Since starting my apologetics blogs about a decade ago, I have noticed a strange thing. Persons claiming to be Atheists will show up in my comments sections, saying horrible things- telling me I’m an idiot, calling me a liar, etc. And they show up a LOT. You sort of get used to it after a while, like the stench from that pile of laundry you have been meaning to get to for a couple of weeks. Oh, wait, it’s April already? Ok so… well, the laundry has been a thing for a long time now. And it stinks. But you get used to it. That’s all I’m saying.
I’ve recently been handling Social Media for Creation Today- the Biblical apologetics ministry of Eric Hovind. His comments sections are always flooded with these same stupid Roach Clown comments. It’s pathetic 3rd grade playground bully name calling with the INSINUATION that there are some kind of facts or arguments SOMEWHERE out there which, while never actually used in these comments, are imagined to exist so that they can get to the important work of telling some Christian they’ve never met that they are a fraud, liar, idiot, etc. And some of the names are the same ones, over and over.
This is either their hobby or their job, and they are dedicated to it.
For several years now I have been asking these “Atheists” WHY they bother to do this. Why take the time and effort to leave a comment which doesn’t have any remote chance of changing my mind? Why not MAKE a solid, logical case against whatever point I had been making instead of simply letting me know that I am an idiot? To be perfectly frank, I think I have more evidence for my being an idiot than any of them do, so why not tell me something I DON’T know? I ask, but they never tell me.
To clarify, I am not referring to EVERY comment left by “atheists,” as there is, from time to time, a comment or question from a self-professing “atheist” which actually tries to address the position I am asserting in my content. But those are the exception rather than the rule. The majority are, from what I can tell, intending only to communicate, “I don’t understand your position (or mine), but you are wrong and I hate you.”
The overwhelming majority want to ask questions but NOT hear any answers. Again, for years I have noted that they will throw out blusterous arguments and questions loaded with insinuation, but when they are answered they IMMEDIATELY change the subject and ask about something else without ANY acknowledgement that they had been answered. I’ve been asking them WHY they ask questions when they have no interest in the answers, and, again, I’ve gotten no explanation.
These “atheists” aren’t making a case against any of our positions, interacting with the article or post on which they are leaving a comment, or saying anything which rises above the level of 3rd grade playground bully name calling. And yet many of them KEEP COMING BACK. Some of these people will subscribe so they can be SURE to know when new content comes out, just so they can leave a comment like, “Why don’t you stop LYING all the time, you idiot? Science has PROVEN how stupid you are! LOL!”
Every day.
Some of these Roach Clowns are very FAITHFUL followers of Christian social media.
As many times as I have tried to get them to explain WHY they do this, I have never gotten an answer. In the rare instance they acknowledge that I have asked them at all, the answers have been self-contradictory, nonsensical, or weak attempts to change the subject. But I recently heard something which turned on that little power saving bulb in my head. A former atheist, now Christian, was talking about how he had wanted to find arguments against God’s existence because he wanted to be sure he was right so he could kill himself. As long as he was uncertain that Christianity was false, he was afraid he would go to hell and so he continued to live, harassing Christians as much as possible, because he wanted one of them to finally say, “OK, you’re right! It’s all a lie and we know it!” But none ever did, so he lived long enough to become a Christian himself.
Hearing that is when it all made sense. I suddenly understood why these angry foul-mouth collections of logical fallacies would show up SO FAITHFULLY to Christian blogs, videos, articles and social media to do nothing better than name calling. Why come back over and over AND OVER if they aren’t going to make a legitimate attempt to persuade us that Christianity is not true? Here was the answer:
They are trying to convince themselves!
I’ve told a lot of “atheists” that I don’t believe they are actually stupid enough to BE an atheist, and eventually they all acknowledge that they are in fact Agnostics. Of course they aren’t stupid enough to claim they KNOW GOD DOESN’T EXIST! But they WANT to believe that, so they call themselves “Atheist” knowing full well they don’t actually MEAN “Atheist,” and they come to Christian blogs and social media hoping to find an argument which can somehow convince them that Atheism isn’t as stupid as it seems even to them. They want to convince US, because, they feel, if they can convince a Christian that Christianity is false, maybe they can believe it too. And they WANT to believe.
There are two things every “atheist” wants to do with unshaken confidence: Sin, and Kill Himself. Maybe not both at the same time, or in equal amounts, but when you consider the worldview of Atheism, it’s adherence can want nothing more than the sticky, inky darkness of sin and depravity, and/or the sweet release of death. I’ve often wondered why more atheists don’t kill themselves and it’s been my suspicion that they don’t because, somewhere in the dark recesses of their minds, they KNOW as well as I do, that if they die tonight, they wake up in hell tomorrow.
So they go on living, but they are addicted to some sin they are TRYING to enjoy… but somewhere in the shadows of their worldview lurks this GOD they are trying to ignore. They shut their eyes so they cannot see HIM- the God who made them- the God who SEES and JUDGES- trying to believe that if THEY can’t see HIM, then maybe He can’t see them… But the GUILT won’t leave them alone. It GNAWS at them despite their bold professions of moral ambiguity. It haunts their waking life and their dreams even though they have bumper-stickers and FaceBook memes which insist that there ARE no absolutes… still they can’t enjoy their sins and the guilt piles up until it is unbearable and all they want is to escape their guilt, even if it means death… but… to be or not to be?
That is the question.
And that’s why they don’t offer me good arguments or meaningful questions when they stop by, day after day. They don’t care if I change my mind. They don’t care if they can convince me. What they want is to convince themselves.
If Atheists could convince THEMSELVES,
I would never hear from them.
