Atheists Make Better Liars, Thieves and Murderers

103 CommentsAtheist Tuesday

Here’s a very interesting article in response to a very silly atheistic ad campaign that uses the billboard below. Using sound logic the author comes to to some stunning conclusions.

The Backyard Skeptics have unveiled a billboard that claims “Atheists make better lovers.” The atheist billboard tells us why atheists are better lovers. It’s not due to love but because “nobody is watching.” By “nobody” the atheists mean God.

Since there is no God who judges our behavior, men and women, men and dogs, women and horses, adults and children can do anything they want together. If there is no ultimate judge or judgment, everything is up for grabs.

Keep in mind that if no one is watching atheists make better lovers, then they can also make better wife beaters, sadists, thieves, batterers, and rapists. Click here to read the rest.

Comments (103)

  1. Nohm

    Reply

    Gary’s entire offensive article fails with one sentence that he wrote:

    “Since there is no God who judges our behavior, men and women, men and dogs, women and horses, adults and children can do anything they want together. If there is no ultimate judge or judgment, everything is up for grabs.”

    You know who DOES judge our behavior? You, my friends, my family, my workmates, my neighbors, my girlfriend, her friends, her family, and so on and so on.

    Oh, and myself.

    The statement “If there is no ultimate judge or judgment, everything is up for grabs” is invalid and unsound. Please show how you get from the premise to the conclusion.

      • carl

        Don’t worry… be happy Nohm!

        It is Atheist Tooosdaay!

      • Nohm

        I’m certainly not unhappy.

        Just a bit annoyed by the offensive garbage contained in the linked article.

  2. BathTub

    Reply

    Your not even trying at this point are you Steve?

    I know you’ve been too afraid to ask this all the previous times I’ve asked, but do you really feel this is effective evangelism?

    • Tone B. Rown

      Reply

      Most of us don’t know very many atheists. I am learning a lot from this blog.

      • Whateverman

        Most of us don’t know very many atheists. I am learning a lot from this blog.

        If there’s one thing you *should* learn about atheists from this blog, it’s that your opinion of them needs to come from your interaction with them – NOT from someone with a vested interest in lying about them.

      • chatroom lurker

        Tone this is a great place to learn about atheists.

        Atheists have a vested interest in lying about God so beware.

        Beware of atheist sites you will find a lot of lies on them.

        I encourage you ot lurk on atheist chatrooms. You will learn a lot.

      • Chris

        To paraphrase Chatroom Troll “Tone this is a great place to learn about trolls like chatroom troll.

        Chatroom troll has a vested interest in lying about everyone who disagrees with him so beware.

        Beware of fundie sites you will find a lot of lies on them.

        I encourage you to join atheist & evolution sites. You will learn a lot”.

        I know you’ll alolow this post Steve since all I’ve done is change the target of Mr. Troll’s comments. 🙂

        Why thankk you Mr. Troll.

      • BathTub

        Remember how the chatroom troll claims that we are attempting to remove Ray and Tony, and take down Steve’s website?

        And refused to back up any claims.

        But we are the ones lying of course.

  3. BathTub

    Reply

    I did enjoy how the article makes up it’s own bible verses. I guess that just saves time.

  4. vintango2k

    Reply

    You forgot to expand the title of the post to… “Atheists Make Better Bankers, Scientists, Comedians, Casino Owners, Trail Guides, Senior Citizens, Alien Warlords, Pie Eating Contest Champions, Asian Children, Dairy Farmers, Test Pilots, Eskimos, Customer Sales Reps, and so on and so on….” since we’re posting things without evidence now. Its pretty effective though, using incendiary titles with no facts behind them, gets everyone in the right frame of mind. =)

  5. Nohm

    Reply

    Oh wow, I totally missed the “using sound logic” part.

    I would LOVE to have the “sound logic” pointed out to me, because it’s abundantly unsound… literally.

    (Hint: “soundness” is actually an issue in logic.)

    Steve, honest question here: would you ever be interested in actually learning formal logic? If so, I can help.

    • Lingering lurker loathes latest lambast

      Reply

      Oh my. I bet you could school us on humility too.

    • Nohm

      Reply

      Hi Glenn,

      I don’t understand where you’re coming from with that snarky question.

      Steve claimed that the article used “sound logic”, when I think it’s clear that it used anything but. I’ve asked how a person gets to “everything is up for grabs” from “If there is no ultimate judge or judgment”, but you’ll notice that no one has answered me.

      I’m dead serious when I say that I would LOVE to have it pointed out to me, because it appears to be completely unsound to me.

      My offer to help Steve in learning formal logic was completely sincere; it’s my understanding that Steve does not have a background in this, and therefore might be confusing “this supports my beliefs” with “sound logic”, which are two very different things (including if I said that).

      May I ask what your background in formal logic is?

