Atheist Tuesday: The Most Offensive Question. Ever.


This clown was so offended that he wouldn’t even allow me to clarify. Read below on why he was so perturbed.

It was at the Martin Luther King Jr. parade where this clown was queried. Why was he so offended?

Because it’s obvious to most thinking people that there’s a God. There is ample evidence in our universe to see that all this didn’t come about by random chance or through determinism: There’s design, beauty and purpose!

Here’s a big question: Could it be that the world looks designed because it really is designed?

The heavens declare the glory of God,
   and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
(Psalm 19:1)

Any rational person would agree that there is a God. Rational.

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
   the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
what is man that you are mindful of him,
   and the son of man that you care for him?
(Psalm 8:3-4)

It must be the ultimate insult to a person of faith who worships, loves and enjoys God forever to be accused of being an unbeliever…when there’s so much evidence, the best being that nagging conscience.

What do you do when you do wrong? Are you aware of God’s perfect standard, a standard no one can meet but is used to show your desperate, lost condition?

If you’ve broken any of God’s Commandments, just one, by lying, stealing, misusing his name, wanting someone else’s something, dishonoring your parents, looking with lust (which Jesus says is adultery) or even hating someone (which the Bible call murder), then you are condemned already. God’s wrath abides on you. You are a child of wrath and deserve Hell.

Sorry for the tough news.

You break one Commandment, that’s called sin. Sin one time, you are guilty.

But the good news is that you may be forgiven. You must put your trust in Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, who suffered and died for all your sins on a rugged cross, was buried for three days, then rose again. If you believe that truth and turn away from your sin, God will forgive you. You broke God’s Law, you must pay the fine, or you can trust in the One who paid the fine for you. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Believe that, or believe this:

  • Nothing produces everything.
  • Non-life produces life.
  • Randomness produces the fine-tuning of the universe.
  • Chaos produces information.
  • Unconsciousness produces consciousness.
  • Non-reason produces reason.

Which takes more faith?


  1. Oh, many terrible assertions to debunk. I feel like a kid in a candy store!

  2. Believe that, or believe this

    False dichotomy. I don’t have to believe either, thankfully.

    Randomness produces the fine-tuning of the universe.
    Chaos produces information.

    Which, of course, no determinist believes.

    I don’t think you understand what nonbelievers believe at all, Steve, with all due respect.

    There’s design, beauty and purpose!

    Yet you can’t demonstrate any of this. What has more design… a table, or a rock? How do you determine that?

    What’s more beautiful… a butterfly or a beetle? How do you determine this?

    How do you determine that anything has a purpose?

    Unfortunately, due to your lack of understanding of determinism, along with your lack of understanding of how emergence works, along with your lack of understanding how people who aren’t you think, this was one of your more ignorant “Atheist Tuesdays”.

  3. Which takes more faith?

    The one that takes faith. That is, your belief. I can actually demonstrate emergence and determinism; you can’t demonstrate any of this “evidence” that you allude to but never actually describe.

    For example, you write something like “There is ample evidence in our universe” yet you don’t explain what that evidence is.

    When I’ve asked you in the past, you simply say “DESIGN!”, but you have no way to demonstrate that design. For example, is a rock designed? If so, how do you tell? What does a non-designed thing look like? How would you tell?

    Lastly, you say: “Any rational person would agree that there is a God.“, but you don’t support this claim. How do you know that any rational person would agree that there is a God? How do you determine this?

  4. You know nothing of science, so if you want to talk about and debate science, GO LEARN SOME FIRST.(or get a fake phd like Hovind or Ham, because then you can use the appeal to authority to.

    • You are assuming that Steve doesn’t know anything about science. Clearly you are mistaken.

      • On this very blog we have Steve being held to a assertion he’s made about science, only to flee the scene when pressed to actually defend said assertion.

        He has no education in science, and is woefully ignorant on the subject.

      • I’ve read his science related posts. Steve tends to accept creationist propaganda uncritically. He’s led me to believe that he doesn’t mind when these organizations ‘lie for Jesus’.

      • Oh, you got me there.

      • We don’t need to assume, we know. It’s one of the few things Steve has gone to great lengths to actually demonstrate to us.

      • I’ve had more than a few of my posts deleted when I mention the L word as well =) And no its not about the TV show.

  5. “t’s obvious to most thinking people that there’s a God. There is ample evidence ”

    So ample you still haven’t come up with one example of actual evidence?

    Steve allow me have a crack at my own good person test:

    If you say you have ample evidence repeatedly, tell us you will show us that evidence repeatedly and then fail to do so repeatedly what does that make you?

    • Vagon go to your bookshelf. Pull down your bible. Open it..think about it..pray about it. The Holy Spirit will help you.

      There is your evidence.

      • Hmmmm… which section in the Bible persay can yield scientific revelation mouse? The part about the talking donkey? The part about the global flood? The part about the four legged insects or perhaps using bird’s blood to cure leprosy? Please enlighten.

      • I’ll do that if you read “Thinking and Deciding” by Jonathan Baron. It’s not an atheist book so don’t be scared. It is a text book and it will involve some dry reading. I find it on par with the bible. The exciting bits don’t include drunkenly raping your father or living inside a whale though.

      • Vagon, Vagon, Vagon… may I call you Vagon?

        You said, “I find it on par with the bible. The exciting bits don’t include drunkenly raping your father or living inside a whale though.”

        The Bible does contain accounts of people doing evil things, in the case of Lot’s daughters, that doesn’t mean that the Bible is condoning it.

        Also the account of Jonah living in the belly of a whale is clearly a miracle. A miracle is a miracle. You might not believe in miracles but miracles are my definition things that occur outside of the laws of physics or every day reality.

