Atheism and the Evidence for My God-Thing

by Simon Turpin on May 26, 2020

I have removed all bible-thingy references for they are Claims, NOT evidence. Additionally, I use “bible-thingy” since there are thousands of “religious” bibles, and I am speaking about ALL religion when I speak of religion.

My response appears thusly.

“Give me evidence that Your God-Thing exists.” This is usually the response from atheists when engaging with christinsanes. In and of itself there is nothing wrong with this, as we should not believe anything without satisfactory evidence (nt). The bible-thingy does not place faith or belief against evidence, but rather it uses faith to refer to a conviction or confidence in that evidence. The suggestion from the atheist, however, is that belief in My God-Thing is not supported by any evidence. While it is good to give evidence for the existence of My God-Thing, it is important to understand that we do not all read evidence the same way and that evidence is not taken in a neutral fashion by those who are presenting and accepting it.

Evidence is the one thing NO religion can offer. Religion only offers beLIEf. NOT knowledge. My ultimate response is, “Where is the OHEFE?” For without OHEFE, ANY assertion you make is nothing more than a lie. That is Cold, Cruel, Heartless FACT. No evidence? Then it is just made-up. Make-believe. And you Religitards seem to overlook the True Definition of “faith”. BeLIEf as truth without proof.

As far as “important to understand that we do not all read evidence the same way” is concerned, THAT is where the problems lies. Religitards never read evidence, they twist and pervert to fit their beLIEfs.

And the one FACT all Religitards miss is they always look for that which they can twist and pervert into BeLIEvable Prevarications utilizing Empathic Predation. All that gish gallop, word salad, Brain Diarrhea proves absolutely nothing, except you know how to create a beLIEvable lie. Always remember this: Ultimately, philosophy AND philosophical logic proves ONLY two things: 1) You can speak truthfulness if desired. 2) You know how to lie beLIEvably. T…H…I…N…K…

The problem is not with the evidence but with how we interpret the evidence, and the atheist will interpret evidence according to their unbelief. As christinsanes, we need to understand there is no neutral ground when it comes to worldview issues such as theism and atheism. The reality of the matter is that for some atheists, no evidence will ever be enough to convince them of My God-Thing’s existence, as they will always explain evidence away because they have a prior commitment to the philosophy of naturalism. A few years ago, in a conversation with fellow atheist Peter Boghossian, Richard Dawkins admitted that no evidence would convince him of My God-Thing’s existence as he could always explain it away:

Worldview. Does NOT exist. Instead each person has their PoV (Point of View; pov). Worldview is just a made-up disparagement term created by Religitards. And I am like Richard Dawkins in that I have little hope for any Religitard offering irrefutable evidence. Not word salad. Evidence. As I continue learning, thinking, seeking knowledge, my probability of any kind of God-Things existing ever draws closer to 0.000. That is my pov AND it is backed by monumental mountains of evidence. The ONLY evidence Religitards can offer is word salad. Brain Diarrhea. Someone needs to invent that Brain Pepto.

“Have a prior commitment to the philosophy of naturalism.” Really? I do not have a commitment to naturalism except for the mountains of OHEFE proving naturalism is the most inviolate explanation for everything. It is not a commitment; rather, it is a conclusion. Something no Religitard can understand. I follow where the evidence leads me. Thus, I achieve a conclusion. An understanding. Comprehension. And since evidence shows it is natural processes that created everything as is today, I do NOT need the fantasy of some cosmic spook.

I am NOT commited to naturalism. Rather, I know naturalism is the True Truth of our world.

Peter Boghossian: Given that the hosts of arguments [for the existence of My God-Thing] don’t work, what would it take for you to believe in My God-Thing?

Richard Dawkins: I use to say, it would be very simple, it would be the second coming of Jesus or a great big, deep, booming, base voice saying: “I am Your God-Thing and I created.” But I was persuaded mostly by Steve Zaro . . . he more or less persuaded me, even if there was this booming voice or the second coming in clouds of glory, the more probable explanation is that it is a hallucination or a conjuring trick by David Copperfield or something. He made the point that a supernatural explanation for anything is incoherent, that it just doesn’t add up to an explanation for anything . . . Clarke’s third law “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”, magic being supernatural. If you were to fly a Boeing 747 back to the middle ages, you would be greeted as Your God-Thing, and similarly an alien visitation would be so far beyond us in their technology that they probably could manipulate the stars to spell out words or geometric forms or something of that sort.

Peter Boghossian: So, that couldn’t be enough, so what would persuade you?

Richard Dawkins: Well, I am starting to think nothing would, which in a way goes against the grain because I’ve always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming. The trouble is I can’t think what that evidence would look like.

I think I gave the same response above I would have here. AND, that is the problem. What would be evidence? Even I KNOW not. However, ain’t that God-Thing ALL-Knowing. Thus, why does NOT that Thing of yours know what would convince me?