      If you think I was arrogant in what I wrote, Glenn, please explain how and let’s have a discussion about it, instead of a one-line snarky comment that assumes bad intentions on my part without giving me the benefit of the doubt.

      As it is, I’m not clear on what exactly your comment was even referring to. Am I lacking humility by pointing out the “sound logic” part, the “would you be interested in actually learning formal logic” part, or something else entirely?

      Please reply, Glenn.

    • Nohm

      Reply

      Correction: “I don’t understand where you’re coming from with that snarky question” should instead be “I don’t understand where you’re coming from with that snarky comment”.

  6. Quasar

    Reply

    The articles uses a reducto ad absurdum argument on the complete non-sequitor the Backyard Atheists put on a tongue-in-cheek billboard (if it’s not, and the Backyard Atheists actually thought they were making a logical argument, than that’s just embarrasing).

    By adopting a reducto form of argumentation, they are acknowledging the accuracy of the logical construction of the original statement. That’s not sound logic, because the original statement wasn’t logical in the slightest.

    All conclusions from the article are thus suspect.

  7. Rykunderground

    Reply

    The really cool part is that even though atheists probably would make better thieves and whatnot we aren’t. The overwhelming majority of thieves, murderers, child rapists and such are Christians…at least in the United States. Part of that is simply because most people in the US are Christian however if you examine prison statistics atheists and non religious are heavily underrepresented in prisons. I mean heavily by an order of 5-10 times underrepresented. Christians on the other hand are overrepresented by 10 to 20 percent. So even though the non superstitious would arguably be better criminals and we certainly aren’t worried about being watched by magic sky pixies, we still manage to be more moral and law abiding than the superstitious. Go figure.

  8. RubyTea

    Reply

    So, are we to assume by this logic that if a Christian lost his faith tomorrow, he would immediately begin raping and pillaging? Because without God, there is nobody else who cares?

    Is that what you would do, Steve? Is that what other Christians would do? Is there really nothing holding you back from a life of crime except the disapproving eyes of your God?

  9. carl

    Reply

    Thank Heaven for Tuesdays and thank Steve Sanchez for… Atheist Tuesdays!

    🙂

  10. RyanShirtz

    Reply

    “Using sound logic the author comes to to some stunning conclusions.”

    Are you kidding? The logic used is moronic!

    Ok Jim, show us all proper logic! show us your premise and conclusion using logic that atheism can show a universal and absolute standard for morals without God.

    • theB1ackSwan

      Reply

      Why must it be necessary to prove “universal” and “absolute”? Morality clearly isn’t ethical at all, as some societies don’t consider stealing to be a moral issue. They don’t have the word “stealing” even defined in their language.

      • carl

        Which society? The Society of Newborn Babies? I know toddlers don’t like being stolen from.

      • carl

        I did some research and it is true that hyenas have no word for stealing in their language. However a reliable sourse told me that they absolutely hate it when lions steal their food.

      • RyanShirtz

        So theB1 you would not have a problem with someone breaking into your home or car and stealing from you? Also you cannot define a universal from the particulars, Seriously lets apply your conclusion:

        “some cultures do not see theft as a moral issue therefore theft is always 100% of the time acceptable anyplace in the world”

        The Bible transcends culture, time and human opinion, stealing something that does not belong to you is theft, and no thief will enter into the Kingdom of God unless they repent.

      • Nohm

        Ryan wrote:

        “Seriously lets apply your conclusion:”

        Please note that what I’m about to quote from you was not theB1ackSwan’s conclusion; it is your made-up conclusion.

        “some cultures do not see theft as a moral issue therefore theft is always 100% of the time acceptable anyplace in the world”

        theB1ackSwan did not make this claim, nor does it follow from the claims that he did actually make. Please re-read and understand that his point was about “universal” and “absolute”, and him mentioning “societies (that) don’t consider stealing to be a moral issue” is an example against morality being “universal” and “absolute”.

        If anything, theB1ackSwan was saying that theft is “acceptable” by those particular as specific societies, and certainly not “anyplace in the world”.

        “The Bible transcends culture, time and human opinion, stealing something that does not belong to you is theft, and no thief will enter into the Kingdom of God unless they repent.”

        Which is why you don’t eat pork, you clean leprosy with bird blood, you don’t wear clothing of both cloth and linen, and you certainly put tassels at all four corners of a cape, right? But no indication that owning other humans is probably not for the best.

        Priorities, I guess. 😉

      • Nohm

        Hi Carl,

        For the record, I don’t know what societies that theB1ackSwan is referring to where stealing isn’t considered a moral issue, and my limited research into this issue hasn’t resulted in anything.

        theB1ackSwan, a little help here, please?

      • Donald "The Dog" Allen

        I would like to know the name of the society that doesn’t have a word for stealing.