So if you are a Christian who faces the Roach Clowns, remember this- they aren’t actually Atheists- they aren’t that stupid and they know better. Besides, Paul tells us in Romans 1,
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
There are no Atheists. Paul makes that clear here in Romans. The secret is, THEY KNOW they are not Atheists, which is why they have all agreed that the definition of “Atheist” had to be changed to mean “Agnostic.” If they claim to be an atheist, don’t believe them. THEY don’t believe it, so why should you? And when they pretend they know God doesn’t exist, or that the Bible is wrong, do not believe them. THEY don’t believe them. They want to sin and die, but they can’t convince themselves. If they have questions and they care about the answer, then help them learn. If they don’t want answers, don’t waste your time. Tell them Jesus loves them, share the Gospel, and let them know they can come back when they care to hear the answers to their questions.
If you’re the “Atheist” Troll who keeps visiting Christian sites faithfully wanting merely to find the weakness in their armor, or the unanswerable question- to convince you- then let me offer you some encouragement:
Jesus Loves you.
YES- God is your greatest fear, and if you die in your sin and face him you will face the most terrifying thing any person will ever face- the wrath of Holy God. That’s why you can’t kill yourself, because if you die in your sins you will NEVER BE FREE OF YOUR SIN AND GUILT. It will torment you forever. Literally FOREVER.
BUT-
GOD has made a way for your sins to be taken from you. Jesus died the death you deserve and paid the debt you owe so you can live free of that guilt, forgiven and free, and when you face him it will not be as the guilty enemy facing the righteous judge, but as the forgiven son being welcomed home.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
-John 3:16-17
Today, instead of trolling your favorite Christian blogs, go read Luke 15:11-32 and see for yourself how God treats filthy, sinful, rebellious fools who run away from him when they decide to come back to Him:
But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.
And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate.
And while you will never find one Christian who has ALL OF THE ANSWERS- there are answers. Instead of trolling, just keep asking good questions. The truth will set you free.
#JesusLovesYou
A Bit of Orange 
I came to similar conclusions a few years ago…although I would add it would seem that some ‘internet atheist trolls’ tend to poke, prod and pulverise in order to elicit the kind of negative reaction that would (in a twisted thread of logic) vindicate their reasons for disbelief…yet these same people *do* come back for the very reasons you have elucidated.
If you are interested my brief ‘troll theory’ can found here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/whyoutreach/the-troll-theory/909684365727589/
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment The Whyman. And thanks for sharing your link. I want to offer a big AMEN to this part: “Though they do not and will not seek Him (Romans 3:11) on some level they do know that He exists (Romans 1:20) and that they need Him.
“Let us then pray that God would open up their eyes so that they would be honest with themselves and that the Holy Spirit would work in their hardened hearts that they might repent and trust in the sacrificial death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
Amen.
LikeLike
I got my first bonafide athiest troll on my YouTube channel last month. I have had fun responding (even did a lengthy blog post to respond to all of his claims and attacks), but I had a few friends asking why I bothered responding. Part I: Some people may have legitimate questions/concerns based on what he says. Part II: A summary of your statements here! “Why are they so adamant about fighting our faith if they do not already “know in their hearts”?
Great words and insights, my friend.
LikeLike
Thanks Daniel. Fight the good fight, and speak the truth in love. You never know who else is listening.
LikeLike
Hi, Orange! I don’t speak for all atheists, hell I only speak for one. (Me, I speak only for me) But I’ll be happy to tell you why I comment on yours and other religious blogs.
I want your readers to realize that there are very good arguments against your religious beliefs. I want them to look elsewhere and find out for themselves.
You’re welcome, TSA
LikeLike
Greetings SPARTAN!
I have to give you credit. This is the most sober and coherent answer I’ve ever gotten from someone calling themselves an Atheist. Point, you.
But forgive me for saying so, your answer doesn’t make sense to me and I can’t believe its true. If atheism were true, why would you even want that? How could ME or my readers knowing the arguments against Christianity be so valuable to you that you are willing to spend the fleeting moments between now and oblivion coming here and dialoguing with me? If I REALLY thought God didn’t exist, I wouldn’t waste a moment trying to convince someone I’d never met to agree with me on the internet. I’d be getting drunk, high, laid, and preparing for my inevitable suicide. Also, I’d probably set things on fire. And I would eat FAR more donuts. But I digress.
Why would you care what ANYONE thinks about anything? This answer seems absurd, even if you believe it to be true. It certainly can’t be motivated by a consistent atheism. In all sincerity I hope you do try and explain this to me.
Also, didn’t you already admit to being an Agnostic? [checking the old database…] Yeah, you said, “I am open to any and all possibilities, including that there may be a god or gods. There may even be your god.” So, that makes you the Spartan Agnostic.
But, hold on now… How do you hold to the belief that there are “very good arguments against [my] religious beliefs” SO TIGHTLY and confidently that you want to convince TOTAL STRANGERS you will never meet on the internet that those arguments, whatever they are, somehow prove Christianity false, when you have said “…there may be a god or gods. There may even be your god.” ?!?!? Doesn’t this mean your position is, “You maybe right, but I want people I don’t know to go find arguments which prove it false”?
With all due respect, Spartan old boy, I can’t buy this answer of yours for a moment. Unless I am provided with some arguments and evidence which validates your claims here, I must be lacking a belief in your position and maintain my original position to which you are replying.
And also also, there are no “very good arguments against my religious beliefs.”
If there was, it seems someone would have shared those with me by now.
Anyhow, thanks for your comments yet again. SPARTAN!!!
