Yet Another Atheist Doesn’t Get His Own Position

I recently received some comments from an atheist complaining about my posts.  Oh joy.

As is ubiquitous with atheist die-hards,  he demonstrated that, all while claiming I don’t understand atheism, burden of proof, the laws of evidence and the meaning of the word metaphysical etc., that in fact he didn’t understand these things! So typical, as every theist apologist, and indeed, many atheist professional philosophers, know all too well.

I have to shake my head in disbelief you see, because invariably such atheists themselves just don’t get it.  They vehemently insist that they do and that theists don’t get it.  It gets ridiculous to the point of hilarious when one starts delving into to their own feeble arguments against God but they never see the light on any of this because their minds are usually on hold, stuck in acute cognitive dissonance that damages their logic.

The sad thing is that they wish to disprove theism or theist arguments by their alleged use of logic and reason. Unfortunately atheists never understand even this.

As C.S. Lewis so aptly stated,

“If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes…it cuts its own throat.”
“Unless thought is valid we have no reason to believe in the real universe.”
“A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid…”
–Christian Reflections

“The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words ‘true’ or ‘false'”.
-C.S. Lewis

So many atheists never get the inescapable fact, that if their position is true, then they have no other options but to believe that thought is “merely a movement in the brain” and that as atheist scientist Francis Crick, logically within his position, stated,

The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.”  (p. 3) -Francis Crick (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul.

My italics.  So, you’re nothing but a pack of neurons atheists.  Ergo, the atheist that wrote me his complaints is nothing but a pack of neurons.  Hey that’s Nobel laureate Francis Crick’s logical conclusion for atheism.  He is not alone. Atheists may deny this conclusion but then they must blind their own minds again to do so, for the conclusion is logically sound.

Therefore why should anyone – or even yourselves atheists! – believe that what your pack of neurons is doing, ought to be attended by qualifications such as “true”, “false”, “good”, “bad”?  Under atheism, your brain is no more than 2 or 3 pounds of electrochemically active meat.

Atheism is thus once again seen as a most self-contradicting metaphysical error.  It wants to be a nonentity, a non-position (mere lack of belief) to squirm out of burden of proof.  It wants thought to be mere atoms moving in meat, thus demolishing its own alleged “logical” defenses.

Under atheism, logic itself is a mere electrochemical by-product of brain (meat).  Yet they claim to be logical and rational all while loudly and proudly proclaiming that logic & rationality are nothing more than atoms in movement. So meat – the brain – is rational? Meat is logical? How about pizza?

Yet, strangely enough, atheists – ever vaunting their alleged rationality, don’t see the glaring contradictions involved in their position with regards to rationality.  Rationality itself, as Lewis implies, doesn’t even exist as something “true” in atheist metaphysics. Sadly they never figure that out.

I’ve even encountered atheists (like blogger Paul Baird) that flat out deny the existence of logical absolutes all while claiming to be arguing with logic. Go figure folks. So, of course seeing they are all too often intellectually dishonest, they will still deny this most angrily, but the conclusion nevertheless holds – i.e. if there is no God then rationality is the result of non rational processes, an illusion – atheism thus “cuts its own throat”.

Now, just for the fun of it I’ll share some of this of  this, so typical yet so wrong, atheist’s claims. He stated,

“you don’t understand the position of atheism, the nature of positive beliefs, the different between ‘evidence’ and ‘good evidence’, the meaning of the word ‘metaphysical’.

Of course I don’t understand any of this. Right.
Really hard to understand huh?  But then what else can he say since he doesn’t get the logical implications of his own position?

Most web debater atheist fundamentalists don’t understand because they are blinded by their own foolish reasonings.  This is exactly like debates on Darwinian evolution.  The Darwinist claims the intelligent designist or creationist, doesn’t understand evolution.  I’ve seen this spoken of guys that have doctorates in evolutionary biology! Wow, really hard to understand Darwinian evolution, right?! Nope.

Just so, atheism is so hard to understand?! Not.

Obviously the atheist is ready to claim his position is actually not a position.  Its a static “lack of belief” in his mind.  It isn’t, it is a chosen position that he, by this very comment,  proves, and yet simultaneously seeks defiantly to deny. Talk about cognitive dissonance. The great majority of modern atheists are the kings of cognitive dissonance based irrational thinking.

I can’t count the number of atheist comments I’ve read across the web and elsewhere who deny the nature of their own beliefs, always trying to make their atheism a mere absence, a lack, am involuntary vacuum as it were, a passive psychological state.

As for me not understanding the the difference between evidence and good evidence, this is just ludicrous.  What does an atheist, that has and admits having, absolutely zero evidence against the existence of God, know about this?  Zilch.

The worst is that this atheist, while claiming I don’t get the rules of evidence, proves he did not even get the point made in my article on “no evidence for God” (the specific article he objected to) that bold yet foolish atheists are always making.

My points, in the article, were 1) that evidence for God, good or bad, is not the point; 2) claiming there is no evidence is an insane claim to impossible knowledge.  It’s amazing that this poor soul didn’t even see the distinction there.  I thought it was clear enough, but perhaps I should hold the atheists hand, like a kindergarten child, and step through it more simply?

