God is the theist, who routinely demands that others regard their own words as though they come from God himself. This is what they're doing when they respond to criticism with, "Oh, are you calling God (me) a liar?" This is also what they're doing when they respond to any anger from the other party with, "Oh, see. They're angry at God (me)!" Everything directed at them is interpreted as though it were directed at God because they legitimately want to believe that they're channeling God in that moment. And they're getting off on it in exactly the same way that they'd get off if they literally claimed to be God. Claiming to be "saved, through no merit of my own" and calling themselves a "sinner" are merely displays of false humility. The "sinner" in them is merely acknowledged as a "check to box" exercise, and it has no real impact on how they expect to be treated. They claim to speak only for God, and, therefore, they expect to be received *as* God. In every concrete sense, the whole affair is an ego trip, no matter how much they distinguish God from themselves in the abstract. At least atheists admit some ability to make errors. No claim to infallibility. Just a simple, "This much is what we can know, and *you* are claiming far more knowledge than you can reasonably claim to possess." Even if they were making themselves "their own God," they would be "gods" of incredibly tiny universes. Claiming a little kingdom, no greater than billions of similar ones, isn't that grandiose of a brag.

This is also my objection to this apologetic. It holds that Christianity and the Bible are true without having first to justify the claim and holding purely to a circular argument. If I’m a skeptic, or like you said, a member of a different religion, why should I accept the circular argument? And can’t I simply make the same claim about what ever my religion is as well?

@@j_moni83 Very often they are speaking to others who utilize the bible already and that is the common ground - its HOW it's used and from when (like mormon history vs "christian" history). It wouldn't be possible to begin a defense of the faith outside of this argument, because it would begin it by saying, "Nothing is firm so therefore everything I say...I dont believe is absolute...so therefore it doesnt really matter...but let's debate anyway.."

Jeremy C Barnhart Are you sure about that? Because Sye is very clear in his movie “How to Answer the Fool” that he believes that the presup apologetic is the best one.

Incarnation Art I agree, but the astute skeptic would say that you are simply arguing from an authority that he doesn’t accept. So why should he consider you to understand truth any better than he? And my question is, why should I consider this apologetic superior to one that would first appeal to the atheist’s reasoning rather than pointing out his foolishness for not granting my circular argument?

@Incarnation Art you make a bold statement regarding atheists motives for not liking the idea of god. How many atheists do you actually know personally and have spoken at any length about their motives and beliefs? I'd also challenge the claim that god calls unbelievers fools. It states this in the bible but how do you know god said it?

So, every video with Sye.

Well, atheists don’t care about evidence. They just blindly believe what they believe because atheism is just a thing that keeps people from thinking for themselves.

​@PixelPixie86 Well, that's a rather pathetic attempt at a reversal on your part. There's no one *to* "blindly believe," as far as atheism is concerned. Atheism is not even the same *kind* of thing as religion, so it doesn't have the same components and attributes. Atheism doesn't say much more than "whatever the truth is, these 'revealed' religions have no authority on the subject." Most religious people only believe in God (despite what they tell you) because their chosen religion prescribes it. This belief in God typically disintegrates on its own once there's no longer the specious authority of one of these religions propping it up.

Who decides which persons heart the holy spirit works on? Tough titty if your not among the chosen ones right?

@@weefelly11 no. The Bible clearly says if someone knocks the door will be opened to them. Admit you're a sinner believe in Jesus, He died, God rose Him on the third day for the sins of the world and call upon the name of The Lord. The Bible says all who call upon the name of The Lord will be saved. Admit. Believe. Call. ABC's of salvation. Thanks for reading.

Also if you are here I would bet He is working on your heart.

@@jayfoges1482 you'd lose that bet. I grew up in the church and still go most weeks as I play guitar and help out with the music. Weird I know but hey, I like to play and the cakes after the service are really good. I disagree with 90% of what is preached every Sunday. If anything I feel less inclined to believe the more I hear. I appreciate you taking the time to reply but the words you use are empty to me. Why should I give any credence to what the bible says? Why do you believe it has any authority? It's just words written by fallible humans like you and I. Do you even know who half the authors were?