Dawkins states that there is no evidence that would convince him there is a My God-Thing as he could always come up with a probable explanation (i.e. aliens or hallucination). However, Dawkins’ methodology, that nothing counts as evidence for My God-Thing’s existence, is self-defeating. For example, using Dawkins own methodology, why should I believe that he exists? No doubt Dawkins would say his own existence is self-evident since people can see and hear him. But how would I know that powerful aliens are not tricking me into believing that he exists or that he is not just a hallucination I am having? Objecting to evidence for the existence of My God-Thing (or anybody) based upon aliens or hallucinations will get you nowhere and shows the credulity of Dawkins position. Although Dawkins said that he used to pay lip service to the idea that evidence could change his mind, his previous work shows that this is not the case. Dawkins has argued that science properly understood renders belief in My God-Thing untenable. Why? Because unguided, undirected Darwinian mechanisms have produced the appearance of design without itself being guided or directed in any way:

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Wooww… That is perhaps the most fucked-up FUBAR of an analogy I have seen in quite some time. Why are you applying The Matrix to Reality? If I were to slap you in the face, would that be what finally convinces you I am real? To make that kind of analogy is … And you purposefully perverted and twisted what he actually said: “I am starting to think nothing would” [meaning evidence for a God-Thing]. He NEVER said what YOU said he said. I am in the same boat. For even I am thinking no evidence any human can offer would prove your God-Thing exists. Right there is proof you Religitards purposefully, with evil intent, pervert and twist the words of any one whom disagrees with your bull shit. Ultimately, you make your selves look retarded.

I am the of the same thinking. You Religitards have had 2000 years and the only evidence you can offer is gish gallop, word salad, beguiling semantics, prestidigitive dialect, horse hoowhee, bull shit, and Brain Diarrhea. Why such sloppy solipsism? And the other perversion and twisting of words, when Dawkins says, “gives the appearance of being designed”, you are neglecting the operant word: “appearance”, as in seems. Yet you pervert and twist his words into YOUR statement: “Dawkins states that there is no evidence that would convince him there is a God-Thing…” Ain’t that the same as fabricatiing a prevarication? You are saying he said one thing when his actual words are diametrically opposed.

Dawkins believes that complicated things, such as DNA, only appear to be designed. Why does it only appear designed? Well, because if it is designed then the obvious question is, who designed it? The reality of the matter is that the double-helix structure of DNA could not form by chance as we know that it carries complex coded information that can only be generated by intelligence sources (not mindless natural processes). [See my Life From Lifelessness] Since Dawkins sees design as an allusion, the possibility of a designer is also seen as delusional (i.e. the title of his 2006 book The God Delusion). In a recent interview, promoting his new book Outgrowing God, Dawkins was asked by a news reporter:

Krishna Guru Murphy: If you could change the world, how would you change it . . . I am assuming you would want to change the world by ridding us of religion altogether?

Richard Dawkins: Well I would, but I think I would generalize that to anything that’s not evidence based, where factual knowledge is concerned . . . all sorts of things that are based on emotion, tradition, revelation, authority rather than on evidence.

I see you are a Genetics moron. Yes DNA carries information. Biological information. NOT binary information with that InfoTheory bullshit. Biological information DOES NOT work that way. Besides, information theory is NOT a Theory. Rather it is a logics mechanism on how to handle those huge globs of 1s and 0s stored in electronic databanks. A mechanism. Not a Theory.

AND, here is the shocker for you Religitards. Not one has PROVEN “design”. The best y’awl can offer is: IT looks designed. IT fits MY criteria for being designed. Thus, it MUST be designed. But first you would also have to prove the designer. First and Foremost, prove the designer. Then, you can scream “design” all y’awl want. Cart before the horse. Y’awl always get things so arse-backwards.

Where I grew up, we said arse-backwards in a way that sounded arse-barckwards.

Of course, Dawkins is assuming that the revelation and authority of the bible-thingy is not based on evidence. But if Dawkins is consistent, then he will have to stop believing in a lot of the things that his naturalistic evolutionary perspective cannot provide factual knowledge or evidence for:

There is not one bible-thingy that is based on evidence. None have any evidence except our struggle to create widely acceptable and justifiable mores. And all bible-thingies are filled with horror stories that would make Hitler sick.

Here I answer with the simplest possible answers. You are required to do True Research to find why I answered the way I did.

Atheism is ONLY ONE thing: Not accepting Religitard claims for ANY God-Thing without evidence. Kind of hand-in-hand with Skepticism: Refusal to accept assertions without evidence. Atheism has nothing to do with mores, reason, or rationality. Here it is perhaps more understandable way of putting it.

Perhaps you should read about “Brain Problems” (opens in new tab).

My atheism has nothing to do with whether I can think reasonably, rationally, critically. In fact, my atheism comes FROM my capability to think reasonably, think rationally, think critically. Thus, I had reasoning, rationality, critical thinking BEFORE I chose to no longer accept Religitardism. My Moral Code is derived from the Three of Me conducting extensive debates. Every person alive has the Three of Me: Me, Myself, and I. For me, LITERALLY:

Now days, it is Me and Myself trying to teach I, one sometimes has to be complete arse.