As even atheist Kai Nielsen stated,

“To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false….All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists.” – Reason and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 143-44.


1.  There exists no evidence for atheism. Not a particle. (here’s where said atheist comes roaring in with ‘can’t prove a negative’ etc.)

2. If there is no evidence then certainly there are no proofs of atheism.  None that I know of. (Proof is that degree of evidence that demands the acceptance or belief of a matter)

3. No proofs or even evidences seem to be forthcoming either.

Atheism is thus always based on the same old denial of reality and dismissal of all evidence, and that’s all.

Now as for the word metaphysical here’s a dictionary definition or two (I bolded the ones most pertinent to the discussion):

Adjective: metaphysical, me-tu’fi-zi-kul

1    Pertaining to or of the nature of metaphysics
“metaphysical philosophy”

2   Without material form or substance
“metaphysical forces”

3    Highly abstract and overly theoretical
“metaphysical reasoning”

And here’s another from Webster:

1: of or relating to metaphysics
2    a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses
b : supernatural
3 : highly abstract or abstruse; also : theoretical
4 often capitalized : of or relating to poetry especially of the early 17th century that is highly intellectual and philosophical and marked by unconventional imagery
— meta·phys·i·cal·ly adverb

a metaphysical world of spirits
<a work that deals with such metaphysical questions as the very nature of knowledge>

So again we see that atheists generally don’t understand the breadth of the word ‘metaphysical’ themselves, and thus seek to constrain it for their own purposes of playing “word games” to distract the reader. Metaphysics thus is, in this context, synonymous with religion or religious belief.

Atheism is indeed a metaphysical position, positively chosen by its adherent, and never a mere static absence of belief. The very “good evidence” for that is the fact that these people want to debate it so adamantly, so angrily and so religiously everywhere across the web where any discussion of the existence of God, the bible, religion etc., takes place.

Then he states,

“You also don’t understand the nature of information.”

I get this one a lot too.  Its laughable seeing as my own area of professional expertise over the last 20 years has been information technologies!  Information itself is also, and necessarily, metaphysical, it is not matter or energy.

It is my experience that atheists rarely understanding the nature of information – all while claiming ad infinitum ad nauseum, that theists don’t understand it. I’ve yet to meet a single atheist that understands the metaphysical nature of information and that does not conflate the medium with the thing.

This poor atheist then tells me,

“I was going to write a post refuting your poor argument. But it would have involved so frequently repeating “doesn’t understand the burden of proof” it would have become unreadable. It also would have involved correcting amateur mistakes, like defining atheism correctly.”

Really!?  How many times have I been told by some atheist that he was going to refute my “poor” arguments etc., only to have him walk away either in the usual mere denial and intellectual suicide, or walk away himself  refuted? That latter is rare, not because it doesn’t happen all the time, but because in those cases it means he was actually an honest atheist (a rare occurrence on debate sites) and near miraculously accepted that his position was refuted.

Finding an atheist on the web with a truly open mind, is a miracle almost as great as raising Lazarus from the dead. Yet these are the people that love to style themselves as “free thinkers” – anything but true.  Their minds are usually shut tight with adamant refusal to see anything that contradicts their empty world-view.

Web debate atheists are almost ubiquitously incapable of defining atheism correctly themselves.  The so-called “New Atheism” doesn’t even have a valid definition for atheism.  Sadly, that’s where all these little web atheists pick up their misinformation from – Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens  or one of the other numerous atheist fundamentalist high priests out there.  All evangelizing for “nothing creating everything”, these days.

Definition of atheism?  Indeed, they invariably define it out of existence by claiming its a mere void, a lack, the absence of belief. Why do they do this? Obviously because defining atheism as a personally chosen, positive metaphysical position would force them to accept their own burden of proof – which they cannot do because they already know and admit that there are no proofs.

That, in short, is why I allow no comments here.  I always end up having to explain the true nature of atheism to ignorant atheists, and then I have to deal with their endless circular reasoning and highly distorted logic. The logic of mere neurons in meat, according to their own worldview.

So I now have “good evidence” that atheism is a virulent meme!

After many years of debating atheists on line, I’m not much interested in these types of challenges to allow them to “refute me”.  They can’t, not without also refuting themselves, as implied by Lewis’ and Crick’s comments cited above.  How does one refute a pack of neurons?  You can’t test your brain using your brain.

I do engage in debate elsewhere. Not here. Not interested in opening up that can of worms here.  It’s simply largely a waste of time since I would have to respond over and over again to the endless parroting of the standard atheists bunk claims and catch phrases, buzz words and verbatim repetition of the same tired old sophisms.  Let them read the arguments and understand them first and then find someone else willing to listen to their nonsensical void of perpetual self-contradiction. Or perhaps find me elsewhere where I do engage in debate – like on William Lane Craig’s facebook page.

There is no God and I am his prophet


3 responses to “Yet Another Atheist Doesn’t Get His Own Position

  1. Pingback: Yet Another Atheist Doesn’t Get His Own Position « NanoSpeed

  2. Pingback: The New Intolerance « Crazy Jew

  3. Pingback: The Atheist That Still Doesn’t Get It « Reasons