User talk:SusanG/JPatt

Reply to Essay

Let's get to it, shall we?

"Atheists are infamous for acting from positions of higher knowledge, realists who have spent much time dissecting Christianity in order to prop up their non-beliefs. They deem the Bible an outlandish joke perpetuated by one crazy man."

The author starts out by making the statement that atheists as a group argue from positions of higher knowledge, but does not produce one single scrap of evidence, such as a quote from a famous atheist, to support their claim. Ironically, if anything, religious people appeal to a higher authority; that's their whole game. Yet, many prominent atheists have spent much time dissecting Christian and other belief systems, and oftentimes not for the purpose of backing up their own nonbelief. The author also says that atheists as a group deem the bible as a joke from one man. The author produces no evidence to support this preposterous claim. The author should produce one example of an atheist who believes the bible is a joke written by one person. In reality, it was most likely told by hundreds of people over thousands of years, passing down from Mesopotamian and Egyptian folklore, where it then was written down during the Roman era.

"A common theme they present is that we were once nothing, the universe was once nothing and that we will return to nothing."

Fucking no one says this. Atheists don't say "the universe came from nothing" or "we will return from nothing". No one! Rather, they say "I dont know". And again, no evidence! Not one citation! Not one quote! And yet still, the epic strawmanning shall continue.

"Religion is the cause of all evils. Religion is a myth to be proven wrong"

I've not heard one atheist say either of the above statements, never in all my years. If any atheists do say that, they're wrong. To the second statement, Religion as a whole cannot be "proven" wrong: the burden of proof is on the person or persons making the claim, i.e., the religionists. No atheists are trying to "prove" religion wrong, they simply attack it because of its effects on society and human behavior, which is a perfectly valid complaint.

"Atheists are determined to know the Universes beginnings. There was nothing and than there was something. If you disagree with that than you are mindless."

Atheists are not a singular, coherent group of people with a single, solid block of beliefs, wishes, and determinations. They share some opinions, such as dislike of religion and blind faith, but they are not as a whole interested in the origins of the universe, unlike most Carl Sagan fanclubs.

"Man and his sinful nature cannot be trusted. The devil said we will be like Gods, but we are not God."

No refutations for this, I'm just saying you sound exactly like Ken Ham.

"Somebody had to make inertia happen, somebody put it in motion, that somebody was God."

And atheists are the ones taking the leap of faith?! "That somebody was God." This is a perfect example of argument from authority. That leap of faith, the one from 'somebody' to 'God', is the same leap of faith that allows Muslim fundamentalists to fly planes into buildings because "God want us to kill infidels to make the world more pure". The same leap of faith that causes Christians fundamentalists in Uganda to rape lesbians and kill gays. If there was no religion, their excuse would be "well that's just not natural", which is a lot LESS credible than "well God told us to".

"The Bible to them is one big fairy tale. Who could build an ark, preposterous. Who can survive inside a giant fish for three days? Who could part the sea?"

All perfectly valid scientific questions, none of which are answered.

"But God can do anything, God performs miracles all the time. The unexplained can be attributed directly to God."

That last line is indicative of monotheists' general thought process when trying to explain unexplained events. It's eeriely similar to when a UFO person points at a light in the sky, and instead of thinking rationally about what it could be, and says "it's aliens!". It's the same process by which people explain a bump in the night by saying "it's the ghost of the dead slave who used to live in this old plantation house". It's not useful, it doesn't produce anything but fake solace and comfort about the world, which is bad when trying to confront the world's challenges. Science, on the other hand, provides a logical set of procedures for explaining and conquering the natural world, leading to many real and useful inventions, such as the wheel and axle, electricity, computers, and high-speed, instant worldwide transportation and communication. Religion offers a set of morals from peasant societies thousands of years ago that are widely disconnected with the modern world's ways and needs.

"Love lives on forever and always has. God is love."

Shrek is life. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

If you mean for the author of this essay to read & respond to your comments, you're posting this in the wrong place. Go here (Conservapedia). ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)