The Evidence for Atheism is: Ignorance

In the past I have said that there is NO ARGUMENT that can be made for atheism, and that no evidence exists which can be used as evidence FOR atheism. Well, thanks to the many conversations I have had on social media, I see I have been wrong, and I am a big enough man to admit when I am wrong. My many atheist readers/viewers have presented the same argument/evidence to me so often that I am ready to now admit that I was wrong, and they DO have a case for their position.

An Atheist’s primary argument and evidence FOR atheism is: his own ignorance. Image result for derp cat

There is no OTHER argument or evidence that can be put up as a defense of atheism intellectually, so many resort to presenting their own ignorance as evidence of, or in defense of atheism. They will say:

“I’ve never seen any evidence for God’s existence.”

or  “I don’t know of any evidence or arguments for God’s existence.”

Some are stupid enough to actually directly state, “There is no evidence for God’s existence.” This is a claim so audacious that they could never say this with confidence even if it WERE true. But they say it anyway. This is like saying, “There is NO evidence for the existence of Unicorns!” Because, unless you’ve seen every fossil in every museum or still encased in rock, then you can’t possibly claim that unicorns did not exist with anything but arrogance to back you up. Maybe YOU haven’t seen the evidence, but that doesn’t mean it’s not out there.

Many of my readers have gained boldness when they find people like me have no answer to this well crafted case for their position. It’s true that I cannot answer this argument. It’s a lot like when very small children think you can’t see them because they have their eyes closed.

It’s hard to know what to say in response. I am left speechless.

If you are relatively sober, you probably can figure out all on your own that ignorance is not an argument nor can it be used as evidence in favor of anything, including atheism.

But as far as atheism goes, that’s all they have. 

Oh, by the way, here’s an actual unicorn:

Related image

Elasmotherium sibiricum or ‘Siberian unicorn.’ Yup. That was a real animal.


Check us out at
and don’t forget to subscribe.

This entry was posted in atheism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to The Evidence for Atheism is: Ignorance

  1. jim- says:

    There is another story. I am not an ignorant man. I spent 50 years of the Christian game and it was nothing but guilt and stress and empty promises. Here a short version of god if he exists. Things aren’t what the ignorant think they are. Paleys watch was a great analogy for its time. If you can see the creation, you can know the disposition of the creator. If you’ll allow me, Every element and molecule and atom and creature is in a constant state of anxiety. Each one desperately trying to stay together, to hang on for another day. It is this drive and desire that pushes to new boundaries. Every bit if matter has this inherent hope to hang on. That is the card that Christianity plays. And they play it well. Hope is something we already have, so why do we need to buy it? Meanwhile everything in this state of panic is dying and death. Struggle and change. Pure evil if you would. Misery. Holding on. If there is a god and this is his doing, then he is enjoying the suffering and delights himself in the misery of all of the elements struggle. Including man. I choose not to believe in god. The evidence is compelling that no good god would have done this. He is either incompetent or he is malicious. Thank you. In the spirit of brevity that’s my short answer.


    • Greetings Jim and thanks for your comment,
      but I have to admit I have no idea what you are trying to say. It wounds like you are claiming that the entire universe suffers as it struggles to not fly apart into its elementary particles, even though we know various forces which hold things together, such as the strong and weak nuclear forces in the atom, attractions between atoms, etc.
      With all due respect, I think I have to NOT allow you that “element and molecule and atom and creature is in a constant state of anxiety.” This sounds like maybe you are depressed and are projecting that on the entire universe, which, if you will forgive me, is a bit of a stretch.

      Also, and quite importantly, the universe suffers as it does under death because of SIN. Your sin, my sin. Not sure how you spent 50 years in the “Christian Game” and missed the first four chapters of the Bible (and all of the verses which call back to it), but I suppose it happens quite often. Death and decay were not part of the creation, but are the enemy Jesus defeated on the cross. Your understanding of theology is not Christian at all, so its no wonder you hate it. Certainly a god who simply made death and disease and then called it “good” would be hard to worship, but the Bible does not present and I do not defend that god. I suspect that Mormons and Muslims do.

      God made the universe perfect, we chose to sin, and our sin earned death. Jesus came to pay the debt to restore us and the universe. You can be restored by merely accepting what Jesus has done.
      And finally, I am not asking you to “buy” anything for any reason other than it is true. I am not offering self help, freedom from your college loans, or thinner thighs in 30 days. Christianity is true, and you should believe it because it is true. the first step is to learn what it is.
      thanks for your comments.

      Liked by 1 person

      • jim- says:

        So you said “even though we know various forces which hold things together,”. Why would they need to do that if everything is just peachy? It’s tendency is to break down. I do understand the Christian theology. In the spirit of brevity I was assuming you could catch on to my point without delving into the history of the Bible and specific passages. The Bible is not true because it says it is! It should be scrutinized at every level for what it claims has an impact on so many. If it is the “infallible”word then by all means, it’s true!! But under historical and especially archeological scrutiny the Old Testament is definitely lacking credible truth. In fact it has to be all true to be infallible. The exodus for instance carries no evidence at all. Just one point to take a serous archeological look at. I have. The evidence points to a fabrication.


      • Jim, I don’t understand how you can distinguish between natural forces holding things together because they NEED to, and why would they NEED to if everything was just peachy? Its tendency WOULD be to break down if not for those forces, but those forces exist. You are seriously making some kind of distinction which makes NO SENSE. And now you’re trying to DRASTICALLY change the subject into archaeology?

        The universe is in balance because of the tension between matter and energy. Matter pulls together- this is gravity. Energy causes matter to fly apart. Gravity brings it back together. And the finest balance between the two is life, where in God made information rich machines which use energy to BUILD structures and run functions, grow them, and repair them. Just look into photosynthesis some time.