@@weefelly11 there is a great resource for you I've watched it like 3 times it's called 'how we got our Bible by Chuck Missler'. The Bible is provable. It's on YT. Going back to work. Later!

Onnie Dixon, ‘ You speaking of Christianity as a religion which illustrates you don't understand what being born again is. ‘ your opinion may differ but that does not make wrong Christianity is a Religion Born Again is part of the Christianity Religion just as the other Sub-Sections are ‘ if a person doesn't want God in their life then their eternity will be what it's like without God.. No peace, no light, no joy, no rest etc because those things come from God. I answered your comment on a different post below ‘ its a per individual thing I’m an example I’m Ex-Christian Currently I’m Partial-Pagan/Buddhist for me since I have left Christianity I have obtained&increased peace, light, joy, rest and much-much more I still have interest with aspects of Christianity but I will never be an official christian again great if you don’t impose&coerce on others because Sub-Majority of claimed-christians do and its just a big disappointment especially they sin themselves and thats a substantial deterrent appreciated you responding to both

Onnie Dixon, oh I was decieved also betrayed I regret being negligent and disregarding the toxin of this aspect with Christianity though eternally greatful I was able to reject it I know tons are trapped

How exactly are you going to reconcile pure logic and Socratic inquiry with presuppositionalism?

Tovec by examining through dialogue the logical presuppositions of the absolute truth claims (God claims) that no absolute truth exists. By illiciting questions of atheists and gracefully giving them space to show their emotionality (usually contempt, name calling, etc...) they reveal themselves to themselves. When done with gracefully (no reaction) it hold a mirror to their thinking and allows them to cast off irrationally and engage in pure logic. When irrationally is removed, many can see their logical error.

@@pdxnikki1 Presupposition and logic are basically opposites, instead of explaining how you reconcile them you just repeat that you do so. Regardless of any name calling or any actions of the atheists, your goal is not matched.

@@pdxnikki1 I don't think you are in your right mind. Lay dying last November as a "science worshiping atheist Jew who didn't want God", seriously? For goodness sake, it sound like you have mental problems even back when you were an atheist.

You can use the argument of laws of logic, moral reasoning, subjective spiritualism, uniformity in nature and ethics relevant to God's creation. From an atheistic perspective, you must watch for inconsistencies in their rebuttal. As well as arbitrariness. They cannot borrow these points without contradicting themselves.

If they refuse to grant the Bible as a valid argument then they succumb to petitio principii (begging the question). An objection isn't valid if it doesn't grant the terms of the opposition.

Gameuser10 Isn’t that the other way around? Isn’t Sye begging the question when he he says that any argument against God is inherently fallacious because it denies their ability to reason? He’s basically saying that the reason we know Go exists is because we couldn’t know God exists without God. That’s as circular as it gets. Now, I already agree with the premise that God exists so to me this argument holds true, but how can I effectively argue to someone who doesn’t hold this to be true that my argument is valid and should be accepted?

we thepeople I don’t think that answered my question, but thank you anyway.

Well someone can look at it as circular but you can also look at it as necessary. Logic and truth for example are axioms, in that they cannot be proven and just "have" to be seen, and to deny it is to prove/use them, e. g "It is true there is no truth" , etc. Any attempt to disprove it actually makes use of it. God is in the same vein of necessary/non-contingent, because otherwise it doesn't fit the definition of God.

@nickj14711 I have refuted you in the past on this issue countless times. The very fact that you're asking this question proves that you are relying upon the uniformity in nature - induction (the future will be like the past) which doesn't comport with the atheistic perspective. You must provide a meaningful justification that would satisfy the preconditions necessary for intelligibility that the future will be like the past and you CANNOT use past experience to do so. Bertrand Russell says those who use past experience to justify the future being like the past is begging the question and using circular reasoning which is arbitrary. This is why atheism when taken to it's presuppositions of the universe is effectively reduced to absurdity.