LikeLike
Orange, I want you to think really hard. Imagine that tomorrow you found out with absolute certainty that there was no God.
I want you, in a godless world, to give me a reason why you would not kill your own children.
If you can’t come up with one reason why you wouldn’t kill your own children, you dont have the maturity for me to engage in this conversation.
LikeLike
Oh, Spartan, falling back on name calling so fast? I had higher hopes for you just now.
But I’ll humor you for a moment out of sheer curiosity:
1. It doesn’t matter. This is a question about my personal psychology and tells us nothing about the reality of the universe, or what really is.
2. People kill their own children all of the time, whether that is the baby murdering factories we call “Abortion Clinics” or people tossing five year-olds out of windows. I see the headlines.
3. Atheism has no basis on which to condemn these child murders. Atheism has no basis on which to give non-material values of any kind. Atheism has inches, feet, kilometers or Pounds per Square inch. Atheism does not have good or evil.
4. You know that murdering children is wrong.
5. Thus, you know Atheism is wrong. (You should change your name. It can only confuse people.)
On YOUR view, if I believed it, then I would value the lives of my immediate family because evolution has hardwired my DNA to produce behaviors which results in my genes being passed on, even if they means in the children of my children, or in the people around me who are genetically similar, even if not direct blood relations. We don’t make choices, we are all just dancing to our DNA. There is no value, only survival.
But again, you know that is absurd, so you know atheism is stupid. You can keep the acronym: TSA- just acknowledge that A is for Agnostic.
Also, maturity is not determined by the ability to craft reasoned or persuasive responses to hypothetical situations. Your threat of taking your ball and going home is nonsense.
Why is it atheists don’t understand maturity tonight? Is it the full moon? Is that it?
Its just weird is all.
And for the record, I don’t think I ever claimed to be all that mature. I play with puppets and have an extensive rubber duck collection. I watch Disney Junior when I’m home alone.
I JUST GOTTA BE MEEEEEEEE!!!!!
I’ll let you decide if I’m “MATURE” enough for you to engage in this conversation. Take your time. I’m going to bed. I may not be back for several days.
And whatever you decide, you have a good weekend.
LikeLike
Orange, I draw upon the well documented psychology of morality. In your answers, you have demonstrated elementary understanding. I’m not in the mood to explain, and I know you refuse to learn. I answered your question and that made you mad, because it didn’t fit your pre-concieved notions. And let me tell you, Orange, it is clear as day your understanding of a great many things are superficial.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SPARTAN!
Read what you’ve said here. YOU are calling on the WELL documented something (Which you’re “Not in the mood to explain”) and I have (you assert with no explanation) shown I “just don’t get it.”
We both know that this isn’t an answer. Is’t this like when a girl is mad at you and you ask them why and they say, “Well, if you don’t know then I’m not going to tell you!”
You’ve said, You’re wrong- trust me- I’m not going to explain any more than that, but, trust me, you simply wouldn’t understand.
This is not an answer. This is a fairly obvious emotional debate dodge which contains no information at all. Your Jedi mind tricks won’t work on ME, boy.
Speaking of not an answer- do you remember the topic of the article you are replying to here? Allow me to restate it- “If you could convince YOU that atheism were true, I would never hear from you.”
So YOU – who have admitted in the past that you know Christianity MAY be right for all you know- have come yet again to my blog and insisted that you come for the GOOD OF THE CHILDREN who I may be leading astray with my various philosophical musings. I called your answer out as being erroneous. Your reply is a sweet sounding lie which makes you seem altruistic (you are here to help others!) And yet we both know that this answer doesn’t make ANY sense, especially since you also insist that you do not HAVE a position, but merely a LACK of belief in God.
Having shared my response, I asked you to explain yours, and you immediately fall into name calling, judging my character, and ascribing to me some emotional state of ANGER, and preempted the conversation by threatening to take your ball and go home were I not to show adequate “maturity” as it were. Not be condescending, but let me explain why you do these things:
1. You know my main premise is right. As long as it were a quick, self-congratulating retort that asked nothing of you, you felt the courage to come here and tell me I was WRONG, and that “Atheists” (actually agnostics) like you come here to help others. Being asked to explain why it is true, or how it could possibly make sense in your worldview, you pull the parking break and head for the nearest exit.
2. You immediately switch topics. (eg. I’m here to HELP other people. How does that fit with my godless worldview…? Give me one good reason why YOU wouldn’t kill your children!- do you see how the second half absolutely does NOT follow from the first?)
3. Before allowing me to answer to this new mutant topic, you protect yourself from an answer you don’t want to hear or from questions you don’t want to answer by putting up the facade of some kind of standard of discourse. (my answers BETTER BE MATURE or you are taking your ball and going HOME!) Obviously this allows to you simply refuse to answer any questions because you have built into your communication the accusation that I am somehow UNWORTHY of being answered. Because we both know that “I’m not in the mood to explain, and I know you refuse to learn.” is an admission on your part that you have no answers and you cannot answer and you apparently can’t simply say, “I don’t know. That’s a good question.” So you build into every comment you leave the subtext that THERE ARE ANSWERS (trust me!) but you have reasons not to bother sharing them which are due to MY emotional shortcomings. I’m angry, I’m immature, I refuse to learn. Etc. Yet, we both know that this is just your way of acknowledging that you don’t have any answers. Not to beat this point to death, but even in your explanation of why you come here, you acknowledge that you have no answers as you said, “I want your readers to realize that there are very good arguments against your religious beliefs. I want them to look elsewhere and find out for themselves.” Why didn’t you say you wanted to GIVE them those answers? Because they do not exist, and you know they don’t exist, which is why you come here.