        Archaeology HAS proven the Bible true at every possible point (I suggest you find Tim McGrew on youtube for more of that) but your objections already fail because you seem to misunderstand the nature of nature. Before you invest your faith in fools like Dawkins or Bart Ehrman, I suggest you brush up on your science. Chemistry, physics, astronomy, and especially biology are COVERED in the fingerprints of God. Once you understand science correctly, you will see that science is hand in hand with the Bible, and not the depressing version you seem to think. The universe is not the sword of Damocles- it is a dance!
        thanks again for your comments.


      • jim- says:

        I’ve never read Dawkins or Ehrman or any of the atheist spokesman. You seem though to only read and listen to biblical sources. Must be an American. The only place that the exodus is taught as fact. If that many people camped in the wilderness 40 years there would be aqueducts and schools and housing and on and on. But not even pottery shard. Why do you think they even changed there name from biblical studies to bear eastern studies? Nothing supports the Old Testament version unless you listen to Christian source alone


      • Hello Jim,
        Good for you. Darwins and Ehrman write garbage which depends on the ignorance and laziness of their readers.
        And, as an American, I can tell you that it is impossible to watch TV or movies, read a textbook, go online, or take a class in a public highschool or college and ONLY hear/read Biblical sources. In ALL of those media, we are constantly bombarded with anti-biblical opinions from birth.
        Once again, my post was not about the exodus, yet you are bringing it up as if it has something to do with what I said. Also, even if you could prove the Exodus entirely fictional, that would not prove atheism wasn’t stupid. It would only prove the Bible not inerrant. I could prove Lee Harvey Oswarl was a terrible shot with a rifle, but that doesn’t mean JFK died of natural causes.

        And to your point, you think people who are CAMPING would be EXPECTED to build aqueducts and schools and houses? While camping? I’m not really into camping myself, but I’m pretty sure that, if you start building subdivisions and schools you don’t call it CAMPING anymore. If you read the Bible, you’ll find it says they lived in tents. Not the suburbs.

        And why would you assume the Jews to be litterbugs who would leave garbage all over the place? And even if they did- it’s a HUGE area to search and it’s been 3,000 years. We only just found King David’s PALACE a few years back. It’s arguably BIGGER than a pottery shard, and inside of Israel, which is FAR smaller than the area which the Jews may have camped in, and a thousand years more recent.
        So… you may have picked up some unreasonable expectations on the old internet.
        I don’t have a lot of resources on the Exodus at my fingertips, but here’s a good video to get you started on historical evidence for the Exodus account:



      • Hello Jim. You’ve shared a post about the exodus because…?


  2. nationofnope says:

    Bull honky. That’s a Unihorn. Dude your hysterical. No, I mean unbalanced. Let’s just call a halt to this convoluted thought process you are engaged in. But you are correct when you say there is on evidence for Atheism. How could there be. It’s called the neutral position. The reasoned response to the god question is I don’t know but based on best evidence I can’t accept the claim for the existence of anything existing outside of nature. This is evidence of reasoned conclusion and not ignorance.
    The belief in the most improbable explanation for our natural world is starting to have a impact on people’s world view. It does not help Christianity to have adherents promoting demonstrably false claims about the natural world in favor of the supernatural. All religious people are experts at self delusion. They have to be.

    One eye witness account please, just one. You will be the first to find one. As for the resurrection, BFD! The accounts for it in the “good book” are all over the map. Jesus is yet another savior god with almost the exact same back story as several other savior gods from antiquity. FYI, the Bible will be of no help to you. A god for soothe.

    Sir, you simply lack the gravitas for debating anyone on this subject. Yet you willingly expose yourself, in writing, your apparent lack of knowledge regarding the historicity of your religion is understandable. Based on the latest study on the subject the majority of Christians know next to nothing about their religions origins and the sausage fest that constitutes the making of their religious texts. An argument from ignorance is a regrettable position to be in. I cringe when I read Christian apologist make tortured arguments for why they believe. You simply can’t make a cogent argument to support the claims for the supernatural. The evidence you have, depending on your sect, is a cluster of 66 to 73 error filled, plagiarized, annotated, conflicting, translations of a dead language. Over 50 “books” didn’t make the cut. Yet they’re purportedly the inerrant word of a god. As if. You have essentially the same foundational stories as two other faiths and this doesn’t give you pause?

    Faith can and is used to justify the belief in anything. Try asking for evidence that is not anecdotal, unsourced, uncorroborated, unauthenticated, anonymous, allegorical, formulaic and incredible. The very best you can hope for is a thought argument for the existence of the supernatural that isn’t riddled with logical fallacies. If there was actual evidence you wouldn’t require faith. What’s interesting is the dissonance required to justify different methodologies for determining what is truth. Apparently your devil is clever than your god and employs the rules of logic that governs all civilized discourse.

    Did you know that none of the books of the Bible are original but instead are translated, plagiarized, annotated, error ridden, copies of copies of copies of copies…….the earliest of which is a small fragment. The bulk of the gospels were produced over 130 to 150 years after the events supposedly happened. The average life span for a male of that period was 48 years. Don’t you see a problem here? Sometimes the best answer is, I don’t know.
This is painful to watch. Perfectly intelligent people trying to describe their God and why they believe. Their religion is obviously important to them yet most act as if they had never considered the question. When putting voice to their reasoning and see where their logic is taking them they begin to struggle. At some point their reasoning boils down to faith. To believe in the least probable outcome requires faith.