      • But the Bible claimed Lot was righteous. How is a guy that offers up his daughters to be raper AND eventually rapes them himself qualify as righteous?

      • 1st Lot offered up his daughters to the mob only after he understood that their intentions were to rape his guests. He did so because there were strict codes of conduct regarding guests, hospitalit. He was morally obligated to protect his guests even at his own peril.

        2nd Lot didn’t rape his daughters. His daugthers thought that they were the only humans left on the planet and that they needed to repopulate. So they got their father drunk and had sex with him.

        Garrette if you read your bible, Wikipedia, you would know this. I’m kind of sidappointed in you.

        Given all of the false statements atheists give about the Bible I can only conclude that atheists don’t read the Bible.

        If I made a comment that Hamlet and Othello fought over Juliette on Prospero’s island I think it would be clear that I don’t know what I’m talking about regarding Shakespeare.

        Same goes for the atheist comments about the Bible, like Dawkins it is clear that many athiests have no idea what they talking about.

      • readthebible,

        (Cute name, btw. And it doesn’t make you look like a sockpuppet at all…)

        There are some arguments about Lot’s relationships with his daughter.

        His daugthers thought that they were the only humans left on the planet and that they needed to repopulate.

        And that makes it OK? Huh, that sounds suspiciously like “moral relativism.”

      • Doesn’t make it ok at all. Ever.

  6. I’m going to say a prayer for clowns today. I pray that they will repent and believe the Gospel.

  7. Hi Steve,

    If you found a rock on the sidewalk, would you say that these are the only two options?

    1. Someone intentionally placed that rock in that exact spot on the sidewalk.

    2. The rock popped into existence on the sidewalk.

    Or, are there alternate explanations?

    • Don’t think Nohm, just look up your reference book. You know, the one on the general nature of rocks that was written 2-3000 years ago. The one written by some guys who based their information on a rock they never saw, but they heard about from a friend of a friend who saw one 30 years ago…

    • Is that like thunderstorms being God when he’s bowling, and a playpus being God’s “great idea” when he was drunk?

  8. Three examples (out of many, incidentally):

    1. As we develop in the womb, we form three sets of kidneys. The pronephroi (‘forekidneys’) are non-functional and appear in the fourth week; they soon degenerate, but the ducts are recycled in the mesonephroi (‘midkidneys’). These contain glomeruli and tubules; they degenerate during the first trimester, but the tubules are recycled in the metanephroi (‘hindkidneys’), which are our permanent kidneys.

    That’s like building an Eiffel Tower as scaffolding for another Eiffel Tower, which is used as scaffolding for a final bigger Eiffel Tower, ripping down each one along the way.

    2. The female quoll (an Australian marsupial) has only six teats, but gives birth to a litter of 30, meaning that the 24 slowest or weakest die of starvation. An 80% death rate makes sense to you? (While you’re in Australia, look up the mystery of a kangaroo’s teeth, for that matter.)

    3. Birds of the family Sulidae (boobies and gannets) are diving birds, plunging into the water from the sky. One of their adaptations to this is that they don’t have external nostrils – the water would get shoved up their noses on impact. But even without external nostrils, they have everything else that constitutes nasal airways inside their beaks (the septum, choana, etc.) It’s just that the nostrils are sealed off at the outside. Having nasal airways that can’t work is pretty pointless design (although evolution tells us why they’re there).

    If these things are designed, that’s some pretty shoddy craftsmanship.

    • This Atheist Tuesday is even better than last week’s!!!

    • Boy that’s some solid evidence you’ve got there Nameless. Seems like evolution would have designed a better solution by now. Maybe a better wiki than the one you surf will evolve, and it will have some better science reports on it.

      • Glenn, evolution only concerns with surviving to breed. This means a lot of weird stuff can happen after time. You seem to think that evolution is about trying to reach a “perfect” state, which it isn’t.

        I suggest heading to your local community college and take a biology course.

      • Jim wrote: “There is no…intelligence…behind evolution.”

        For once we agree on something! 🙂

      • OH Steve, you are a real jokesmith =)

      • OK, Glenn. Reread what you wrote there.

        Go ahead. I’ll wait.

        See, this is exactly the problem with trying to argue with fundamentalists about the nature of religion (or lack thereof): the extreme dislike of science, and the open, blatant projection that goes on.

        Now, think about it for just a second, Glenn. Are you seeing the big, fat logical crack in your attempt at a bumper sticker? Do you have it yet?

        Here, let me help.

        “…Seems like evolution would have designed a better solution by now.”

        See, you’ve got to not choke up on the bat so much. That’s why you aren’t even hitting singles.

        Here’s the problem, Glenn, my boy. All that “designed” stuff – that’s YOUR bit. Evolution is a process of overcoming difficulties in survival. The ones that work, stay and get bred into future generations. The ones that don’t, fall by the metaphorical wayside.

        See, every example up there can be explained. By evolution. If you try to claim that there’s a designer, then are you further speculating that He was drunk on sacramental wine that night?

        Evolution says “You found a fix. You get to survive and breed.” And even if it isn’t the most elegant of solutions, if it worked, it gets to stay.

        (Now, understand, Glenn, I simplified that for you. A LOT. Because I understand that’s the only way you’ll even start to grasp it…)

        But then, because you believe, deep in your dark, sinful heart that the universe was designed, you ask the question you did. As if it even made any sense whatsoever.

        You might have even thought you were being clever.

        (Ooh, I rhymed…)

        Projection. Pure and simple. And a complete misunderstanding of science.

        And logic.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.