Which is the topic of the article you are commenting under right now.
4. And then you say, “And let me tell you, Orange, it is clear as day your understanding of a great many things are superficial.” But it seems that THIS is the only thing you are prepared to tell me.
I’m immature.
I’m an idiot.
I refuse to learn.
I get angry when you reply to my questions.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
OK, how about we both assume I’m an unstable idiot who needs to go back to the 3rd grade, and you answer any of the substantive questions regarding your worldview which I have asked?
But until I have been shown to be wrong, I will say it again. You do not come here to GIVE answers. You have none to give. You come here to try and prove to yourself the lie you wish was true for your own reasons. But if you could convince you that atheism was true, I would never hear from you. The answers aren’t out there somewhere, on some atheist website or youtube channel. Those fools have no more answers than you do. BECAUSE ATHEISM IS A STUPID LIE. How about instead of coming here to try and convince yourself of the lie you already know to be a lie, you come here to learn why I believe the truth which I believe.
You want answers. I know some answers. I know where to find others.
I can help. That’s why I am here.
Or you can call me names, take your ball, and go home. I’ll let you decide that. But if you really want to have an honest conversation about these things, I’ll be here.
LikeLike
See, this is why I’m not going to answer you. You’ve said somewhere between 60 and 500 things, and I’m not gonna spend all day petting your ego or your shoulders to placate all of your insecurities. Yes, your view on morality is very immature. If you’d like to explore that, sure. If you wanna explore any of the other things you said, one at a time, sure. But I’m not gonna engage in long-winded [expletive] with you.
LikeLike
I’ve said somewhere between 60 and 500 things?
It’s not that many things. Unless you are counting individual words. Then, yeah, 60-500 sounds like a fair estimate.
Let me see if I can get it down to a more manageable number:
1. “If you could convince YOU that atheism were true, I would never hear from you.” You replied to this and your answer was bogus.
2. Instead of defending your answer, you DRASTICALLY changed the topic.
3. A lot of what you offer is name calling and childish and bazaarly focused on my self esteem. If you can find anywhere in my writings where I base anything on how smart or important I am, or that I am liked or appreciated, etc. you copy and paste that stuff right here. Because that’s not true, but it is your fall back excuse for having no answers for anything. And I never claimed to be all that mature.
4. I explained #3 to you, because I wasn’t sure you knew you were doing it or why.
5. You’re still doing it.
6. The reason why is, you have no, and know of no answers.
7. “If you could convince YOU that atheism were true, I would never hear from you.”
Maybe that will make it easier to deal with. While “long winded” is my middle name, it’s not a requirement to talk to me.
LikeLike
Yeah, the actual number was hyperbolic, but the reality remains the same. We can’t try for understanding if you change the subject multiple times without acknowledging my points. I’ll stick with your most current question #1.
Atheism isn’t “true”, or it is true, depending on how you define it. Your particular definition, which is outside the accepted definition, could be a falsifiable proposition. But the accepted definition, it is not a falsifiable proposition, as it makes no claim. I’m sure you’ve heard this all before, but you seem to like to mix and mash definitions and words when it suits you instead of being honest.
So rather than get bogged down by definitions, let me put it this way. I’m not saying there is no god, I’m saying that the existence of any god, in my estimation, is about 100 times less likely that leprechauns exist. On the existence of bible God specifically, we now know that many of the claims are just wrong.
But even though I consider the existence of any god about as likely as me sprouting a hand out of my forehead, it is not a lack of conviction on my part that brings me around.
No, I am both quite clear in my “about” page and whenever I comment that I do so not out of trepidation, but disgust at the harm religion has done to our communities and our world. You and those of your religion have created the means for good people to act horribly toward others. This would be awful if you had some truth to what you say. But it is way worse because almost everything you say on the subject of religion is completely, demonstrably false. Being sure of my atheism therefore doesn’t make me recluse, it makes me more upset that you lie for a living, and people act horribly to others believing you are right. This doesn’t sit me down, it compells me to show your listeners that you are lying about a book written to control people before anyone knew the world was round. I hope they read my comments and recognize your arguments not as logical, or backed up by any evidence, but as the speculative, dishonest, twisted lies served in rapid succession as to confuse instead of educate.
And that, kind Orange, is my response to your question #1.
LikeLike
My dear SPARTAN! I am sorry for covering so much ground so fast, but these topics are anything but simple. I am not trying to make it difficult to reply, and what you have done here is a fine method of continuing the conversation without letting it mutate into something unmanageable.
Even so, there are a number of points for me to reply to, so let’s do this by the numbers:
1. I have made clear what my definition for “atheism” is and have been very consistent. When you say “you seem to like to mix and mash definitions and words when it suits you instead of being honest.” this is false and an ungrounded way of – AGAIN- calling me a liar. I define my terms clearly, I make clear what I mean, and as I have shown multiple times, the fact that other people, such as yourself, define it differently makes no difference to me because, I have said what I mean, and what you mean actually does mean what I mean once you give it a moment more of thought. See: https://abitoforange.com/2017/04/01/defining-our-terms-a-very-simple-flowchart/
2. By saying much of what you said about God’s existence being “about 100 times less likely that leprechauns exist” and “I consider the existence of any god about as likely as me sprouting a hand out of my forehead” you have a considerable burden of proof. WHY is the existence of God so unlikely? Based on what? Or did you mean to merely describe your own commitment to skepticism and not actually the odds of God’s existence?