When you discuss a probability, say going to McDs for dinner, with your self, with whom are you discussing this with? Just like a computer, you run a series of logic questions weighing probabilities. I ain’t going to list the questions, for you can imagine them yourself. See, every decision is ultimately a Yes/No, True/False, On/Off, 1/0 answer.

Another refusal of Religitardism is: Everything IS Relative. There is no such thing as an “absolute”, “universal”, “objective” FoR (Frame of Reference). Einstein PROVED this FACT.

AND, remember this. There were some brain scans performed on volunteers while the volunteers were processing certain information, whether text, graphics, animation, etc., et al. With the Religitards (the extreme inexorable beLIEvers), they found that when these Religitards spoke truthfulness, their brain was still processing it as if a lie. T…H…I…N…K… about that.

Even though atheists have produced arguments for the above, they have no actual evidence or factual knowledge to believe any of them. Atheists believe these things because of their faith that time, chance and the laws of nature will produce the “miracle” necessary to make them (aliens, the universe, a single cell, dinosaurs into birds, ape-like creatures into humans). Or they must assume the reality of the biblical worldview (without acknowledging it) in order to make sense of immaterial realities such as reason and the laws-of-logic. Much of the western world today is lost in the superstition of naturalism, and that idol needs to be destroyed.

And you truly do not understand The Principles of Probability do you? In the time it took you to read that interrogative statement, how many times has DNA been put through LIFE's many replication processes? 5.593 634 × 1079,710?

THIS IS WHERE YOU ARE TRULY REQUIRED TO THINK.

Answer that question: And you truly do not understand The Principles of Probability do you? In the time it took you to read that interrogative, how many times has DNA been put through LIFE's many replication processes?

I guarantee you have no clue. The number I provided was pulled from my PI() file (nt).

As with many atheists, Dawkins prides himself on the fact that science can provide us with all the answers. However, it is not science that proves that My God-Thing does not exist but the philosophical system that Dawkins uses to interpret science and evidence, namely naturalism. The philosophy of naturalism which dominates the sciences today asserts that all reality can be explained in purely natural categories without any appeal to the supernatural. Naturalism is not only an attack on all things supernatural but also upon science. The universe needs to be orderly for science to even work. But why would the universe be orderly if it is just the result of a naturalistic cosmic accident? The universe obeys certain laws and is orderly because My God-Thing is a lawgiver and a My God-Thing of order. Only the biblical worldview gives us reason to believe in the uniformity in nature, the very basis of science, but this is something that the atheistic worldview cannot account for. Naturalism itself is a self-defeating worldview as it undermines the very faculties it takes in order to do science and evaluate evidence. The thinking of the atheist is totally committed (in all their thoughts) to their own authority, judgement, and standards when it comes to interpreting the evidence:

Quote removed since is a Claim, NOT evidence. No response given to above paragraph due to this FACT.

Simon Turpin is the executive director and speaker for Answers in Genesis–UK/Europe. He is excited about the opportunity the Lord has opened for him with AiG–UK in spreading the importance of creation apologetics, biblical authority, and the gospel. He holds a BA in biblical and intercultural studies and an MA in theology.

O! LOOK! He got worthless degrees in “Liberal Arts” knowledge. Something every person knows some of any way. Whoop-tee-doo. With the current emerging WWW, I can perform searches utlizing the so-called “AI” tools. I got the definition for Brain Diarrhea by using this term: [define "Brain Diarrhea"] and nothing more. And got the EXACT same definition people used for the same term over 6 decades ago. UnbeLIEvable? Did I just speak truthfulness? Hmm… OR, am I lying?

Whether you choose to believe or not, well… what do I care? If you Religitards truly wish to make your selves stupid, I truly do not care. What offends me is your LYING to the public. Utilizing techniques describe in many totalitarian dystopias written by those whom knew religion only seeks Power and Control. AND shall LIE to do so.

Footnotes removed since all are Claims in reference to other Religitardistic LIES.

And if you do not enjoy my TRUE verbiage, Kiss Me Fat White Arse. Whether you are offended or not matters not to me anymore. Any person with a more “humanistic pov” shall see me slanted verbiage as humorous. Ever thunk that? And I can even utilize “stupid talk” such as thunk. Instead of think. One thing about me is that I am a Deep Thinker also. I have thunked things you shall never be able to think. I have thought over Religitardism’s arguments ad nauseum. You have come up with NOTHING. The same arguments for the last 15 centuries! FIFTEEN CENTURIES!! The only thing y’awl do is misappropriate scientific language with the most evil intent of making science SEEM perverted and twisted. The Evil Mad Scientist. MHUA-HA-HA-Ha-ha. That is me in a nutshell. I am a scientist gone mad. However, My “mad” is not “affected with insanity”; rather, it is “a vituperation against the LIEs spread by an igNORant AND igNURant group of people.”

The World does NOT need your lies anymore.

— The Unknown Atheist

Top of page

Copyright © 2024 by RMFR. Licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 International. All Other Rights Reserved