    Now the painful part begins. Special pleadings [if unicorns don’t exist I’ll look foolish. I don’t want to look foolish. Therefore unicorns are real], argument from ignorance, incredulity, all sorts of mental gymnastics. Then comes retrenchment and another attempt to tap dance around and avoid simple true-false, yes-no questions. Many people come to a place where they will jettison reason in favor of wanting to believe. Thus Myrmidons are manifested. Obedient, unquestioning and potentially lethal. The Christian world view is primitive at it’s core. Dial down your blood pressure and consider a very simple question. If you were born in Saudi Arabia what religion would you belong to? I’ll say it for you, then you can come to it on our own, or not. Islam. Every religious text was written by humans without any input from a nether world . . . No special pleading please. No worries.
    Food for thought: Why should anyone feel compelled to be subservient to a benevolent benefactor? Put another way, what kind of dick expects to be worshipped for doing what came naturally?


    • Sorry nopey,
      I have no interest in reading this much regurgitated atheist ignorance. I’ve heard it all. That you are so lazy that you haven’t already found answers to all of this reflects poorly on you, not me.
      But thanks anyway.
      If you write something of substance which can be read in less than half an hour, I’ll read it. But this?


  3. Sam says:

    ‘Because, unless you’ve seen every fossil in every museum or still encased in rock, then you can’t possibly claim that unicorns did not exist with anything but arrogance to back you up. Maybe YOU haven’t seen the evidence, but that doesn’t mean it’s not out there.’
    Doesn’t that mean that you have to believe they existed or at least consider it until you have looked at every inch of earth possible without finding one? That just sounds exhausting!


    • Hello Sam,
      Yes, admittedly, digging up every square inch of rock on earth would be exhausting. That’s why, despite all of my big talk, I secretly expect I shall never get around to doing it. But what it actually means is, one cannot declare definitively that something DOES NOT EXIST unless there is some LOGICAL reason. For instance, you CANNOT declare with 100% certainty that there are no dinosaurs living on earth right now. But I can claim with absolute certainty that there are no polygamous bachelors. Thanks for your comment!


      • Sam says:

        I’m pretty sure most atheists say there is a chance, even Dawkins says there is a chance a God exists. What atheists have you spoken to have said there is 100% no god?
        This also means that we have to give every God the same chance, which isn’t really beneficial for any specific religion. Also, if there is an incredibly powerful and wise God out there and we have to resort to ‘well, you can’t say that he doesn’t exist’, then that God isn’t doing well at showing himself at all.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hello Sam!
        I would recommend you surf on over to and check out the Atheism playlist and the Answering Atheism playlist. I think I cover almost anything you have to ask about in those.
        But in a quick, rapid fire Q&A:
        1. Yes, atheists DO admit that God MAY exist, making them Agnostics, because most of them are not actually stupid enough to BE atheists. I don’t really believe “Atheists” exist.
        2. Yes, you should examine all religious claims, including atheism, and all scientific claims, and all marketing claims, and all political slogans with reason and logic according to truth and not according to what you WANT to be true or how you FEEL about it. This means you cannot be intellectually lazy. I will not answer for your choices- you will.
        3. I know that if you follow the evidence, reason, and logic, then you will do what a thousand atheists before you have done- men like CS Lewis, Lee Stroble, and Josh McDowell- you will come to know Christianity is true. Then you will have to decide if you will worship the one true God and give your sins to Jesus so you can be clean and forgiven.
        God has shown himself in the stars, in math, in every living cell, and in your very ability to ask the question. You already know it to be true. You just need to have the courage to tear down the walls that keep you from the truth. Start with that link, and don’t give up. Keep asking questions.


      • Sam says:

        But people say the exact same thing about their religion, and I am just not accepting their truth either. This makes life very difficult!


      • Greetings Sam,
        Yes, people on both sides of any debate or conversation will say the same silly things. I never pretend that ALL Christians have good reasons for their faith, only that there ARE good reasons for their faith, whether they know them or not. Atheism has no good reasons, and so I get comments ALL OF THE TIME which assert that, because the commenter is ignorant of some facts, I must be wrong. It’s silly, but Atheism really offers little more.
        If you are interested in some of the reasons FOR the Christian worldview, we’ve started a helpful little site here:
        I hope it helps. And remember, #JesusLovesYou.


      • Sam says:

        Atheism doesn’t offer anything. It is simply saying I do not believe in the beliefs that are being presented to me. It is like saying not playing football doesn’t offer anything as a sport. It doesn’t, but that is because not playing football isn’t a sport.


      • Hello Sam!
        This is a popular idea on the internet (Non-Stamp Collecting), but not only is it wrong, but it doesn’t matter. I explain why in detail here:


  4. SpaniardVIII says:

    Great post and very true to what you said. A person needs more faith to believe that we all came from absolutely nothing then from believing that God who is eternal created everything.


  5. Thanks, Orange. What evidence do you have?


    • I don’t have the burden of proof.


      • Orange, you absolutely have the burden of proof. Your claims that are so far unsubstantiated:

        Universe suffers from sin.
        Death and decay were not part of original “creation”.
        God made the universe perfect.
        God made the universe.
        We choose to sin.
        We can be restored by accepting Jesus.
        Christianity is true.
        We should believe it because its true (this is a textbook example of circular reasoning, btw)

        And this is all just in your comment. Yes, sir, you most certainly have a burden of proof.


      • Greetings SPARTAN!
        I never said I have no burden of proof ever. The point of this article, which you seem to have missed entirely, is that Atheism has a HUGE burden of proof which no atheist even tries to meet. The only evidence I am ever presented is ignorance. Maybe you should try reading my post again, because your reply shows no real comprehension of what I was saying.
        And once again I am summing up and restating my articles in the comments section. From now on, I’m not going to post articles. I’m just going to start by leaving comments.


      • You literally said you don’t have the burden of proof just 2 comments up.


      • I didn’t say I NEVER have the burden of proof. I actually said this, “I never said I have no burden of proof ever.” But in regards to the post/conversation at hand I do not. I do not have to prove MY position to be true in order to show that yours is, at best, silly. See, the burden of proof depends on the claim being made. When I say atheism is stupid and indefensible, that means you can either say, YES, you are right, or NO, here is evidence/proof that Atheism is a true worldview. But I do NOT have to PROVE the existence of God in order to claim atheism is stupid and indefensible, because I am making a claim which centers on the nature of atheism, and which could be easily made by an agnostic who doesn’t claim to know God exists, or who He is. So, in the case of the post you are responding to, I do NOT carry the burden of proof to show that God exists.
        I hope this has cleared it up for you. And as always, thanks for your comments and questions.


      • But specifically, I was referring to the half-dozen times in the main article where you ridiculed atheists for stating there was no evidence for God. You said emphatically there was, but you have yet to provide any.


      • When flat earthers say there is no evidence for the ball earth, do you feel compelled to list all of the evidence FOR a ball earth to disagree, or do you not feel it legitimate to ask them to provide evidence for their own position?
        Anyone asserting a position HAS the burden of proof. You call yourself an Atheist, and thus you have a burden of proof to show that atheism is reasonable and not stupid. I have asserted that it is stupid and defenseless, and have shown on many occasions why.
        Metaphorically- I do not have to prove the earth to be round when I make a case against the flat earth. Like evolution, the flat earth model fails on its own merits and does not demand a second position be defended first.
        Though, for a lot of atheists, I find they argue that, because there is more than one model, the earth MOST LIKELY doesn’t even exist. And then… I have the burden of proof?
        Atheism is a position, no matter how many times ignorant and childish atheists pretend otherwise, and the point I am making is, they have ONLY their ignorance with which to defend their position. They cannot DISPROVE the existence of God, nor PROVE the non-existence of God. This simply means that atheism is NOT an intellectual position, but an EMOTIONAL one. It is a philosophical temper tantrum throw by addicts and perverts. This is why I continually assert that MOST people who call themselves ATHEISTS don’t really mean it- they mean agnostic and are using the word wrong because, however ignorant, they aren’t stupid enough to really believe they could support atheism intellectually. And as I have said to you on previous occasions, I don’t think you are stupid or evil enough to REALLY be an atheist. I think you are an agnostic who needs to ask more questions.
        So, welcome to A Bit of Orange! A good place to ask questions.


      • You are all wrong on this. Atheism has no burden of proof. It is the null position. An atheist CAN be ignorant of any and all god claims. Many atheists are aware of the god claims and find none of them compelling. This isn’t ignorance, this is a rejection of the information provided.

        What you really seem to think is that atheists are required to provide an account for any given phenomenon. This is wrong.

        Now, someone that accepts and declares evolution happened IS under a burden of proof.


      • Sorry SPARTAN! but I must disagree. And if you watched the video I provided, you should understand why.
        Also, I do not believe that you are really an atheist. If you are going to make that claim, you already have a burden of proof which I personally do not think you can meet. Atheists do not exist, which I have actually proven on three separate occasions.
        But if all you are claiming by calling yourself an atheist is ignorance, or, as you call it, the NULL position, then can you at least admit that your position includes the possibility that MY position is actually correct? Essentially, I am saying “Here is a worldview which is true,” and you are saying, “I don’t know that it ISN’T true, and it MAY BE TRUE- but I’m not going to admit that I know that it is.”
        Can we at least agree that, according to you, this is where we stand?


    • But of course, if you want evidence and solid reasons for anything I profess, check it out:
      And enjoy.


      • Hi, Orange. I’ve spent some time looking through your page, and I haven’t found anywhere where you or any of the speakers have provided any evidence for the existence of god. Could you either give me a specific link, or just sum up a single piece of evidence for me?


      • Well my dear SPARTAN! It depends on what you mean by evidence. If you mean, observable facts that are observable, or arguments which are logically valid and do not commit logical fallacies, then YES! And TONS of them:

        If by “evidence” you mean something which you personally cannot question, doubt, or ignore… that depends entirely on you, and not on science, history, or reason.
        So check out that link and enjoy! I made it for you.


      • Evidence is evidence. Period.

        When someone provides something they call evidence, we review it first for things like forgery or a good chain of custody. Then we try to figure out how reliable it is. Then we try to figure out what the evidence either points to or rules out.

        If it uncorrupted, reliable information that helps us rule out or rule in a particular claim, then it is evidence. Otherwise it’s just useless information.

        And I’ve checked your link again and can’t find any evidence. So please just give me one piece of evidence. Make it the best.


      • Evidence is that which can persuade a reasonable man. For an unreasonable man, nothing can be done because he must CHOOSE to stop being unreasonable. I’ve seen people refuse to accept evidence for their own existence. Cogito Ergo Sum isn’t enough for them, and they feel very clever rejecting it. Similarly, the evidence and arguments given on the MANY resources you are pretending to have checked out (Why lie about that Spartan? We both know you haven’t- there hasn’t even been TIME for you to read and watch them all) are evidence TO ME because I am reasonable (or at least honest) enough to be persuaded. If you cannot be persuaded by them, I do not call into question what I understand to be reasonable and persuasive evidence and logically sound arguments. I don’t need to. If you want me to, you have the burden of proof to show the error with all of the arguments and all of the evidence given. Of course it would be a waste of time to try, and I suspect you are educated enough to know that.

        But if you want an argument which I consider persuasive, how about this: Atheism is stupid and indefensible. Since no logical, rational argument can be made in its favor, then its negation is a reasonable inference and necessarily true. God Must and DOES exist. But you already know that. That’s why the evidence and arguments I provided are somehow invisible to you. You say you “can’t find any evidence.” The truth is, you can’t find evidence for the existence of God for the same reason a criminal cannot find a police officer.

        I cannot force you to make a decision, and therefore, I cannot help you. If you choose to have an open mind and be intellectually honest, then you will find the evidence which, for the moment, remains invisible to you. When you choose honesty, then check out those resources again. The truth will pop out to you the way colors do when you finally choose to open your eyes.

        Good luck.


      • Orange, we have three different threads going so I’m going to try to reply all in this one.

        I am an atheist. I do not believe in a god. Therefore, you are demonstrably wrong on that point.

        As an atheist, (the null position) I am open to any and all possibilities, including that there may be a god or gods. There may even be your god. But so far, I haven’t seen a single piece of evidence for that god. Therefore, I remain unconvinced, and therefore an atheist.

        Saying atheism is “stupid” is just being a fucking asshole. When my children don’t know how to clean their room, I don’t call them stupid, I show them how. When a new employee doesn’t know how to do the job, I don’t call them stupid, I train them. I have clearly stated my position over and over that I’m asking for you to explain your position, and you flat-out refuse, instead sending me to a website with dozens of videos. How about at least tell me which video I’m supposed to be watching, instead of being hostile?

        I’ve never heard anyone reject “I think, therefore I am.” It’s the beginning of evidence for our reality. I don’t know if you’re making that up or what. I don’t even know why you mentioned it.

        It is true that we must be reasonable to examine and verify evidence. I would be more than happy to discuss any evidence you happen to have. Naturally, I would want to know if the evidence can confirm or deny a claim. If it doesn’t, then it isn’t evidence at all. I want to know if the evidence is reliable. Unreliable evidence is also useless. And I would like to know if the evidence has been tainted. These three measures are not too much to ask, and they are the very thing that attorneys discuss in courts and how historians and scientists evaluate evidence. Pretty standard stuff.

        So please provide a single piece of evidence and we can discuss.


      • Hey SPARTAN! I hope your vacation is going well.
        I’m going to bullet point this for organizational purposes.
        1. You are not an atheist. You have rejected Atheistic Orthodoxy. You are like a Catholic who rejects the authority of the church. An atheist who believes in objective morality is not an atheist. He has rejected atheism. I know you call yourself that, but you are mistaken. You are a “vegan” who eats bacon.
        2. If you are “open to any and all possibilities, including that there may be a god or gods” you are an agnostic. The way you describe yourself is literally the dictionary definition of agnostic. You could not offer a better example of what Agnosticism is if you tried. I couldn’t. I’m not even going to try.
        3. But if you REALLY want to call yourself an atheist, go ahead. Just know that, according to how I (and most people) use those words, I think you are mistaken to do so and I will not do the same. I will call you an agnostic because, as you say here, you are “open to any and all possibilities, including that there may be a god or gods.” which is the very DEFINITION of agnostic. So, you are mistaken, but if you don’t want to change your fake internet name, I don’t care. Feel free to call yourself an “Atheist.” Bruce Jenner calls himself a “Woman.” I’m not going to start a petition to make him stop that either.
        4. I’m sorry if you think I am being an “asshole”. I hope it is clear I did not mean to be- but I think if you take a moment you will see you are angry at me for something I have not done. If you consider what I have said above, and what I have said MANY times previous, both to you personally and in videos and blog posts, I do not consider you stupid for not being a theist. I have never said “Atheists” are stupid. Atheism is not a person- not you or anyone else. It is a religious position which includes the impossible burden of proof that, in order to be logical, must show that the NECESSARY being CANNOT exist. It requires it’s adherents to reject objective morality, many scientific and logical laws, and even one’s own ability to think and make choices. And these are not my feelings about atheists, or even my feelings about atheism, this is what atheism IS. This is what consistent atheists say about their own worldview.
        5. You are smart enough to know that God may exist, as you admit here. In fact, I assert that you already know, on some level, that God DOES exist, just as all of us know McDonald’s is bad for us even though we love those 99 cent cheeseburgers. And those fries. Has your mother ever made anything as good as McDonald’s french fries? OF COURSE NOT! But they will kill you like a pack of Lucky Strikes. You are not stupid enough to be an atheist.
        6. You know objective morality exists. You are not stupid (or evil) enough to be an atheist.
        7. You probably accept the basic laws of logic and science which atheism would force you to reject (and there are many). I can have confidence in this because I don’t believe you are stupid enough to be an atheist.
        8. You are misguided enough to CALL yourself an Atheist. It’s not uncommon. I’ve called myself a “musician.” I own a drum kit and a guitar. I know better now.
        9. There is nothing I can tell you which is not on in some format. In fact, in a lot of cases, what I would tell you here in the comments is told better, more entertainingly, and by smarter people than me. I don’t get why you were offended by that.
        10. Go to
        Start at the top of the page. If you don’t feel like reading, skip down to the videos and watch them in the order I put them up. But if you do like reading, then is a really fun comic book style read which does a very good job of working through the logical and philosophical arguments, starting with the belief that you exist (Cogito Ergo Sum- and yes, people will try and argue with that. I’ve quoted several of them here on my blog somewhere) and showing how you can logically follow from that to the existence of, not just God, just the God of the Bible. This is, of course, the whole reason Reneee Descartes wrote on Cogito Ergo Sum.
        And CS Lewis was a bitter, died in the wool atheist until he was a college professor and then (as he describes it) quite against his will, he became a Christian because he realized that he could not honestly reject the evidence that Christianity is TRUE. Of course the same is true of Josh McDowell, Lee Stroble, Jim Wallace, and other Christian apologists. CS Lewis’s book Mere Christianity is a classic of Christian Apologetics, which begins much like and Renee Descartes do with some simple observable facts that most of us would not reject. If you want to go deeper after that, I suggest MIRACLES by CS Lewis. And of course, all of Jewis’s word is available as audiobooks (And many are on Youtube) if you want to listen on your commute, or poolside.
        11. I agree with all you have to say about evidence. Well said. But I replied as I must with the reminder that evidence will only be persuasive if you can be persuaded. If like Davids Hume you decide that Miracles CANNOT happen, that by definition they are impossible, then no evidence FOR a miracle would persuade you. Richard Dawkins has recently stated publicly that his atheism is absolute and NO argument or evidence could possibly persuade him. He has already decided that, if anything seemed to him to be evidence FOR the existence of God, then he has already decided that he would be wrong, insane, or confused. If you are like Dawkins or Hume, then it is a waste of time to show you evidence, just as it would be pointless to try and explain to an animal rights vegan how delicious barbecue ribs are, or to try and prove to Hitler how useful and beneficial Jewish citizens are.
        12. If you can be persuaded, then you are on the right track to follow Lewis, McDowell, Stroble, and a host of others (including St Paul) into the truth of the Bible. Naturally I am happy to help.
        13. But I’m not going to do it by offering you 2,000 years of Christian Apologetics here in the comments section when I have made an entire other website for just that purpose.
        14. Enjoy:
        15: Remember, #JesusLovesYou


      • Orange, you’re killing me. You’re just killing me.

        1) I am not a theist. I don’t personally believe in any God. There is a word for people that are not theists. A-THEIST. That’s what that word means, pure and simple. Not theist.

        Gnosticism is all about what you know. If you believe In a God, but you’re not sure if he/she/it/they exist, then your an agnostic theist. In a world of theists, this is usually merely called agnostic. Likewise, if you don’t personally believe in a God, but aren’t sure if there is a God, you could be an agnostic atheist. Remember, atheist just means not theist, and agnostic means not sure. I don’t think I’ve ever personally met an atheist that was completely convinced that there were no gods whatsoever. But if an atheist claimed that, they would be a gnostic atheist.

        You’re building a straw man when you equate atheism with gnostic atheism. And this isn’t mere semantics, either. This is atheists being intellectually honest that despite their disbelief in any god, they are still willing to give a god claim an honest go.

        By claiming that anyone that is willing to entertain god claims as an agnostic, you are unwittingly trying to put a whole range of people with many varying degrees of belief or disbelief or strong or weak conviction into a single category. Sure, many people I would call atheists like to call themselves agnostic. But since agnostic can mean anything from a theist agnostic to a hard-nosed atheist that is willing to entertain evidence, forcing the word agnostic is just intellectually dishonest.

        I’m aware that many people use the three category system of theist, agnostic, and atheist. But it is a very poor descriptor, and by definition incorrect. If you and I are to have a discussion above dive bar intellectualism, we should use the words correctly. I am, and I remain, an atheist, no matter to what varying degree I am willing to entertain theistic claims.

        2) I’ve asked you for evidence. You keep referring me to blogs and YouTube videos where I have already spent a few hours reading and listening and waiting for any evidence. Look, I’m willing to discuss the evidence, but I haven’t heard any evidence even offered up yet. You want me to be open to the evidence, and I’m willing, but you have to present some. I don’t want 2000 years of apologetics. I don’t want an entire lecture or sermon. I definitely don’t want to listen to any more videos of someone running through a long list of conclusions without explaining how they arrived at those conclusions. I just want for you to present one- ONE!- piece of evidence for god or your god. You can even direct me to a specific video at a certain time or copy from a section of an article or whatever. I’m trying to make this as simple for you as possible. Give me one piece of evidence.

        Remember, I think Jesus is fake.


      • With all due respect:
        1. I don’t care.
        I have explained over and over why this semantic game is meaningless and does nothing but muddy the waters, but if you want to play it, then play it. I will not be playing along with you, and it speaks very little of you that you are SO inclined to play it.
        At the end of the day, you either believe you are confident that ALL gods are absent from reality (I call that atheism- you call it whatever you want) or you believe that God or gods MAY exist (I call that Agnosticism- you call it whatever you want).
        I have no respect for the semantic game because it is a thinly veiled attempt to avoid thinking about and answering these core issues. If you want to pretend you are an atheist who admits that God may exist, fine. But everyone else will call that Agnosticism because that is LITERALLY WHAT THE WORD MEANS. But I digress. The point is, you already know and have admitted that God MAY exist. This means, if the Bible is true, then you MAY be going to hell. You MAY be able to receive salvation for free- a gift paid for by Jesus.

        But you would rather play semantic games and hold onto the lie that ATHEISM isn’t an amazingly stupid and indefensible position because…? I don’t know. But you are either vastly lazy or astoundingly apathetic. You would rather argue about the labels you prefer than find out for CERTAIN if you are going to hell or if you could go to heaven. That doesn’t say anything encouraging for the choices you make.

        2. Stop being lazy. I’m not going to hold your hand and walk to you the video and push play for you. “Atheists” do this crap ALL of the time and it drives me nuts. If clicking on a link, reading, or pushing play is really that hard, then stop wasting my time and stop pretending that the truth matters to you. This is childish and annoying and COMPLETELY ILLEGITIMATE.
        “You want me to be open to the evidence, and I’m willing, but you have to present some.” REALLY Spartan? A whole web site dedicated to some of the MANY arguments – arranged by TOPIC- and even a detailed description of where you should start is not enough hand holding for you? You asked for a bit of orange and I showed you the orange grove and you whine that I did not pick one and slice it for you?

        We both know what this is. This is a childish attempt to be able to say “Christians don’t have any evidence! I ask them for evidence and they never give me any!” But we both know that the fact is, you’ve been given LOTS of evidence and have chosen to be AMAZINGLY lazy and immature about it. You should be ashamed of yourself because this is a PATHETIC dodge the likes of which only politicians accept as valid. You will skulk off to the atheist echo chambers and declare that “THERE IS NO ORANGE JUICE! No one would pick and orange and slice it open and squeeze it for me!”

        If you have questions or rebuttals, then you would have offered them, but you have not. If you had read or listened to Mere Christianity as I suggested, and found CS Lewis arguments lacking, you would have made an argument against his position, but you did not. You have made the asinine claim that “You keep referring me to blogs and YouTube videos where I have already spent a few hours reading and listening and waiting for any evidence.”

        No, you haven’t. This is a lie. We both know this is a lie. It was a lie the first time you made this claim and it still is now. You should be ashamed.

        If this is the level to which you are going to sink, then I am done with this conversation. When you care for the truth more than for playing this stupid game of semantic tennis, let me know. Otherwise, go bother another Christian blogger. Tennis was never really my game.


      • Orange, please calm down.

        1) You really went off topic here, so I’ll sum up like this. I don’t believe in forest pixies.

        When I’m in the woods, I don’t consider the forest pixies if I pee on a tree, cut a tree down, spray for bugs, sing any particular song or whistle a tune, start a campfire, hunt, fish, or control burn. I simply don’t give a damn about forest pixie considerations no matter what I do, because I outright do not believe in forest pixies.

        Now, if someone comes to me and says “I have proof forest pixies exist”, I will remain highly sceptical but I WILL entertain their demonstration. As long as it doesn’t cost me anything. I feel EXACTLY the same about God. I believe in god as much as I believe in forest pixies. Seriously, just call that whatever you want, I guess.

        2) I literally watched a couple hours of videos from the link you sent me. I had my laptop in the kitchen as I was preparing food. I didn’t hear anyone in any of those videos provide any evidence.

        Maybe I should clarify for a second. When I say evidence, I mean the actual evidence. Not an argument with a bunch of premises and a conclusion. What I mean is if the speaker states some premise, I want to know what the evidence was that was evaluated, how it was evaluated, and what that specific piece of evidence tells us.

        For example, if someone asks why I conclude George Washington existed, it doesn’t help if I reply “because he crossed the Deleware and suprised the British.” That’s just another assertion. Evidence would be evaluating written documents, for example.

        Your evidence doesn’t have to be written documents, but it does have to pass basic scrutiny such as being verifiable or reliable.

        So yes, I did indeed listen to about two hours of youtube vodeos FULL of assertions. But I heard exactly zero evidence. So please directing me to that would be most helpful.



        MAYBE YOU need to calm down, did you think of that?!?!?!?!?!?
        Did you?
        Oh. Well, you should have.
        Because you should.

        Fine. I’ll explain this one more time, but only because you’re the last comment of the night and I’m waiting for something to render off in another program:

        1. This is a lie. You do NOT feel the same about God as you do about Forrest pixies. And you know it is a lie. I don’t believe that you’ve convinced yourself that you believe this lie. Why do you tell yourself this lie? And why do you think I will believe it? It’s a dumb lie and kind of insulting. Don’t lie to me.

        2. And if this were true, which is it not, don’t you see how VERY BADLY this would reflect on you?

        You’ve said you accept that the God of the Bible MAY be real. But you have NO interest? You will entertain the idea as long as it doesn’t cost anything? SO when you die and stand before him and He asks why you didn’t bother even an honest investigation to the written record of his actions in history, including the one where in he became a man, Jesus, and died for your sins- when he asks why you couldn’t be bothered to even take an honest look into the ONE CHANCE YOU HAVE to be saved from the hell you so very much deserve, you are going to say, “I just wasn’t all that interested.”? Then you will be damned for apathy. Hardly something to be proud of. In fact, if you were sober enough to understand what I am saying, you would be profoundly ashamed.

        In essence I am saying, your house is on fire and filling with smoke and if you don’t let the fireman carry you to safety you will die- and you are answering, “Well, that may be true. I can’t prove it isn’t. But I’m not all that interested.” You’d rather, what? Watch American Idol reruns on Hulu? I’m telling you that its true, and instead of searching for conclusive evidence that I am right or wrong, you are shrugging and waiting to be consumed by flames? And then acting like its MY job to work harder to convince you? YOUR lungs are filling with smoke, my friend. I’m shouting at you from outside the house. I’ve been carried to safety already. That’s one of the reasons I know. Maybe you need to turn off the tv now and again and open a few more doors. Maybe you should realize that you have to keep turning up the TV to drown out those blaring smoke alarms.

        Somewhere there is a line between lazy and stupid, and with all due respect, you may be standing on that line. With your eyes closed.

        3. Watched a couple of hours, eh? And “didn’t hear anyone in any of those videos provide any evidence” eh? Did it occur to you that you don’t know what evidence is?
        Let’s see…
        “I mean the actual evidence. Not an argument with a bunch of premises and a conclusion.”
        So… you want some size infinity footprints you can see for yourself? Maybe discarded candywrappers from candy so good only GOD could have eaten it?
        Your dismissal of philosophical arguments, or logical PROOFS as they are called, is baffling and ridiculous. You have seen evidence and didn’t even understand that that’s what it was.
        Because THAT’S WHAT IT WAS.

        What else do you offer…
        “For example, if someone asks why I conclude George Washington existed, it doesn’t help if I reply “because he crossed the Deleware and suprised the British.” That’s just another assertion. Evidence would be evaluating written documents, for example.”
        So assertions which are WRITTEN DOWN would count as evidence then.
        Like, say, in a book.
        Or maybe in a collection of eye witness testimonies passed down from generation to generation and preserved with what even skeptics say is 99.9% accuracy. Books with existing manuscripts we can date to the generation of those very eyewitnesses and any critiques which, mysteriously, are silent, even though they had the power to hunt down, imprison, and murder those eye witnesses for decades, and their disciples for almost 300 years. SO MANY manuscripts in fact that they dwarf all of the top most attested manuscripts of antiquity COMBINED. Which is validated by EVERY other historical record and archaeological discovery every made.

        Like, say, THE BIBLE.

        Because, yes, I have considered that. I have a few resources about those here:
        And here:

        Maybe you should take a look at those- but I’ll warn you, clicking on those links won’t magically make the Dead Sea Scrolls appear in your kitchen as you’re preparing a low calorie dish. It will be people TALKING about the physical evidence, using logic and reason to reach conclusions. See, they start out with the physical evidence, historical evidence, etc- which some may refer to as a bunch of premises and they reach a logical conclusion.
        BECAUSE THAT IS HOW LOGIC WORKS. Premises that lead to a conclusion. Physical objects are NOT evidence without asserting some premises concerning them.

        Can you tell I’m frustrated with you? It’s because I can’t tell if you dismissed the logical arguments as NOT being evidence because you don’t know how logic works and what evidence is, or because you are SO DISHONEST that you are intentionally being vague about your demands so you can pretend you have not been given evidence- its this stupid game that internet atheists play where in they PRETEND to be asking questions just so they can constantly move the field goals or change the meaning of their terms or simply IGNORE any or all answers they are given. Either way I am mainly annoyed at you. And somewhat perplexed.

        Let me be strait- I don’t think you know what you are looking for, so you can’t even fake a good demand for it. When it comes right down to it, you either have no idea what you’re asking for, or you are asking for SCIENTIFIC evidence, which as I have explained over and over is STUPID, because you cannot have MATERIAL EVIDENCE for an IMMATERIAL BEING.

        Show me a linear measurement, or a mass spectrometer reading which proves what color the number five is.
        What is love rounded to the nearest SECOND?
        How much does TRUTH weigh in Kilograms?
        How much Carbon is in a triangle? Or in a Sonnet? Or in a melody?

        Once again, this is why it matters that we are talking about the God of the Bible and not the God of Mormonism. The Mormon god has a body and lives on a particular planet around a particular star (so says Mormonism). You are demanding that Hamlet or Romeo point at something in their world that proves the existence of Shakespeare, but THEIR WORLDS PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF SHAKESPEARE. Neither Romeo nor Hamlet could every own a telescope or a microscope so powerful that they could use it to take a picture of William Shakespeare, but even so, if Guildenstern and Rosencrantz were to say that, therefore, there is no evidence for William Shakespeare they would still be VERY WRONG.

        And once again, your problem is not a lack of evidence. You have been given evidence, but you don’t want to see it. What you need it to be honest with yourself and admit that you don’t WANT God to exist. THIS is why you call yourself ATHEIST when you are not and you know that you are not.
        Then ask yourself why? WHY do you want to pretend that God does not exist?
        Then realize that, whatever the answer, it is a stupid reason and let it go.

        Then take an HONEST look at the evidence, which, by the way, includes philosophical arguments. EVERY proof- even scientific proofs, REQUIRE philosophical arguments and belief in things which themselves cannot be proven with science. Your rejection of arguments leading to conclusions does what Atheism inevitably MUST do- it makes you literally unable to know ANYTHING. This is why I say atheism is stupid, and why I have said, optimistically, that you are not stupid enough to be an atheist.
        We are not trying to prove that the platypus exists. The platypus cannot be REASONED to, but you can bring one alive to the local zoo and have them see for themselves. But you cannot bring God to the zoo in a carrier anymore than you can watch the crossing of the Delaware. There is no PHYSICAL evidence which can be used to prove that Washington existed which cannot be waved away by some lazy skeptic with his eyes closed. You ask for written documents, but what criteria would you demand for those? Suppose the documents included the miraculous- do you IMMEDIATELY dismiss them because of this? If so, what would be the point of offering you testimonials? All of history would be up for your personal interpretation depending on what you want to be true or not true. If you have made up your mind already, then the evidence is MEANINGLESS to you. Your faith is blind because your eyes are closed. If you reject four eyewitness accounts of Jesus after his resurrection from death because you do not believe in the miraculous, then why cannot I reject any documents which say Washington crossed the Delaware because I do not believe in former US presidents traveling by boat? It would be equally as stupid and unarguable. You could show me a hundred eye witness testimonies and I could dismiss them all as fables because, EVERYONE KNOWS that American presidents travel by carriage, train, or plane, but NEVER by boat.

        As I said before, until you actually want to know the answers, it is pointless to talk to you. Unless you are HONEST, then evidence and arguments are wasted on you.
        And until you know what evidence and arguments are, you are in no position to have these conversations.

        Because, you said, “”I mean the actual evidence. Not an argument with a bunch of premises and a conclusion.” But that IS THE EVIDENCE. Or a small part of it anyway. You did in fact hear a LOT of evidence (if in fact you really listened casually while making dinner one time for “Several hours”) but apparently you just didn’t know it- or you want to pretend you did not.

        I do not mean to be rude, but unless I am convinced that you actually care about the truth, then talking to you is a waste of my time and I won’t do it any more. I have offered all of the free resources I can over at my other site. DO some homework. Open your eyes. The house is on fire and you are complaining that you can’t see the flames. Smoke, the blare of a dozen smoke alarms, and a sudden rising heat don’t seem to be enough for you. I can’t make you open your eyes. I can’t convince you that it’s worth it to check it out. I can’t think for you.

        At the end, you will stand before God alone.
        I suggest you take that seriously.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s