      • theB1ackSwan

        Hi “The Dog”,

        There are various tribes in the Bantu-speaking areas of Africa that do not think of morality in the same way that western religions do. Specifically, they do not condemn actions as a whole, and many of these ethnic groups do not have a specific word for ethics or morality. Rather, they refer to a person’s character and how it benefits the tribe. In other words, murder, stealing, lying, and so on is okay as long as it benefits the society they belong to. Interestingly, after doing a mild bit of research, lying is shrugged off my some of these ethnic groups as mere jokes.

        As for a specific ethnic group, I offer you this particular quote about the Lovedu: “Right conduct is relative always to the human situation and morality is oriented not from any absolute standards of honesty or truth but from the social good in each situation. Conduct that promotes smooth relationships, that upholds the social structure, is good; conduct that runs counter to smooth social relationships is bad” – from “The Lovedu of the Transvaal” by J.D. Krige and E.J Krige (1954).

      • theB1ackSwan

        Hey Nohm,

        Thanks for clarifying things about my statements to other people, and I agree with your elaborations. I thus will not need to repeat them. I also responded about a specific tribe that doesn’t even have a word for ethics, much less some of the specific actions that the Bible condemns (i.e. lying or stealing).

        Cheers.

      • carl

        theB1ackSwan,

        Can you possibly be thinking of the Inuit (Eskimos)? The Eskimos don’t have a word for “war”. They do have a word for when a polar bear steals meat from them. I can’t repeat that word though.

        😉

      • theB1ackSwan

        It’s funny that you mention the Eskimos. Some particular subsets of them will kill their children if the conditions are too unfavorable for them to survive.

        Again, what about this “universal” and “absolute” morality do you find true, exactly?

    • Nohm

      Reply

      RyanShirtz wrote:

      “show us your premise and conclusion using logic”

      That’s… redundant.

      “that atheism can show a universal and absolute standard for morals”

      It doesn’t.

      But that doesn’t make the point you appear to want to make.

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but you appear to be operating under the viewpoint that atheism is a “worldview” or a “philosophy”; it isn’t. Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims.

      Now, there are systems of morals and ethics that don’t involve a God, so those could be viewed as “atheistic”, just as there are atheistic religions (such as Buddhism). Secular humanism is one of these. Also, people can explain to you (or you could research this) that morals come from empathy… no God required.

      But I’ll also note that when you write “a universal and absolute standard for morals without God“, you’re moving the goalposts; no one claimed “a universal and absolute standard”, mostly because:

      1. We don’t think you have such a standard either (e.g., if the standard doesn’t have to obey its own rules, then it’s not absolute or universal)
      2. We don’t believe that such a thing exists, and, more importantly,
      3. We don’t see that such a thing is required.

      Please explain why such a standard is required to create a system of morality.

      Thank you.

      • Nohm

        To clarify the whole “atheism is not a worldview” issue, let me copy what I wrote at the article linked to in this blogpost:

        “I know of pro-choice atheists, and pro-life atheists. I know of democrat atheists, libertarian atheists, and republican atheists. I know of pro-communism atheists and pro-capitalist atheists. I know atheists who want to save the world and I know atheists who just want to be left alone.”

    • Rykunderground

      Reply

      There is no absolute standard of morality, morality is derived through culture and upbringing. Your culture and upbringing involves the mistaken belief that there is a God watching you and if you are bad you burn in hell. Mine involves the belief that people are all equal and deserve my respect and fair treatment. Both are indeed arbitrary but mine makes more sense and makes me a much nicer person.

    • Quasar

      Reply

      “Ok Jim, show us all proper logic! show us your premise and conclusion using logic that atheism can show a universal and absolute standard for morals without God.”

      Hate to say it, but asking for an “universal and absolute” standard is kinda rediculous. What meaning does murder or stealing or working on the sabbath have in a hypothetical universe without sentient life?

      If, however, you were to ask for an objective foundation of ethics, that’s easy: empathy. The human race is biologically oriented towards empathy. Human society wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t. Even if somebody is a sociopath and has no empathy themselves, they can still recognise the role empathy plays in our society. It’s objective and real. Living Waters makes a big deal about the Ten Commandments being burned into our heart: well, I’ve never had an irrational hatred for graven images or felt particularly anti-work on the sabbath, but empathy is built right into the ethical centre of my brain.

      So, using empathy as our base for ethics, if an action violates empathy (ie. if it is something you wouldn’t want done were you in their situation) it’s wrong. If it supports empathy, (ie. it’s something you would want done for you) it’s right.

      Even Jesus called for empathy as a foundation of morality (Luke 6:31). “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” There’s no “unless” in that statement. No qualifiers. In context, it’s wedged in amongst a bunch of statements for christians about forgiveness and love towards your enemies, but it stands alone without a target because it’s directed at everyone.