@nickj14711 You are so arrogant that it really only proves God to be true. God says those who hate are rebellious sinners who are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and hate truth and instruction because of your love for sin. Thank you for proving God for me 😁

@Onnie Dixon _'Matter in motion'_ In the sense that you are using that argument you are just mater in motion! But four and a half billion years of evolution has resulted in said mater reproducing itself till you see you in the mirror every morning, :)

@Onnie Dixon _'As for matter "evolving" that's your assumption without proof'_ Evolution is supported by biology, palaeontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and many more sciences. There is no competing scientific theory. Almost without exception the scientific community world wide now accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity. The evidence is overwhelming! Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design. What you are doing here is to just parrot what Christian apologists have told you my friend. I suspect you have little knowledge of evolution? But I respect your choice in rejecting evidence and sticking to believing in your religion, its your choice. _'you have nothing to argue based on the origin of your belief'_ I have my brain. _' I was holding you to be consistent to your worldview.'_ Were have I not been consistent?

@Onnie Dixon _'No actually there is no proof or observation of macro evolution period'_ So the vast majority of the worlds scientists say evolution is a proven fact and you say there all wrong?............ ........goodbye.

@Onnie Dixon I am not an expert on DNA. and nether are you theists. But theists pretend to be and quote from other sources dealing with DNA pretending its from them, and that's dishonest. There is a difference between running away and knowing when one is wasting ones time. O.K. RNA is what actually makes the proteins. DNA is just a more stable storage mechanism for the information. RNA can also catalyze some reactions, so it can do the job of both DNA and proteins. All this is a natural process, no God required. But we do not fully understand the process yet. Bur again, I am no expert on this but my 38 year old daughter is an expert on DNA. So you will have to excuse me if I listen to her and not some theist quoting stuff he doesn't understand. But if it makes you feel better using the old 'you atheists run away' line then that's fine with me.

@ Onnie Dixon the difference between micro and macro evolution is time.

What's wrong with contradictions? You're assuming universal laws of logic which are not justified by atheism. Lawrence M. Krauss says "Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. You are all stardust." If we are all effectively stardust bumping into stardust in a cosmically meaningless, purposeless, unguided, ungoverned universe that didn't have us in mind, why is it wrong for stardust to contradict itself? You're assuming ethics, universal laws of logic, induction, uniformity in nature every second of your life without any basis to justify it. Atheism is arbitrary and when taken to it's presumptions, it's reduced to absurdity.

May Athena answer your prayers.

@@StrikeforceJedi Lord bless your heart

@@palerity6320 May Athena bless yours. I pray you will stop worshipping your false desert God before its too late.

@@StrikeforceJedi Athena didn't rise again, Jesus did

@@palerity6320 Athena burst forth from Cronus' abdomen (after being eaten) after Zeus freed her with the other gods. So yes, Athena did rise again. Jesus didnt do that. Worship Athena, sinner.

Agnosticism is a myth. There is no position of neutrality when it comes to which worldview someone affirms, interprets the world though, makes assertions through, debates through. The idea of neutrality on the issue is a complete myth. There is no such thing as an uninterpreted fact.

Because He IS the true God! If He wasn't, nothing else makes sense. If someone were to claim some other god, would be able to show their folly using Yahweh's Word

They make a point here that you always have to start with some presuppositions. So if you start with a different presupposition, that there is some other God, because this objectively isn't true that worldview will fall on its own head.

@Phillip Hickman That's wrong. saying I don't know is keeping your mind open.

@Phillip Hickman It can be. But saying I don't know isn't making a closed statement.

@Phillip Hickman What's respectful about telling me you're right about what scripture says re creation bearing witness, without any supporting reason to think any of it true?

​@Phillip Hickman Apologies. Well, considering there is so much we don't know about the universe, how do you know there isn't a natural explanation that we just don't know about yet? Be careful of logic, marvellous tool that it is, because it's only as good as the information you have to make syllogisms with.

@Phillip Hickman We don't have any explanations for why there is something rather than nothing. I think logically there is no contradiction in saying there could be a natural explanation we aren't aware of yet.

