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.

36 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.


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 )

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