      So there you go, that’s my answer. The foundation for atheistic morals (and the original foundation for the Christian, Judaistic, Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, Shinto, Sikhi, Bahá’í and Jainistic moral commands that weren’t oriented around ritual and tribalism) is empathy.

    • RyanShirtz

      Reply

      In otherwords your making up excuses because you cannot really defend your claim?

    • Chris

      Reply

      I’m not Jim but perhaps I can answer that question.
      You wrote “Ok Jim, show us all proper logic! show us your premise and conclusion using logic that atheism can show a universal and absolute standard for morals without God.”

      No one needs a universal and absolute moral standard. All we need is an objective standard – that is one which does not depend upon our own opinions and can be objectively argued. Try W.D.Ross’ Deontology for a start. It requires no deity to exist and does not require relativist opinion. It can easily be objectively argued.

      There ya go.

      • theB1ackSwan

        I haven’t read W.D.Ross’ version of Deontology, but I disagreed with Kant’s representation of it. If you are able to, can you please provide a synopsis of the key differences, if any?

        Personally, I like Bentham’s utilitarianism view the most.

      • Chris

        This is from a previous post at our site:
        “W. D. Ross argued that absolute rules of morality, such as “never break a promise under any circumstances” are self-destructive because they assume the various situations we encounter in our daily lives are such that exact rules are always possible. Ross argued for an approximate guide from ethics rather than an absolute one. How were we to get this approximate guide? By considering what Ross calls “The Six Degrees of Prima Facie Duties”.

        These are:
        1) Duties that rest on previous acts of our own (Either duties stemming from a) reparation or b) fidelity to previous commitments).
        2) Duties of gratitude
        3) Duties of justice
        4) Duties of beneficence
        5) Duties of self-improvement
        & the most important of all
        6) Duties of non-maleficence (in other words do no harm & do not allow harm to another)”

        Kant however thought that the use of his “categorical Imperative” could help define absolute rules.

      • Nohm

        Hi Steve,

        Are you implying that you yourself do not (or, at least, try not to) use situational ethics?

        If need be, I can present several real-world examples where I’m confident that you do use situational ethics.

      • theB1ackSwan

        Considering that Steve has said that some lies are acceptable, then clearly he does accept situational ethics.

      • Chris

        Actually Steve you are quite wrong. Situational ethics does not have guidelines since it sees every situation as unique. Ross’ deontology on the other hand helps suggest a general direction but not a particular one.

        Sort of like being faced by ten paths and being able to eliminate all but two of them. So not situational at all.

        Also Steve you are a moral relativist so I wouldn’t attempt to condemn others for what you yourself do.

      • BathTub

        You know perfectly well you’ve admitted to situational ethics Steve, that’s the reason we made your wiki page.

        Just as Ray has said that lying and stealing are not always wrong.

      • BathTub

        That’s exactly what you said the last time. You should at least try to hide that you are driven by ego so much Steve.

      • Nohm

        Hi Steve,

        I’ll ask again. When you wrote “Yep. Situational ethics. Sad and wrong-headed.“, were you implying that you do not (or, at least, try not to) use situational ethics yourself?

        If you think about it, I’m sure you’ll realize that you use situational ethics (and for good reasons) often, so I’m confused why you’d call it “sad and wrong-headed”.

    • Nohm

      Reply

      Hi Ryan,

      If you think that Jim is making up excuses, then please reply to my reply to you instead.

      I’ll also point out that you misrepresented his claim; he did not claim that atheism shows anything, and he did not claim a “universal and absolute standard for morals” (which, as I explained below, I don’t think you can claim either).

  12. Pam Hawley

    Reply

    “If there is no ultimate judge or judgment, everything is up for grabs.”

    Atheism must be very attractive to men and women who have loose or very little morals and want to do what they want without any consequences. I feel sad for those men and women. They are serving Satan and they don’t know it. Only Jesus can set them free.

    Atheists don’t trade eternal life for a life of sin. Pray to Jesus to help you.
    “

    • perdita

      Reply

      “If there is no ultimate judge or judgment, everything is up for grabs.”

      Pam, that is a quote from someone who appears to misunderstand and mistrust atheists. You’d do much better treating each person as an individual rather then part of a collective.

      Also, couldn’t one say that Christianity is attractive to people with loose or very little morals? Isn’t Christianity all about not having to bear the consequences of sin? Or in your view do Christians go to Hell too.

      On a more serious note, I think this has been answered here many times. Please listen. It’s not a love of sin that makes us atheists.

    • Nameless Cynic

      Reply

      Aw, Pammy. That’s not how logic works.

      See, you took a flawed premise, asserted without evidence, from the post, and used it as if it were the true world view of any person who isn’t pathologically insane.