@Peter A. If you can offer any verifiable facts that supports god as the most parsimonious explanation of any phenomena ahead of any other explanation, then that would be actual evidence for a god.

If you make the assertion that God does not exist, it is incumbent on you to provide evidence for that. Good Luck!

@@daynareynolds4078 I do not make any such assertion. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods, it is not the claim that any specific god or gods do not exist. Part of the problem is that there are so many gods, thousands of them from thousands of religions, with wildly varying definitions. Hence atheism is the null hypothesis, that none of these claimed gods has been demonstrated to exist so do not merit belief. If you think your god is real then offer a definition of your god and offer verifiable evidence to support your claim. The burden of proof is on you!

@@Matthew_Holton You understand that I used the word you in the generic sense. As for the distinction you, personally, make, it is a distinction without a difference that I am unable to discern in the work of a number of your fellows. Dawkins and and Harris come to mind. As for myself, I have made no claim or assertion whatsoever regarding the existence of God. Tell me, are you assuming you know which one I would claim if I did?

@@daynareynolds4078 I have no idea what your specific beliefs are. From your post it was logical to infer that you were a theist of some kind. If you are not then that's fine by me. If you are a theist, then you can either choose to posit a god and offer evidence or go your way.

And your point is?

@@jmogames724 It is fine if a person choose to believe in talking animals, but don't call other people that don't believe in talking animals as irrational. Doing that is hypocritical. Being a hypocrite is a sin that will drag you into hell for eternity.

@@mrpo3496 atheism is a belief that there is no God. You saying that, is like saying "Anyone who believes planets don't exist, is irrational."

@@mrpo3496 Yes, but you're already making your judgement. You're comparing "talking snakes" with someone who has eye witness accounts. Since I dont know that you exist, I'm just going to call anyone who believes in you "irrational", and in my arguments, I'll compare you to "talking snakes."

You'll know for sure soon enough.

why do atheists always say that something is satire whenever it's actually exposing the loopholes,contradictions, and overall cons of atheism? Stop trying to deny loss.

@@ohnsonposhka9891 tell me one con of atheisme.

@@gertscheper9653 subjective morals

@@ohnsonposhka9891 no ,you clearly dont know what atheism is.

it's true

@@lightbeforethetunnelno, no it isn’t

One of apologists' favorite ways to throw a tantrum.

NOthing is frightening actually. They are just suppresing their reasoning and logic. Deep down they know whatever they said is just bullshit.

darrendelong Why without question? That would be silly.

You don't believe a physics book without testing out the information in a lab experiment. It is actually similar with any scripture.

Nobody is accepting it as God's word without question or reason (and the Bible actually specifically teaches NOT to do that... saying to test all things, prove all things, etc) We accept it as such because it has been proven as such. That's what Presup proves, with 100% certainty.

Do you know everything? No. How much of all knowledge do you know? 1% maybe 10%?? What if God exists in the other 90% but you just haven't come to that knowledge yet. We who truly believe in Jesus Christ as Son of God, have a relationship - fellowship wtih Him within our spiritual being. Not becauser we are better than anyone else, but sinply on the basis that our eyes were opened to the truth of His existence. You can only know personally God by faith in Jesus Christ. Ain't no other way. "The unseen things of Him (His wisdom, understanding, knowledge, power) from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things He made, both His ternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse." Romans 1:20 Your own existence is proof enough of God... fi you would see it.

??

Because, for some reason, you need to say "goddidit" to "account" for those things.

Jesus idozens of times denitified Himself as being the Son of His Father in Heaven - God. This occurs in John's Gospel. Jesus healed a blind man and He gave him sight who was blind from birth. Later Jesus came across the man and said to him whom He healed - "...Do you believe in the Son of God?" And he answered and said, Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him? And Jesus answered, Even you have seen Him, and he speaking with you is He." And he said, I believe, Lord!, And he worshipped Him." John 9:35-38. In this way Jesus is saying I, the One who is speaking to you is the Son of God. This kind of speech is prevalent in all languages. And we all accept it as valid. Jesus did say that He was the Son of God. He never denied it, but always affirmed it.