3. You say, “You and those of your religion have created the means for good people to act horribly toward others.” and yet history shows that Christianity is responsible for modern science and medicine, the hospital, the university, the orphanage, and the end of slavery all over the world. And, I as I have shown, Atheism is incapable for allowing development of moral maturity, where as Christianity is necessary for it. Atheism has resulted in the death of hundreds of millions of innocent people in the past century alone when you consider merely Communism and hopeless suicides of the godless. Once again you have said things for which there is a massive burden of proof, and which I already know to be wrong, but I am open to being shown I am wrong if you have answers.
4. Are you confusing Christianity and Islam? I tend to find that many of the descriptions given my “atheists” about Christianity are actually descriptions of Islam. Your comments make me think you are doing the same. They are not the same religion and differ in almost everything. Do you know the difference? Do you know that all religions are fundamentally different? For more about that, see this: https://youtu.be/PBPN5B2oHgc
I would love to say more, but I am told there is a bubble tea waiting for me, and so I must go. But as always, I await your replies with much anticipation.
LikeLike
I can address all of these issues, but first lets keep on this original point. They don’t matter to my point.
An increase in my conviction of being an atheist will not lead to lessor engagement. My conviction motivates me more. Certainly, as someone who claims to believe in your faith, and are motivated by it, you can understand this, yes?
LikeLike
Um… no I don’t understand this. You are an Agnostic who calls himself an Atheist, and you essentially claim that MAYBE Christianity is right, but (and for no reason you’ve yet explained) you believe that Christianity is guilty of all kinds of evils (though you probably mean Islam) and the probability of God existing is almost zero (Because… reasons?).
So… your conviction in what?
So far I have gotten a lot of a sense of how you feel about some things, but no clear reasons WHY you feel that way. I have explained what I think is the reason behind your motivation, you started this exchange in order to disagree, and thus far haven’t said much except pointing out another reason why atheism is an inferior position.
So, no. I have no idea what you are trying to say. But give it another go and we’ll see if I can catch up.
LikeLike
Well once again, you are trying to smuggle in a different definition of atheist. I live my life as if there were no gods. I strongly disbelieve that any god exists.
And no, I’m not going to waste a whole lot more time on you (again) as you change the subject and do your best to ignore what I say. I’m not going to get into the “why” when you refuse to even acknowledge what I believe.
LikeLike
OK, Spartan old chum, this is getting boring again. Look, you have written a LOT of things, but you have replied to NOTHING I have said, answered no questions, offered no legitimate criticism of my worldview or any explanation or defense of your own, and you keep changing the subject while complaining that I AM changing the subject. And AGAIN you are putting up some lame excuse for why you’re “Not going to get into it” because of some projected character flaw you’re assigning to me. Does this work on other people?
Just admit that you have no answers, you have no legitimate criticisms of Christianity, and that my original assessment of Atheists was true. You aren’t here to teach me, and you aren’t here because you have answers. This is 90% name calling, smoke and mirrors and 10% inexplicable angst, like you were raised Catholic by parents who let you find out they were lying to you about Santa Claus by the other kids and you’re still bitter about it, so you’ve projected that onto ALL of your parents faith. It’s not an unusual “Atheist” backstory from what I’ve heard.
I have used the SAME definition of “Atheist” for years (We discussed this THREE DAYS ago, and you keep pretending that this is new and somehow dishonest on MY part) and I’ve explained to you why you are an agnostic EVEN IF WE START WITH YOUR DEFINITION. So this weak diversion away from EVERY point you raised and I answered is DISHONEST. You are avoiding EVERY topic you have raised and its beginning to be obvious yet again. And frankly a little dull on my end.
Yes, you live your life as if God isn’t there, but you KNOW BETTER. THAT is why you are here. Thus the point of the article we are having this discussion under. Maybe read that again.
You have NO Reason to disbelieve. What you have is WANT.
You WANT to disbelieve, and that’s why you WANT to believe that there are answers, as you put it, “elsewhere” and you WANT to believe that Christianity has “created the means for good people to act horribly toward others” when it is obvious that it has done the exact opposite and Atheism has resulted in mass genocides for a century. You WANT to pretend you can be “good” without God, when the notion of GOOD cannot exist without God (nor can the universe) and at every point you have avoided either defending your assertions or offering any arguments against mine.
So far this whole exchange has been you telling me what is WRONG with me (I’m using the wrong definition for “Atheist”, I’m immature, insecure, a liar, etc.) and you raising topics just to change the subject drastically when I answer you. Go back and read the whole exchange so far and you will see this:
You replied to this post, I explained why I don’t buy your answer, you (ignoring my reply) asked me if I would kill my own children, I answered you in detail, you (ignoring my detailed reply) wanted to suddenly talk about a theory of moral maturity, I showed how it proves atheism is akin to brain damage, you (absolutely ignoring everything I said about Larry’s theory) decided to complain about how I use the word “Atheist” again and make wild, unsubstantiated claims about Christianity which are demonstrably false, I answered all of your major points, you (ignoring my reply to your comments about your own faith) said… something unintelligible about your “conviction” when the only conviction you seem to have asserted is a LACK of belief in God’s existence, and now we’re back to whining about how I use the word “Atheist” which hasn’t changed in YEARS.
DOES THIS SEEM LIKE A LOGICAL CONVERSATION TO YOU? Because it is not. I keep wondering where you are going with this. Like, I thought you had some idea you were chasing down when you started in with the whole “Would you kill your children” thing, but you didn’t. You just keep changing the subject to avoid admitting you have NO ANSWERS FOR ANYTHING and yet I guess you still hold out the hope that you will find a topic on which I say, “OH, maybe you’re right! Maybe atheism DOES make sense!” because THAT is why you are here.
If YOU could convince YOU that atheism were rational, I would never hear from you.