      Try using the viewpoint of an actual atheist, not the unhinged ramblings of a theist trying to imagine what an atheist thinks. Someone who (let’s be honest) makes his living by trying to ensure that more people become religious. (We call that “bias,” out here in the real world…)

    • Nohm

      Reply

      Hi Pam,

      You wrote:

      “Atheism must be very attractive to men and women who have loose or very little morals”

      Only if you buy into the illogical statement of “If there is no ultimate judge or judgment, everything is up for grabs.” Fortunately, that does not match reality, otherwise Finland would be in chaos, right?

      If this statement was accurate, even if you assume that atheism was a small percentage of society, the crime numbers would be off the charts. But we don’t actually see people acting as if “everything is up for grabs”, right? So, therefore, there must be something else going on.

      Atheism is not “attractive”, because we don’t choose our beliefs; it’s the end result if you don’t accept theistic claims.

      “and want to do what they want without any consequences.”

      But there are always consequences, don’t you agree? So, therefore, this doesn’t actually happen in reality.

      “I feel sad for those men and women.”

      No need to; they’re imaginary.

      “They are serving Satan and they don’t know it.”

      So you say.

      “Atheists don’t trade eternal life”

      You have supplied no evidence or reasons for us to believe that “eternal life” exists outside of the imaginations of believers.

      “Pray to Jesus to help you.“

      Many of us, myself included, have done exactly this. After a while, we grew tired of talking to ourselves and accepted that maybe we were making this stuff up to make ourselves feel better.

      If you have any evidence of reasons to persuade me to think this is true, please present them; I’m all ears and open-minded.

      • Nohm

        Two clarifications:

        1. My “So you say” is a reply to “They are serving Satan” and not “and they don’t know it”. I can promise everyone that I have absolutely zero desire or reasons to serve a loser like Satan (a being that I don’t even believe exists, for the record).

        2. My final sentence should instead be:

        If you have any evidence or reasons to persuade me to think this is true, please present them; I’m all ears and open-minded.

      • Pam Hawley

        Nohm if you don’t serve Jesus then you serve Satan. You are in bondage and your eyes are blinded to the truth. Ask Jesus to forgive you and give you a new heart and to take away your blindness.

      • Nohm

        Hi Pam,

        “Nohm if you don’t serve Jesus then you serve Satan.”

        False dichotomy; I serve neither. You can be sure that I would never serve a loser like Satan. Why would I want to serve a loser? It makes no sense.

        “You are in bondage and your eyes are blinded to the truth.”

        A Muslim thinks the same thing about you. What would be your response if a Muslim said this to you?

        But no, I am not in bondage (which is icky) and I’m not blinded to the truth. The truth is very important to me. The issue is that you haven’t presented any reasons why I should accept your beliefs as truth.

        “Ask Jesus to forgive you and give you a new heart”

        I did. After a while, I realized that I was talking to an imaginary friend.

        “and to take away your blindness.”

        Been there, done that. I’m still a nonbeliever. I don’t think I am blind, and you haven’t presented me with a reason to think differently.

        Again I ask: since a Muslim would say the exact same things to you, what would be your response?

    • Donald "The Dog" Allen

      Reply

      I agree. The atheists I have known have rejected anything they consider to be christian or religious morality and have embraced a hedonistic lifestyle.

      • Rykunderground

        I wish my lifestyle was hedonistic sometimes. No not really I am a faithfully married family man with two kids. Hedonism doesn’t fit in at all, in fact I am more of an Epicurist which implicitly rejects hedonism.

      • Rykunderground

        I am an atheist for logical, empirical, and philosophical reasons, not hedonism. I would have to change nothing at all in my life to live up to what Christians pretend their lifestyle is supposed to be, I don’t lie or cheat on my wife or even lust after other women, I am peacefull and nonviolent except in defense of my loved ones or the helpless. It is not anything to do with lifestyle it is because believing in imaginary friends is for babies and not something rational grown people do.

      • theB1ackSwan

        I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that you don’t really ‘know’ these atheists, but rather just assign judgment to them without …well, justification of those criticisms.

        Do you keep in contact with any of these atheists still?

      • Tone B. Rown

        If atheists don’t believe that God is watching I can see how they might not care what they do if they can do it in secret and not get caught. Most of the commandments come to mind like stealing, lying, adultery, lusting, coveting. Murder is a difficult one to imagine. I don’t know if many people could commit murder. Real murder that is. Having hatred in the heart which is murder I can imagine atheists don’t care about.

      • Nohm

        Hi “Tone B. Rown” (har har),

        You wrote: “If atheists don’t believe that God is watching I can see how they might not care what they do if they can do it in secret and not get caught. ”

        Not get caught by a God we don’t believe in? Sure, you’re correct in that.

        Not get caught by anyone in the society that we live in? Not have the consequence of living with the guilt of a blatant break of empathy?

        No, Tone, you’re wrong; those things happen.