Because all those scientists saying "no" on the gender silliness are theists. Lol. In reality, the fight between Christians and the gender lunatics is just a turf war in the anti-reason camp. Both feel entitled to impose their fantasies on others, but there isn't room in this world to accommodate both fantasies. They go at each other, fighting over something neither is entitled to, and drag everyone else into it.

What’s entertaining is how often pressups (like you specifically) makes claims and criticisms and then demonstrate hypocrisy, double standards and lack of even and support for what you say. Maybe you should show others how it’s done and back up what you say instead of empty claims.

Here is something that has never happened in any of these debates: Neither Jeff, nor James, nor Sye has ever bothered to "account for the laws of logic." There's just a vague handwave that somehow takes care of the matter. I've actually challenged some theists on this and their answers (and their terrible slowness in delivering these answers) reveal that most of them hadn't thought about beyond the classic "goddidit." Me asking these questions, btw, is part of the research the OP claims is never done. It's not all I've researched, but it's an example of what happens when you attempt it. The problem is that, when you try to do this research, you find out that it's "philoso-babble" *all the way down.* The explanations that the OP is so insistent exist are, at the very least, not readily available. Now, there *are* answers to the poorly thought out questions presups ask, but no atheist is obligated to have them readily available. Atheism is not meant to answer every possible question about reality. Atheism is just the negation of one, highly unsupported, answer. There are many, very different, worldviews that atheists can hold, and all but one of these are guaranteed to be wrong. Saying that God doesn't exist is not meant to answer every question you pose about reality, and no one claims it will fill in every gap you think God fits into. Getting over your "goddidit" addiction is simply the first step to answering these questions.

@somexp12 The Christian God justifies the laws of logic & this is justified transcendentally, a deductive form of justification meaning it necessarily follows.

@@somexp12 I have content up covering why ONLY the Christian God has all the attributes necessary to justify the pre-conditions for knowledge (which include the laws of logic among others, all of which I list)

@somexp12 It's the vid which has Van Til's face on it

Too many negatives in your sentence. Here let me clean it up a bit. Atheism is more rational than theism. Or Atheism is less irrational than theism. (They are certainly not equally irrational. The only other possible implication of your sentence.)

That’s nice.

Degnan Thanks.

That's cool. I'm just going to presuppose that you're one of those uneducated strawman atheists, who use Condescending and pedantic tactics to make themselves look educated. I'm also going to assume, that you're not from America, because again, you dont seem properly educated.

@@jmogames724 I’m not from America you are correct. I wish that I were, so I could be revered by the rest of the world.

@@jmogames724 Listen, as a person who just lied to you. I recognize American jingoism when I hear it. You, that’s the problem, with religious Conservatives. They always seem to think that they are entitled to morality, because of their religion. Yet, Christians, Catholics, and Muslims tend to always persecute those who choose not to fall in line. I choose not to fall in line, and for some reason religious people cannot handle the fact that I made a choice without their consent. I actually chose not to sign up, with your self aggrandizing bullshit!

Every word they said was true.

If you want to understand Presup, you're not going to learn it in a short clip of two presuppers talking like this. Actually research it if you want to understand how it's justified.

@@lightbeforethetunnel So you admit nothing said in this video is worthwhile? That's essentially what you're saying. You also haven't shown how what I said about justifying logic without reference to God is false.

​@@lightbeforethetunnelIt doesn't make much sense to say that presup is some super sophisticated methodology that requires hours of study when Sye is on video here arguing that "everyone can do this." Presuppositionalism is just a script people follow. Sometimes there's a philosophical problem buried somewhere in there, but the approach itself is totally cookie-cutter. Mostly it's just an altered form of God-of-the-gaps. You find some gap, say God fills it, refuse to explain in any reasonable detail *how* God fills it, and then tell your interlocutor that if they can't think of some other way to fill it then they are obliged to conclude that either God fills it or that nothing does. Everything about it is boiler plate and any clown can be trained to do it.

