Internet Atheists Say the Darndest Things

An atheist I follow on Twitter recently tried to get #atheism trending by getting as many atheists as possible to tweet the silliest things they’ve heard theists say. I confess I rolled my eyes, here we go again with another caricature fest – arrogant atheists versus stupid theists. But, I guess it’s really just a bit of fun. As my own writing has somewhat stalled with the arrival of the football World Cup I thought I’d keep the blog ticking over with my own experience: the silliest things I’ve ever heard from internet atheists.

In no particular order:

1. In one instance I presented a form of Plantinga’s ontological argument for the existence of God. I admit, I was just trying to be a smart-ass and presented it to baffle more than to enlighten (and who hasn’t been baffled by ontological arguments?!) But I didn’t expect the response I got. I was told the argument was invalid. I was certain it was logically water-tight so I asked where my atheist interlocutor saw a flaw. He told me premise 2 didn’t follow from premise 1 and premise 4 didn’t follow from 1-3. Seemingly my opponent on this occasion knew diddly squat about how arguments are constructed: premises do not have to follow from other premises, but rather the conclusion must follow from the premises. So much for his claims to philosophical sophistication.

2. My favourite ever Twitter atheist was an Australian lawyer who attacked everything I wrote about theism with venom. Nothing wrong with that, but I asked him what arguments for the existence of God he had considered and found wanting. His response was that he had considered all of them, and in fact had refuted every single argument ever for the existence of God on his blog site. I wonder do professional atheist philosophers know of this incredibly talented Aussie lawyer who has – as a hobby when he’s not in the court room – managed to refute every argument ever for the existence of God. Intrigued but justifiably skeptical I had a look at his blog site. As I had guessed he had made the same mistake that many make after reading an introductory philosophy of religion text. In introductory texts we tend to see an examination of classical arguments – such as Aquinas’ cosmological arguments, or Paley’s argument to design. It’s easy to get the impression that little has been written since. But, of course, there are many modern versions of all these classical arguments. I saw no evidence that this guy had considered any of them, much less refuted them. Objection! Sustained!

3. Just this week an internet atheist presented me with a pretty massive facepalmer. We had been discussing whether Hitler was an atheist or a Christian. I claimed that it hardly mattered and that neither atheism nor Christianity can properly be said to support or motivate something like the holocaust. My atheist opponent seized his opportunity to proof-text. He threw two verses at me to overturn my contention that Christianity could not support or motivate something like the holocaust. Regrettably one of these proof-texts was from the Qur’an. What to say in response? No idea. I should pray to Allah in the name of Jesus for the answer to that one.

So, whilst it’s true that theists often say silly things, we shouldn’t kid ourselves that theists have the monopoly on daft utterances.

Stephen J. Graham



Filed under Atheism

2 responses to “Internet Atheists Say the Darndest Things

  1. You could start with the Wikipedia page, which includes (some) problems with Plantinga.

  2. carmelitaspats666

    Lulz…I’m happier than a gopher in soft dirt when I read daft utterances and attend mad tea parties as the March Hare but I really don’t have time for silly atheists or for theists with fuzzy definitions of God. God is a Trinitarian-incarnational-atoning-resurrecting-ascending-soon-to-be-returning-God who sacrificed Himself to Himself and these descriptors should be in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance after “One nation, Under…” Hell, I can barely wrap my mind around the livestock insemination of the Virgin Mary by a ghost. The Holy Spirit “came” upon her? WTF? The text leaves much to the imagination, many interpretative gaps to fill in, and thus the necessity of Midrash….

    Did the surrogate impregnation involve ankles and legs? Was it open-mouthed? Wide-eyed? Was it like the insemination of alien abductees who claim a poking and prodding of their nether parts by green cosmic goo? Was Jesus an alien who visited Earth some 2000 years ago and through advanced technology convinced people that he had risen from the dead? Was he eventually whisked away on his spaceship, the “New Jerusalem” in which he will eventually return sometime in the future? If so, is the “New Jerusalem” quite large so it can hold hundreds of thousands of people who will be “raptured” onto it in order to serve and worship their alien masters? Is Christianity therefore nothing more than a centuries long breeding program in order to ensure that only the meekest slaves make it aboard? Maybe these slaves will never rebel or cause mischief aboard the craft because they’ve proven that they are truly capable of believing that their slavery is simply heavenly? Can’t verify? Don’t want to suspend judgment? Midrash everything.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.