        If you think that “no consequences from God” makes us think “no consequences at all”, then you have no understanding of how we think. If we actually thought that, the world would be a drastically different (and far more chaotic) place.

    • Quasar

      Reply

      You know something Pam? I feel just as sad as you for these hypothetical men and women who decided to be atheists because they “have loose or very little morals and want to do what they want without any consequences”. That’s a rediculous and illogical reason to be an atheist.

      Of course, I’ve never actually met one of these people who can just somehow ‘choose’ what to believe simply because they want to. All the atheists I’ve met are atheists either for rational reasons (lack of evidence) or in a much small percentage of cases, for emotional ones (not wanting to have anything to do with the misogynists, bigots and denialists who make up a significant bloc of American Christianity).

      Could you do me a favor and go back to the post before this one (“Angry Atheist hates Sudden Death”)? I posted a comment towards the end of that thread (timestamped March 6, 2012 at 4:42 pm) that explains the skeptical mindset, and at least one atheists reasons for being an atheist. I think reading it could be of benefit to you, because understanding why atheists are atheists would help you stop inadvertantly insulting people like me by accusing us of having “loose or very little morals”. 🙂

      Thanks!
      Qu.

    • Donald "The Dog" Allen

      Reply

      Nohm one of the greatest lies ever told is that Satan doesn’t exist. When you don’t think your enemy exists you are vulnerable to attack.

      Satan has clouded your understanding. Satan exists Nohm and he wants you to spend eternity with him in hell. Repent and you can spend an eternity with Jesus.

      • Nohm

        Hi Donald “The Dog”,

        “Nohm one of the greatest lies ever told is that Satan doesn’t exist.”

        Or, maybe, one of the greatest lies ever told is that Satan does exist. Do you have any evidence or reasons to give to me as to why I should believe that he does?

        “When you don’t think your enemy exists you are vulnerable to attack.”

        I agree, which is why you should always watch your back in the restroom for jinns. I’m sure you already do this, right?

        Wait, you don’t believe in jinns? You know, one of the greatest lies ever told is that jinns don’t exist.

        Do you see the problem here, Donald?

        “Satan has clouded your understanding.”

        How convenient.

        “Satan exists Nohm”

        Donald, I do not take unsupported assertions of invisible monsters-under-the-bed as truth. You don’t believe in the supernatural beings of other religions, so why should I believe in the supernatural beings of your religion?

        Why are you expecting me to act in a way that you yourself do not act?

        “and he wants you to spend eternity with him in hell.”

        I don’t currently have any reason to believe that such a place as “hell” exists anywhere outside of Liberia or North Korea, and certainly not in any kind of afterlife.

        Again, unsupported assertions of supernatural places are viewed by me in the same way you view unsupported assertions of supernatural places as told by other religions.

        “Repent and you can spend an eternity with Jesus.”

        I repent to the people I actually “sin” against. If I said “repent to Allah”, would you do so, just in case?

        Again, you’re asking me to do something that you yourself probably wouldn’t do.

      • theB1ackSwan

        If I may, what does it matter who I decide to spend it with? What are the incentives of one over the other? If you truly believe there are two exclusive teams on this, can we just admit to ‘playing’ for opposing teams and be done with it?

      • vintango2k

        Why does Satan exist? If the goal is to get everyone into heaven to be with God why would God allow this evil troll to communicate with humanity in any way shape or form? The character of Satan only makes sense in the Jewish tradition, in the Christian one his existence is illogical.

  13. Really?

    Reply

    That is why atheist people make up 10% of the american population yet make up less than .25% of the american prison population. That is why the majority of noble prize winners are atheist. That is why atheists run and own americas largest charity. That is why so many great actors are atheist. That is why most university professors are atheist. That is why so many intellectuals are atheist.

    You were saying how atheists make great thieves, rapists, and murderers. That is absolute bollocks.

    Now stop making unsubstantiated claims against atheists.

    OR CHRISTOPHER WILL FIND YOU. He will win.

    • chatroom lurker

      Reply

      Really? says

      “Now stop making unsubstantiated claims against atheists.

      OR CHRISTOPHER WILL FIND YOU. He will win.”

      I have seen atheists talking about finding people. It must be an atheist thing. Please explain to me why atheists are obsessed with finding out where their enemies live? Imaginary enemies I should add.

      “He will win”

      What does that mean? Sounds like Christopher is going to beat me up.

      Who is Christopher? I should have asked that first. Is that another one of rufustfirefly’s aliases? All of my claims about atheists are substantiated. You can tell Christopher that he doesn’t need to find me.

      I think all of Really’s statistics about atheists are unsubstantiated. I want to see some proof.

      • Rykunderground

        I think the find you thing was a joke, have you considered that maybe you are a humorless idiot?