@somexp12 Sye doesn't really argue it correctly. He's not correct when he says that everyone can do it (at least, not correctly anyway). Largely, the reason why so many are confused about Presup is because of Presups like Sye Ten who dont really argue it correctly and just end up confusing people.

Atheism does not merely apply to a personified god. Just like it isn't merely related to belief in Ra. Rather atheism corresponds to non-belief in ALL gods.

@@Tovec8 and all of the gods are personified - i.e. they have attributes of a person. Personalities, thoughts, feelings, goals, motivations etc. Atheism is simply a word to described someone who doesn't believe in gods/god as a person. Doesn't stop your from believing in ghosts or following any of the belief systems centred around the idea of nature being a driving force of everything and people being ultimately connected on spiritual level (just an example). Atheist can believe in this, but atheist won't believe that nature is a person that can think/feel or be persuaded to do stuff for you.

@@moodylittleowl Deistic versions are not usually people. Some versions of Hindu and Buddhist gods are not either. Shamanic/spiritualistic gods would also fit under theism but not be "people." Otherwise, if your claim is that _all_ gods are personified, then why make that specification? (I also think part of the issue here is that I don't think we have a clear definition of what a "god" is.) And I agree that non-belief in gods doesn't describe any other positions or beliefs held or lacked.

@@Tovec8 because english is not my first langauge and it made sense in my head that you have gods as deities with personalities and as term for anythig that can incite some form of supernatural belief. Now that you have said I've realised it was probably confusing. E.g. you can worship nature and refer to sun as god, but not as a deity with personalit, knowing it's just a star, but that's a common-language quirk of my native language where references to god are quite common.

@@moodylittleowl It is all academic, perhaps, as I am getting a sense you are an atheist as well. So, yes, let us assign it to differences in language and go our own ways. That is unless you have any more to add, I don't at present.

Without God, you don't HAVE a foundation.

@@palerity6320 And what is that foundation?

@@jmogames724 As he said, there isn't a foundation without God.

Knowledge is not a choice. Beliefs are.

@@lightbeforethetunnel I'm sorry......WHAT? Beliefs are something you acquire as a result of becoming convinced of the truth of a proposition. If your assertion were true, you could "CHOOSE" to believe that your god doesn't exist...go ahead....give that a shot. I'm going to put on my prophets hat now & guess you'll respond/say/think something silly like, "I could do that...but I don't want to..." or, "I could do that but why would I want to?"

The atheist's agnostic and negative view of God veils a reasonable and positive view of God. The atheist dismisses a reasonable view of God to reject God and that's dishonest. The God who created them came in the flesh to overcome evil with its death and its suffering by resurrecting over death and conquering the consequences of evil by love. God is love and He loves His enemies.

@@scottshifferd8439 I dismiss the god of the Bible as an imaginary demon made up by ancient primitives, and see the Bible as no more than the mistaken word of those ancient primitives. How can he have come to overcome death and suffering, when he created death, and plans on brutally torturing the overwhelming majority of mankind forever?

@@doctorwebman How did you arrive at that conclusion?

@@scottshifferd8439 What conclusion? That he is a demon? He is a supernatural spirit that slaughters little kids, and intends to brutally torture the overwhelming majority of the population forever. If there was a movie about a supernatural spirit that slaughters children and tortures souls, it would be a horror movie about an evil demon.

@@doctorwebman Wow look at Christopher using strawman tactics. Ever notice, it's always the atheists using strawmen?

I lost IQ points while reading this. re·li·gion /rəˈlijən/ noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. a·the·ism /ˈāTHēˌizəm/ noun disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. the·ol·o·gy /THēˈäləjē/ noun the study of the nature of God and religious belief. Do you see how your words do not make sense?

Wow that comment was a dumpster fire.

Thank you for the implicit acknowledgement that religion (along with priests and theology), zealotry and evangelicalism are bad. Of course atheism does not have this, but most theists do. So, why not reject such things in your own life now that you realize how bad they are?

Atheism isn’t religion.

It’s funny to see people who believe in magical cosmic farts that create the universe from nothing try to think rationally and logically. It’s like watching a toddler pretending to know how to read.