But you are here, and what have you had to say? Here’s a list of my faves copied and pasted from the exchange thus far:
“there are very good arguments against your religious beliefs… elsewhere”
“…you dont have the maturity for me to engage in this conversation”
“I’m not in the mood to explain, and I know you refuse to learn.”
“..your understanding of a great many things are superficial.”
“See, this is why I’m not going to answer you.”
“I’m not gonna spend all day petting your ego or your shoulders to placate all of your insecurities. ”
“You are therefore too morally immature for me to discuss morality.”
“We can’t try for understanding if you change the subject multiple times without acknowledging my points.”
“you seem to like to mix and mash definitions and words when it suits you instead of being honest.”
“…you lie for a living..”
“..you are lying..”
“..your arguments not as logical, or backed up by any evidence, but as the speculative, dishonest, twisted lies served in rapid succession as to confuse instead of educate.”
“I can address all of these issues, but…”
“I’m not going to waste a whole lot more time on you (again) as you change the subject and do your best to ignore what I say. I’m not going to get into the “why” when you refuse to even acknowledge what I believe.”
And meanwhile, here are the comments and questions I have offered you which you have pretended not to exist, which I would still like to hear either an answer or an admission that you don’t have an answer:
“Doesn’t this mean your position is, “You maybe right, but I want people I don’t know to go find arguments which prove it false”?”
“..there are no “very good arguments against my religious beliefs.””
“Atheism has no basis on which to condemn these child murders. Atheism has no basis on which to give non-material values of any kind.”
“You know my main premise is right. As long as it were a quick, self-congratulating retort that asked nothing of you, you felt the courage to come here and tell me I was WRONG, and that “Atheists” (actually agnostics) like you come here to help others. Being asked to explain why it is true, or how it could possibly make sense in your worldview, you pull the parking break and head for the nearest exit.”
“..we both know that “I’m not in the mood to explain, and I know you refuse to learn.” is an admission on your part that you have no answers.”
“..a Biblical worldview is NECESSARY in order to reach higher levels of moral development.”
“..what you discovered by my answers is not MY immaturity, but rather the fact that Atheism retards one’s moral development to that of an unruly toddler. It is, according to this theory of moral development and a clear understanding of Atheism, IMPOSSIBLE to be a consistent atheist with any moral maturity. Not unlikely, but literally impossible.”
“That you know that good and evil are real, and that “atheists” strive to do what is right and avoid what is evil shows that Atheism is wrong and no one is really an atheist.”
“Atheism also has no basis for being able to choose. Your brain is made of molecules which don’t even know they are in a brain. For all they know they are in a toaster, and the idea that Atheism allows for free-will is merely the attempt to smuggle in a Christian worldview into the empty and bankrupt waste of time which is Atheism.”
“..the highest level of development says “What is the RIGHT thing to do?” as opposed to simply, “What can I do and not get caught?” But that distinction does not distinguish between an action as either right or wrong. I could decide that the world is too horrible a place to raise a child and kill my children BECAUSE I am doing what I feel to be right. Does my motivation MAKE that action right? Does it make it wrong? On both counts, no. It only says something about ME, but nothing about the action I choose. This is not a basis on which to judge right from wrong.”
“So moral development aside, how do you determine if a thing is really right or wrong?”
“WHY is the existence of God so unlikely? Based on what? Or did you mean to merely describe your own commitment to skepticism and not actually the odds of God’s existence?”
“..history shows that Christianity is responsible for modern science and medicine, the hospital, the university, the orphanage, and the end of slavery all over the world…Atheism has resulted in the death of hundreds of millions of innocent people in the past century alone when you consider merely Communism and hopeless suicides of the godless.”
“Are you confusing Christianity and Islam?… Do you know the difference? Do you know that all religions are fundamentally different?”
So in summary, I don’t think you are holding up your end of the conversation. If the problem is you are thinking about this discussion as a public debate, then send me an email and we can discuss privately so you can stop being in “Debate Mode” and you can actually think about what I have said and asked and try for an honest exchange. I’m CreationSoapBox@Gmail (dot com).
In the mean time, let me end with one more quote from me a few days back, as it is still relevant:
“You want answers. I know some answers. I know where to find others.
I can help. That’s why I am here.
Or you can call me names, take your ball, and go home. I’ll let you decide that. But if you really want to have an honest conversation about these things, I’ll be here.”
-Orange
LikeLike
Orange, I read about 4 paragraphs in and then give up, if you must know. Any more and my eyeballs will permanently roll back in my head and I may never recover.
I answered exactly one of your questions so far, and you just won’t accept it. Why on earth would I want to answer them all? This is a blog, not a book.
I am an atheist. You refuse to acknowledge this. Therefore, in the future, I will willy nilly define a Christian as “someone that has walked in the footsteps of Christ.” And since I can easilu assume, assertain, or make up ways in which you have not, from now on I shall call you a “[Expletive].” I’m defining “[Expletive]” as someone that calls themselves a Christian, but doesnt meet my personal expectation about what a Christian should be.
Fair?
LikeLike
Hmmm… too long, didn’t read? A pitiful excuse, and one I do not believe. I think you read it and understood it. Once again I abandon the hope that you can be honest, even with yourself.
Let me sum up:
You haven’t answered ANYTHING.
You know you have no answers.
If YOU could convince YOU that atheism were rational, I would never hear from you.
This conversation is not about how you choose to dishonestly call yourself an “Atheist” when you acknowledged LONG ago that you are an agnostic, so I don’t care what you call you or me. I expect “Atheists” to resort to name calling and expletives. It’s much easier than thinking about your position or mine. This reply is yet another dishonest dodge, where in you acknowledge that you cannot defend any of the MANY hollow assertions you emotionally share along with a litany of name calling and weak, preemptive excuses. I’ll add it to the list of your excuses I included in the prior comment you pretended not to read:
“there are very good arguments against your religious beliefs… elsewhere”
“…you dont have the maturity for me to engage in this conversation”
“I’m not in the mood to explain, and I know you refuse to learn.”
“..your understanding of a great many things are superficial.”
“See, this is why I’m not going to answer you.”
“I’m not gonna spend all day petting your ego or your shoulders to placate all of your insecurities. ”
“You are therefore too morally immature for me to discuss morality.”
“We can’t try for understanding if you change the subject multiple times without acknowledging my points.”
“you seem to like to mix and mash definitions and words when it suits you instead of being honest.”
“…you lie for a living..”
“..you are lying..”
“..your arguments not as logical, or backed up by any evidence, but as the speculative, dishonest, twisted lies served in rapid succession as to confuse instead of educate.”
“I can address all of these issues, but…”
“I’m not going to waste a whole lot more time on you (again) as you change the subject and do your best to ignore what I say. I’m not going to get into the “why” when you refuse to even acknowledge what I believe.”
“I answered exactly one of your questions so far, and you just won’t accept it. Why on earth would I want to answer them all?”
You know you have no answers.
If YOU could convince YOU that atheism were rational, I would never hear from you.
If you have nothing of value to add, no arguments to share, and no honest questions to ask, then this conversation is over. I included a LIST of the questions and stances I presented which you have made NO attempt to answer in the previous comment you are pretending was too long to read. I have said what I have to say and asked what I want you to answer.
I’m tired of waiting for you to participate in this conversation. Either take part in the conversation or I will not.
Thanks for stopping by.
LikeLike
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Orange, I’m an atheist. Until you can wrap your mind around that, there is no point in going further.
LikeLike
But just so you don’t think I’m just being an asshole, here’s a little primer on moral development:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
You, by your very words in response to my questions, exhibited moral development somewhere around stage 1 or 2. You are therefore too morally immature for me to discuss morality. Not name calling, merely recognizing your maturity level based on the answers you provided. Good luck. TSA
LikeLike
Oh SPARTAN! This is cute. You’re pretending to use “Science” to prove that I’m immature. I’ll see your science and raise you my collections of puppets, rubber ducks, and Veggie Tales DVDs.
Excuse me while I drop the mic.
[mic drop]
You seem to have misunderstood Larry’s stages of moral development, though. Before I explain how, let me explain WHY.
This is a defense mechanism based on your agreement with me that you know no answers with which to defend atheism as at all reasonable. This is a weak excuse for you to PRETEND that you HAVE answers, but you just don’t WANT TO SHARE them, because, oh, you know, I’m SO immature that it’s not worth your time.
It’s not that there ARE no answers. It’s that MY CHARACTER FLAWS make me unworthy of your lofty assistance in learning.
But let’s be honest here, TSA, we both know the truth. I don’t know if you expected or merely hoped I would be too dim to catch this OBVIOUS waving of a white flag, but… do you know anyone that stupid? I don’t mind you doing it so much as the assumption that I am the dimmest bulb in the drawer.
You ever get into a fight and tell the other guy, “I COULD kick your butt, but if I hit you, you’d probably die. And I don’t want to got to jail. So, I’m not going to fight you because I don’t want to go to jail.”
Did he believe you?
Or did you ever watch someone else do something, like hit a three point shot from the paint and then try it and fail- like BAD- and say, “I could do it if I wanted to. I just don’t want to show off, so I’m not going to do it right now. I could hit that shot all day if I wanted to. But I don’t want to watch you cry when I do it.”
Did they believe you?
or, did you ever provide a logical argument for something you asserted? Because you haven’t done that here. You keep SAYING that you could- or at least implying it vaguely- but you have not DONE it.
And no, I don’t believe you can.
Now, onto how you misunderstood Larry:
Larry’s stages of development are a secular examination of intrinsic motivators which tend to grow out of each other from early childhood development into adulthood if the person has the right education and social environment from which to learn. Of course, the stage one “How can I avoid punishment?” never truly leaves us, and any particular person may aspire to higher standards of morality even while tempted to get away with what he can. Pretending to identify my “position” on the chart based on hypothetical answers given to prove a philosophical point shows that you don’t understand the nature of the growth and fluidity of a person on the spectrum, nor the complexity of determining the level of personal growth according to this standard (or my answers). This is like saying that Tiger Woods can be said to be a “novice” because you saw him slice badly to the left on a pivotal hole. The point of Larry’s chart is not to show what EVERY choice a person makes will be governed by, but rather to show that they are capable of something greater than selfishness (even though a secular definition of these stages depends on differing versions of selfishness, some of which are more complex and labeled as “more mature”).
Also, what you and Larry seemed to have missed (or maybe just you. I haven’t talked to Larry all week) is that these stages of development have nothing to do with the objective nature of morality. This is about the psychology of the person being considered. Stage Six says “The individual acts because it is right, and not because it avoids punishment, is in their best interest, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon.” So this is NOT about IF they choose the right thing to do, but ONLY that they believe they are choosing what is right, even if they would prefer not to.
But what is implied and not stated is that this person believes that there IS right and WRONG, that there are objective moral laws by which to determine one’s choices. What this means is, this person has a theistic worldview, as an atheistic worldview has no basis for any objective morals, or any other non-physical value system. But of course that means that a Biblical worldview is NECESSARY in order to reach higher levels of moral development.
To bring it full circle, what you discovered by my answers is not MY immaturity, but rather the fact that Atheism retards one’s moral development to that of an unruly toddler. It is, according to this theory of moral development and a clear understanding of Atheism, IMPOSSIBLE to be a consistent atheist with any moral maturity. Not unlikely, but literally impossible.
I already know what you will say, so I may as well address your objections now:
Objection 1. Atheists CAN be good people who do good things, etc. You will try and claim that Atheists can achieve the higher levels of moral maturity.
Objection 2. Atheism doesn’t say there are NO Morals, it just says we don’t require God to know what to do.
In reply:
1. That you know that good and evil are real, and that “atheists” strive to do what is right and avoid what is evil shows that Atheism is wrong and no one is really an atheist. What this proves is that all people are made in the image of God with an innate understanding of right and wrong, just as the Bible teaches. Your argument proves the Biblical worldview. (See also Romans Ch 1)
2. This is entirely wrong. Atheism can offer NO non-physical measurement of any kind. For an atheist to say something is “good” is like saying he knows what color the number 5 is. It’s utter nonsense on his own worldview. The reason you TRY, as I just explained, is because you were made in God’s image, having an understanding of right and wrong and being able to choose. We choose to do what is right, because we know the moral law is real and we know it exists above us.
Atheism also has no basis for being able to choose. Your brain is made of molecules which don’t even know they are in a brain. For all they know they are in a toaster, and the idea that Atheism allows for free-will is merely the attempt to smuggle in a Christian worldview into the empty and bankrupt waste of time which is Atheism.
I suggest you read this for a refresher on the religion of atheism: https://abitoforange.com/2016/06/14/the-15-core-tenants-of-orthodox-atheism/
What you so MATURELY demanded of me was this: ” Imagine that tomorrow you found out with absolute certainty that there was no God…If you can’t come up with one reason why you wouldn’t kill your own children, you don’t have the maturity for me to engage in this conversation.”
But even using this system of moral development you found on WIKIPEDIA (SO MATURE!), there is no argument against killing my children on atheism. Remember, that the highest level of development says “What is the RIGHT thing to do?” as opposed to simply, “What can I do and not get caught?” But that distinction does not distinguish between an action as either right or wrong. I could decide that the world is too horrible a place to raise a child and kill my children BECAUSE I am doing what I feel to be right. Does my motivation MAKE that action right? Does it make it wrong? On both counts, no. It only says something about ME, but nothing about the action I choose. This is not a basis on which to judge right from wrong.
In short, this hierarchy of moral development doesn’t answer the question. But it does prove atheism to be wrong and stupid and stupidly wrong.
But answer me this- Even if you are CAPABLE of the higher levels of morality, WHY (on atheism) SHOULD you choose to let that guide your decisions instead of CHOOSING to live according to what you can selfishly get away with? How could atheism command you to act according to the higher levels of moral development if you simply didn’t want to you? I’ll save us both the time and answer for you- it CANNOT. Atheism can make a chart of the development of intrinsic motivation, but it CANNOT judge one level as being BETTER than another, any more than it could say the last inch in a foot is the best inch.
So moral development aside, how do you determine if a thing is really right or wrong? If Larry says you are a LEVEL TEN- the MOST morally mature person to ever live always striving to do what is RIGHT even if you don’t want to, would you kill your children? Would you eat your neighbor? Would you speed in a school zone? Would you wear bananas on your head?
Would you admit that you can’t defend atheism and choose to ask good questions instead of constantly attacking my personality and character?
It would be a nice change of pace.
LikeLike
I loved most of the article…but the second part is a bit too dogmatic.
I know there are pretend atheists who fit your description.
But Romans 1 does not say there is no such thing as an atheist.
I believe there are people who were not atheists, but because of pride and love of sin, they kept fighting God and fighting God until he gave them over (to use Paul’s language) to the belief system they sought. Famous atheists Aldous Huxley and Thomas Nagel have admitted that that is pretty much what they did, because they loved sin.
BTW, I believe there are other reasons why atheists troll our internet spaces.
Many are envious and/or sadistic.
We are happier than they are, and we do much more good for humanity than they do.
And they hate that.
LikeLike
Greetings again Big D!
I define “Atheist” as an individual person who chooses to affirm the statement “There is no God” as true. And this is not a WISHFUL thinking, or HOPE that God isn’t there, but an intellectual and logically grounded rejection of God’s existence- and as that is impossible, none can exist. Paul says, “They are without excuse” and I feel a reasonable interpretation of that is that Paul agrees that there is no reasonable foundation by which to reject God, but only the rebellious will or blind hope that HE isn’t watching.
I think I would agree that, eventually a person calling themselves an “Atheist” begins to believe it, the way a man calling himself a woman will begin to believe it, or a 60 lb girl who calls herself FAT will believe it- all despite there being no RATIONAL reason to. But when I refer to “Atheists” I am not referring to this kind of self delusion, because like a “transgender woman” will admit that he is “biologically male” I’ve found that most atheists will eventually admit that the know “God might exist, and maybe even the Christian God.” You can find that comment in my comments section from a person who calls himself an atheist- several of them if I remember correctly.
And no doubt my explanation is a bit simplistic, but I think it is none the less true. If they were REALLY convinced of their professed worldview, they would never come here and talk to me. There are a million other distractions and hedonistic pursuits which would fill their time if they really believed that God did not exist.
Thanks again for your comments.
LikeLike
I quite agree with your perspectives in this post. I have had several athe6ists visiting my blog too. From my conversations with them, I came to the conclusion that in their heart of hearts, atheists know that God exists, but they don’t want to admit it.
LikeLike