      • Steve Sanchez

        Oh, bummer. You commended yourself in another comment, but now you have shown your hand: murder in the heart.

        Verdict: Guilty.

      • This needs to be said

        chatroom lurker said

        “I have seen atheists talking about finding people. It must be an atheist thing. Please explain to me why atheists are obsessed with finding out where their enemies live? Imaginary enemies I should add.”

        This is true. [Regular StoneThepreacher atheist] found out Tony Miano’s home address and posted it online. He then laughed about it when Tony complained that [Regular StoneThepreacher atheist] put him, his wife and daughters at risk.

        In the Angry Atheist thread [Regular StoneThepreacher atheist] complained that Steve shouldn’t have posted the contents of rufus’s email. [Regular StoneThepreacher atheist] that is very hypocritical. You put an ex-cop’s family at risk. You let every one that hates Tony Miano know where he lives. Your actions were malicious [Regular StoneThepreacher atheist]. Thanks be to God that nothing bad has happened to Tony, his wife or his daughters.

        [Regular StoneThepreacher atheist] what are your reasons for doing this? What did Tony ever do to you to justify your behavior? Do you want to see something bad happen to Tony Miano? Putting women and children in danger, what were you thinking?

      • Steve Sanchez

        I heard about that…from the source. If that is true, then everything you said about [Regular StoneThepreacher atheist] is true as well. His critical comments are indeed hypocritical. [Regular StoneThepreacher atheist, you know who you are] did you do that? Why would you do something like that?

      • theB1ackSwan

        Assuming you’re referring to “hatred”, how did Rykunderground show hatred?

        Also, what in the world does “murder in the heart” actually mean? Honestly, it’s a useless poetic statement that makes absolutely no sense in a reasonable context.

        And, if I may, how is that any different then calling atheists ‘fools’ and implying that they are the same as Hitler and that we’re sociopaths?

        I believe you have ‘murder in your heart’, or as I simply state it, you’re being very rude and ungrateful.

      • Nohm

        Steve,

        Calling someone a “humorless idiot”, especially after that person has been leveling unsubstantiated accusations at people, is hatred?

        Is “annoyance” equivalent to hatred also?

        I’m just curious as to where you draw the line between “peeved” and “hatred”, since I know you believe that the latter is tantamount to murder, but it’s not clear to me if you think that the former is, also.

        Please reply.

      • Nohm

        “This needs to be said” is not telling the whole story re: [Regular StoneThepreacher atheist] “posting” Tony’s information.

        Here’s a quick question: where did Jim supposedly get Tony’s information?

      • BathTub

        Don’t forget guys it gets even worse!

        Forget about Tony’s address.

        We are conspiring to take Ray and Tony out completely!

        And take down Steves website!

        Clearly we are the better liars!

      • Rykunderground

        Steve it is unfortunate that you censored my earlier post but as I said, contempt is not hate, nor is disdain. Calling a humorless idiot what they are is both and it is also honest but it is not hateful. I do not hate anyone and never have. I have occasionally hated peoples actions and ideologies but never have I hated a person.

      • Steve Sanchez

        I didn’t censor it. Sometimes comments automatically go into the Spam folder and I don’t see them. The only atheist who goes there automatically is Rufus until he apologizes.

      • Really?

        I am referring to Christopher Hitchens, who happens to be dead. I am fairly sure dead people can not find, so therefore what I said was a joke. And yes, he would definitely win in any argument or fight against you.

  14. Rule

    Reply

    Who? Steve. I heard no hate in any comments, certainly not mine, contempt is not hate nor is disdain these are not Synonyms. Besides the murder in the heart thing is a superstition and not a useful standard for ebaluating human morality. I do not hate anyone, I am sure I nevet have, but even if I had that is not an indictment of my morality, nor of my claim to not see how the supposed Christian lifesyyle is a difficult goal. Afyer all you arr one of yhe most hate filled people I have heard this side of Ray Comfort and Fred Phelps.

    • Rykunderground

      Reply

      Wierd I thought this had been censored because it is not under my name. I apologize to Steve for suggesting it was censored. How it became “Rule” instead of Ryk is a mystery. Probably auto complete on my phone.

  15. Donald "The Dog" Allen

    Reply

    “Nobody is watching”

    That is wishful thinking on the part of the atheists. God exists and He is watching. God knows every sin you have ever committed. Atheists repent now because if you don’t you will be held accountable for your sins. Jesus can forgive your sins.

    • Nohm

      Reply

      Hi Donald “The Dog”,

      Why should I believe you, instead of a Muslim? Praying to Jesus would be ascribing partners with Allah, you know.

      In short, why should I believe that your beliefs match reality?

    • Rykunderground

      Reply

      No really there is no one watching, that is the default position. In order to be able to claim someone was watching with any reliability you would have to show that someone was watching. That has never been done.

      You wish someone was watching, you believe someone is watching, I am sure in your mind you “know” someone is watching, but that is still just your wishfull thinking. My belief that no one is watching is founded on the exact same principles as my belief that magic pixies are not building cities in my nose.

      • Chris

        Um Steve.
        Stars are not holes in the night sky and no one is peeking through them. You do realise that don’t you?

  16. Nohm

    Reply

    “I think all of Really’s statistics about atheists are unsubstantiated. I want to see some proof.”

    Sigh. Here’s a Google search. Pick your favorite link. I guess I thought that this was better well-known than it might be.

    For the record, yes, Really? was joking about “CHRISTOPHER WILL FIND YOU“, and no, that’s not referring to Rufus. Yeesh. Seriously? You’ve GOT to be pulling our legs, because I have a hard time believing that even you are THIS obtuse.

  17. rykunderground

    Reply

    Steve, I get or at least hope that the syars thing was a joke. However really the idea of some dude peeking through the stars is reall no less ridiculos than what your mythology actually says. Further it is also an evasion, when asked for evidence you made a joke effectively conceding that you have no evidence to support the premise that someone is watching.

      • Rykunderground

        Steve that is not evidence, the first the nothing couldn’t have created everything is not evidence of a God it at best even if not debunked would be evidence of some sort of immaterial first cause not necessarily a God and certainly not the Christian one, more on that in a moment. However it has been debunked, simply because no one is claiming an ontological nothing ever existed. Many physicists such as Steven Hawking for example, speak of nothingness and many creationist types tend to try to use this against them but if you look at their equations and listen to their real opinions they do not mean no existence just nothing beyond the quantum vacuum, which is somewhat different.

        An ontological nothing could never have existed, the first law of thermodynamics shows that clearly, energy at least and gravity which must exist in conjunction with energy must have always existed, therefore there was always something. As energy and gravity are all that are required for the universe to exist that refutes the nothing created everything argument. As to the methodology of such formation it is well documented and easy to find elsewhere.

        The second is simply scripture which in the first place need not be accepted because it can not be athenticated outside of the Bible, the non biblical accounts that authenticate the new testament are sparse and in the case of Josephus, forged. Even if we accept such accounts as true they only confirm that Jesus lived and had followers who claimed he worked miracles. It in no way confirms that he actually did have magic powers or rose from the dead, more to the point it does nothing to substantiate the Hebrew creation myth.

        When I ask for evidence I mean actual verifiable evidence not crude misunderstandings of physics and unsubstantiated assertions. So yes I dared and was very dissapointed.

      • Rykunderground

        As to why I said definitely not the Christian one is because unlike some dieties, such as the Native American “Grandfather” or the Deistic “Natures God” or “Creator” The Christian myth figure can not possibly exist, there are many reasons this is so but I will give a simple one.

        The description of the Christian God in the Bible requires at least 2 attributes (there are actually many that it requires but 2 at minimum) It must be omnipotent and it must be capable of revealing itself to mortals in a way those mortals no to be true, (Divine Revelation). These two attributes are mutually exclusive and can not exist in the same being. If the being is omnipotent it is infinitely capable of decieving a non omniscient being such as a mortal therefore it can never give a reliable revelation to a mortal. Some objections to this simple truth are “God is also omnibenevolent and is therefore incapable of deception” unfortunately Gods omnibenevolence is only known through revelation which is as stated unreliable, an Omnipotent entity is completely capable of decieving you into believing it can not engage in deception. Another is “Even if God were decieving me with the revelation the revelation still proves God exists and I choose to believe he is not decieving me”. The problem is that unless the revelation is absolutely reliable it does not prove that God exists. A truly reliable revelation would be proof because by definition it would be reliable, however if the revelation is not perfectly reliable it could come from any source…including your own imagination.

        So there is no possible state of affairs in which the Christian God could exist.

      • Rykunderground

        As to the rejection of prophecy, to clarify. As we have no evidence that confirms the veracity of the Bible we have only the word of the writers that such prophecies were fulfilled. This is not evidenced in writings outside the books of the Bible which were composed by non objective writers which A. can not be trusted to be objective and B can not even be verified as having witnessed the events they write about since the Gospels were written many years after the events supposedly happened by people who were in all likelihood not the actual disciples their writings are attributed to. The prophecies entirely contained in the Old Testament are even less subject to verification and even more likely to be fabrication.

        This also discounts the many biblical prophecies which were innacurate and false. These failed prophecies further diminish the reliability of prophecy as evidence.

  18. Steve L.

    Reply

    Jim:
    You quoted Paul Harvey who has since gone home to be with the Lord! Good for you!
    Do I sense a slight change of heart?

    • BathTub

      Reply

      Jim, you know very well jokey replies is all they left, don’t take that away from them, then they would actually have to have discussions with us!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *