The Top 10 Atheist Inconsistencies?


    The following is a hub in response to a hubber called grayknight, in particular I am responding to a hub called: Top 10 Atheist Inconsistencies. I suggest you at the very least skim over it.

    Let me start by saying that grayknight seems entirely misled about what atheism is and what it is not. His title itself betrays this fact. Atheist Inconsistencies. I find that there is a tendency among believers of certain types to think that atheism somehow must conform itself to a dogma or certain system of thought. Allow me to clear this up: Atheism is NOT consistent. The fact that atheism is inconsistent is entirely irrelevant.

Imagine if I were to post a hub called Top 10 Theist Inconsistencies in which I point out that some religions allow the consumption of pork and others don't and that some sects of Christianity hate gays while others are accepting of them. I could even criticize the inconsistency that Hindus do not worship Yahweh and that Jews and Christians do not believe in Shiva and Krishna. By now I hope you get the point but I will go further to explain the definition of these two words.

Theism - Belief in God(s).

Atheism - No belief in God(s).

    Warning - This gonna be a long one folks.

Now let's get into the meat of the hub, the actual arguments being made:

Part 1 - Murder and War?

grayknight opens with:

"One of the biggest lies told by atheists is that the majority of martial conflicts in the world have occurred as a result of people believing in God."

My response: I'm tempted to once again remind everyone that atheism has no dogma however I'm also tempted to agree with grayknight. I'd also like to point out that it is not just atheists who make this fallacious argument there are even open-minded Christians who I've known to make similar arguments about how much war religion has caused. The primary reason I agree with this statement is that mere belief in a God does not necessarily lead to more war. While I do agree I think that there is a fundamental misunderstanding.

grayknight goes on to explain that many conflicts merely use religious belief as an excuse, a way of swaying the masses to go to war. Later on in the paragraph however his reasoning becomes dangerously flawed. Rather than say the truth, Theism and Atheism themselves do not cause wars, and leave it at that he commits a common fallacy which is to bring up supposed "Atheist atrocities". I'm sorry isn't he guilty of the same fallacy that atheists blaming all the world's problems on religion are guilty of?

grayknight says:

"Compare the nobility of the American Revolution (which cited God as its inspiration) to the nightmare of the French Revolution (which raged on under the assumption that God was dead)."

My response: The nobility of the American Revolution? I fail to see why theistic bloodshed is more noble than atheistic bloodshed. He's also forgetting that the Founding Fathers set up a profoundly secular government and were influenced not by religious ideals but by enlightenment ideals. Plus wasn't he just saying that wars inspired by or using religion as an excuse were a problem? He had just brought up the Crusades... I'm confused at how inconsistent he's being, ironic eh?

grayknight says:

"Also bear in mind that Hitler was more motivated by his hatred of a particular religion than by a belief in one, and that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot murdered millions of their own people in the name of a new human-worshiping religion that thought itself too advanced to believe in God."

My response: No one should blame religion or lack thereof for what any of these men did. The reason Communism is often atheistic is simple, they don't want rival power structures and religion, especially pre-existing churches with great power (such as the Catholic Church) could have encroached upon the power of the despots. It was thirst for power, not atheism or theism, motivating these men.

I would also like to explain where the trouble of religion comes from. It is true that the belief or lack of belief in god(s) is not itself the source of much anguish however religion too often comes with dogma. Any system, political, social or religious which has dogma is likely to do bad things. A belief in God is not harmful but if a belief that homosexuals should be stoned to death is attached to that God than it can be. It is not God itself, it is the web of dogma that surrounds it. Nearly all God concepts have this swirling sea of other beliefs save perhaps the deistic and pantheistic gods.

The other element that is destructive about religion (not theism, religion) is that it often grows powerful and, if powerful enough, can impose its dogma. Converting people to Christ under the threat of violence, condemning and burning people are heretics, preventing new information and discovery from contradicting dogmatic beliefs held by the Church.

Even today religious believers stop homosexuals from getting married directed by nothing other than dogma. Denying people their equal rights is no laughing matter and while it may not be the belief in God that does it religion certainly plays a part in keeping society from progressing. Even believers must admit that without the belief in God the web of poisonous dogma would likely collapse.

Religiously motivated murder?

Ironically enough the murder of Christ, grayknight's savior, was religiously motivated... He was a thorn in the side of the establishment religion of the day
Ironically enough the murder of Christ, grayknight's savior, was religiously motivated... He was a thorn in the side of the establishment religion of the day

Part 2 - Love?

grayknight says:

"You cannot claim that your world views are purely scientific and then start throwing around the "L" word as if it actually means something."

My response: While I found myself agreeing with Part 1 I found myself slack jawed and, to be honest, pissed off, when I read part 2. Although grayknight keeps this section short that doesn't stop him from devaluing human love as if it counts for nothing without a supernatural counterpart. Why is it that some religious people think that things cannot have meaning without the supernatural? I just don't understand it. And then they make insulting statements like this which are tantamount to saying that atheists cannot love and also are not allowed to attach meaning to love merely because we take science seriously.

Simply because we can scan the brain and figure out how love works does not mean that when we subjectively experience love it somehow loses its power or meaning. What meaning must love have? Why is the basic meaning it has to human beings not good enough? Why must there be a God in order for you to truly love your wife or your kids?

To suggest that love has some supernatural origin or NEEDS supernatural origin to have meaning is insulting not just to atheists but to people who don't subscribe to his Christian beliefs as well as their love can't possibly count either. And how does adding an arbitrary supernatural element to life for which there is no evidence automatically make love, life or anything else meaningful?

Part 3 - Fidelity and Procreation?

grayknight says:

"Furthermore, having a moral code that is established solely on scientific fact, would not an understanding of the theories of evolution and speciation require one of such unrivaled intelligence as a freethinking atheist to fill the world with his seed?"

My response: Umm... What? Since when do atheists have moral codes based solely on scientific fact? Here's a hint grayknight - ATHEISTS ARE NOT SPOCK. Other than Sam Harris I can't name a single atheist who thinks that human moral values can be gathered from science and even in Harris' case he wants human well-being to be what determines our values.

As for the procreation stuff I have to wonder why grayknight has gone to such a dark dystopian future. I'm also not sure why he seems to think that somehow intelligence is genetic. Intelligence is something that has to do with both nature and nurture however I would argue that nurture has much more to do with it.

The insulting idea that atheists who think they're so smart should be out pumping people full of semen is absurd considering that the Christian and Jewish God tell people to "Be Fruitful and Multiply". There is even an underground movement amongst the religious known as the Quiverfull movement which is centered around women being fruitful and multiply and men going back to their misogyny approved "head of the household" status.

grayknight is also forgetting that people with an appreciation for science might also understand something called OVER-POPULATION, a problem we humans could be facing in this century. So perhaps some atheists are choosing not to spread their seed due to not wanting the Earth to be destroyed. Some others might be opting not to have children because they have a family history of some sort of genetic problem, in an evolutionary view intelligence wouldn't be the only thing to look for.

Most atheists get their moral code from the same place most theists do, their parents and the people around them. I refer to this as Societal Collective Morality. Personal experience also plays a part on shaping morality.

Part 4 - Altruism?

grayknight says:

"However, many atheists still cling to these concepts of virtue - not because they can actually make any arguments against the "great" atheist minds like Rand and Nietzsche, but because they cannot bring themselves to let go of these last vestiges of theist irrationality."

My response: This is another one which is insulting and poorly reasoned. As I explained in the opening there is no atheist dogma. To suggest that all atheists must either agree with Ayn Rand and Nietzsche or else argue against them is a fallacy. I'm an atheist and I have never extensively studied the philosophy of either Rand or Nietzsche, neither of them played any part in my becoming or remaining an atheist. Imagine how insulting it would be if I told all theists they had to subscribe to William Lane Craig or Ray Comfort or else come up with elaborate arguments refuting them.

Gray is also insulting the entirety of the human race by claiming that altruism, charity and humility are somehow dependent upon a belief in God. Um... What? What sort of sloppy reasoning is this? One has to believe that a supernatural being exists in order to be humble? Do you see any connection there because I don’t. I also fail to see how the oft held Christian belief that an all powerful being hand crafted the entire Universe just for us is humble.

grayknight says:

"In short, both authors quite adequately show that, in a universe with no God and no life after death, there is only one thing that matters: me.”

My response: I have to take his word for it that both Rand and Nietzsche do argue a selfish philosophy however one look at the nature of humanity instantly dismisses the idea that people have no reason to be altruistic or empathetic. WE ARE A SOCIAL SPECIES. Human beings thrive in communities and groups from the hunter-gatherer tribes of old to our massive sprawling modern civilization we have always lived in groups. Even most people who live in their home or apartment alone dwell in a community with people nearby. As such human beings have evolved with instinctual empathy.

Empathy promotes good moral behavior because we can see how our actions affect others either negatively or positively. When the group or individuals within the group are affected negatively this can thus turn around and negatively impact us as well. While on the surface this seems simply like more selfishness it isn’t as our empathy also creates care that goes beyond that.

For instance many people have given and are continuing to give to Japan even if they are not going to be negatively impacted by the earthquake. Also I would encourage Gray to look up altruism in nature, there are astounding examples of other social species behaving in much the same way illustrating how altruism and other moral behaviors evolved rather than being passed down on stone tablets atop a mountain while no one was around.

Part 5 - Abstract Immortality

I really have nothing to say about this one other than to say I fail to see how the unrealistic supernatural comfort spread by theists is superior to the true belief that I will only live on in the fallible and ultimately doomed memories of those who knew me. One comfort relies on the truth as best we understand it realistically and the other is superstitious hogwash.

Part 6 - Literal Immortality

grayknight says:

“But does he believe it's possible that there just might be another being in this vast universe who has achieved all knowledge before he has? No, that is ludicrous."

My response: First off he is attaching an absolutist position to Ray Kurzweil. I’ve never met an atheist who would claim there absolutely can’t be a God. Of course what grayknight is referring to IS NOT A GOD but merely an advanced alien being or an advanced human being. Appealing to the supernatural is not the same thing as speculating that one day, due to technological knowledge, we may be able to live forever.

Part 7 - Feelings?

grayknight says:

"Many atheists proudly say that they do not need dogma to tell them what is or is not right. They do not lie, cheat, kill, or insult because they "just know" that such things are wrong, and not because some old book tells them so. However, ask an atheist to provide logical and scientific proof that such actions are unacceptable, and all of their arguments will boil down to the fact that it "just feels right." They do not care for the hedonistic arguments of Nietzsche and Rand, because they know better. But when theists say that they believe in God because it "just feels right," that is proof of a lack of intelligence."

My response: I’ve never met a single atheist who would argue that they know right from wrong merely by what “feels right”. But I guess we can chalk that up to the fact that atheists are so damned inconsistent right? At this point in reading I can recall wanting to slam my head into the keyboard.

When I want to defend my morality I typically bring up empathy, the ability to perceive the emotional state of others and to be able to experience that same state. For instance I know that it is generally wrong to punch people in the face due to the fact that being punched in the face causes physical pain and can cause emotional distress as well. It is empathy, something instinctual, which allows us to develop morality.

Another tool which goes hand in hand with empathy is weighing pros and cons. If an action has no benefit and only does harm to the individual or group it is generally considered immoral or evil. If an action has a benefit and has no negative consequences it is generally considered good. This method leaves some gray areas and is far more nuanced than religious dogma.

Also God is not the same as morality. It is one thing to claim that I know punching people in the face is wrong based on how it would make them feel to be punched but another thing entirely to support the existence of an intelligent supernatural being solely on feeling.

Part 8 - Meaning?

Hang in there folks we're almost done
Hang in there folks we're almost done

grayknight says:

"I have heard it many times: "No, I don't believe in God or final judgment, but I have still found meaning in life." However, when your friend says this, ask him what great meaning he or she has found, and the response is sure to disappoint you profoundly. The truth is that those who say this have found no such meaning - they have simply found a way to keep living in the hope that they will one day find real meaning in life."

My response: This is a similar argument being made to the love argument, the idea that somehow positing an after-life gives live meaning and that without a God or an after-life we all have to be nihilists or else. Well sorry Gray but it doesn’t work that way.

Human beings have always attached subjective meaning to things. For instance there might not be an over-arching supernatural meaning to cuddling with your significant other on movie night but I’m guessing you find your time together meaningful right? What about bonding with your children? Does such an act really matter if we’re all just worm food? Does such an act matter if you’re going to be spending eternity in Heaven? Surely cuddling with your lover or bonding with your child aren’t what decide your eternal fate (heaven or hell) are they? Well then they have no meaning either...

An after-life and a God do not necessarily give meaning to life and they certainly don’t offer meaning to all the little things that humans subscribe meaning to. For instance I might be dedicated and passionate about my job but my job might have nothing to do with whether I go to Heaven or burn forever in Hell. So are Christians who ascribe meaning to their jobs, their relationships, etc ALSO mistaken?

If that’s the case than the majority of things we humans deem meaningful would actually be meaningless since so few of them would have any real bearing on your final eternal destination. And what is that destination? Heaven and Hell? Living forever or burning forever? And those are somehow more meaningful than rotting forever? In what way?

In short: Face palm

Part 9 - Mutability

I have nothing to say, this is just more of the same: If atheism is true than we all have be nihilists nonsense... double face palm.
I have nothing to say, this is just more of the same: If atheism is true than we all have be nihilists nonsense... double face palm.

Part 10 - Suffering

grayknight says:

“The idea that an omnipotent and benevolent God would never let us suffer at all is ludicrous - especially when even He, being perfect, suffers still.”

My response: I’ve never heard anyone argue that there should be NO suffering if a good God exists. I have heard that there should be no NEEDLESS suffering though. Such as ten year old kids getting cancer and dying despite the fervent prayers of their parents.

Gray then goes onto list an example by Sam Harris about a girl being raped and murdered. So how is grayknight going to get around this?

A) Appeal to free will and claim that the rapist and murderer is the only one responsible

B) Claim that sin in the world is the cause of all human suffering, perhaps even include an Old testament appeal about the sins of the Father being passed to the girl

C)  Skirt around the issue by claiming God will make it all better at a later date

grayknight says:

"Just as the Lord caused Lazarus to rise from the dead, that girl who is raped will be made whole in the Lord, who will not only treat her wounds, but remove her scars as well. For all of their conjecture and argument, the atheists of the world cannot bring such salvation for those who have suffered unjustly - just as they cannot construct any ideology sufficient to keep humans from committing such wrongs against each other in the future."

My response: I shit you not this is his argument. His argument for why God didn’t save a girl who was brutally raped and murdered when it would have been quite an easy task for an all powerful being is that some day in the future God will bring her back to life and make her all better. It was this pathetic attempt at an argument that I responded to in the comments of his hub.

Here’s an example: Let’s say I’m a retired paramedic and I come upon you standing in a dark alley about to be stabbed repeatedly by some thugs. I have a gun or some pepper spray and I’m good at martial arts so I could easily step in and stop the thugs. Instead I sit back and watch as you are brutally stabbed, robbed, and left for dead. I sit back and wait a few minutes. By the time I move in to help you your heart has stopped. I bring you back from the brink of death and mend your wounds. Does the fact that I eventually got around to healing you somehow morally absolve me from helping you when I had the power?

He skirts his way around the argument by appealing to some future Heaven that he and those who believe like him cannot promise any more assuredly than an atheist could promise a Utopian society. The difference is that in a Universe with no omnibenevolent God there is nothing to account for. Human beings are responsible for good and evil deeds and much suffering comes from those. However if an all powerful deity exists than it logically must hold ALL responsibility. The problem of suffering isn't one atheists must account for Gray.


I do apologize for the excessive length of this hub however as you can see there is no shortage of problems with the arguments grayknight made and there was a lot to offer rebuttal to. For one thing he mistakenly thinks that atheist inconsistency is a problem. Most atheists, however, are also free thinking meaning that we disagree and have no dogma, no priests or prophets we have to listen to and no sacred texts.

Hopefully this has been enlightening or enjoyable for a few of you out there. Thank you for reading, if you have any questions, comments, rebuttals, etc please leave them below.

More by this Author

Comments 65 comments

Rudra profile image

Rudra 5 years ago

Very interesting but the numbers are growing.

Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

Huh? The numbers of what are increasing?

profile image

Rad Man 5 years ago

Very well said. Graynight has frustrated me as well. He claims we are inconsistent, as if theists are consistent.

I do believe Love is part of our genetic make up to ensure our survival. Parents protect their children. All mammals feel some form of love. So humans are not special in this respect as graynight suggests.

As for the suffering. There is no greater evidence of the emptiness of heaven than the lack of empathy of said God. I grew up in a Catholic home and as a very young child I drew the conclusion that no god worthy of my attention could exist. Morality? Where's the humanity? A holy war. What? Thou shall not kill. I didn't see any exceptions like, unless he burns a book.

Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

I think Rudra meant that the number of Christians are growing? A statement that they keep making even though it isn't true - with the exception that most Christians think it is their commandment to have litters of children to overpopulate an increasingly overpopulated world.

Titen, you have presented some great arguments here, that I as an atheist agree with for sure. I found a site that really counters the theists arguments and may be of use to you for future hubs -


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

@ Rad Man "As for the suffering. There is no greater evidence of the emptiness of heaven than the lack of empathy of said God."

In all fairness this could just as well be evidence that if there is a God he's a total jerk :)

@Austinstar - The Quiverfull movement really does frighten me, the fact that these people have no regard for the planet or the fact that we have limited resources is scary. And the fact they are spreading their religion and any biases and prejudices packaged with it to children is unsettling as well.

I'll check out the site then, thanks for the compliments and the link :)

Doubter5 5 years ago

Thanks for the plug AustinStar! I've put all those points into 6 youTube videos now.. See my Atheism 101 vids on youTube. (Just lookup Doubter5 there)

"I've never seen Faith move a mountain, but I HAVE seen what it can do to skyscrapers."

Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Whoa! Doubter5. Good stuff. Titen can help spread the word because he writes so well. He puts just about every thought I've ever come up with down in easy to read, excellent hubs. I've been a fan for a while.

So are you the author of the web page I linked to? I'm going to go have a look at the videos. Good stuff.

Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

Thanks Austinstar, and Doubter5 you just got yourself another subscriber on youtube, I'll be sure to plug your site as well in future hubs :)

AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

Well written, well thought out. Only one point to offer around suffering.

If you posit that there is no god, then suffering is the result of life surviving on death. Without death life is impossible. Pain is an evolutionary development to tell us something is wrong. In the presence of these two facts alone, suffering is an inevitable part of life and chance alone determines whether you will or will not experience more or less of it. Clearly this is a supportable position.

Now posit that there is a god. (just for the sake of argument)

If you believe in a god that created everything and that god has a purpose for doing so, then suffering has to be part of that purpose.

If you believe in an immortal, undying part of the human being, immortal being forever, then the very short period of time that our lifespan represents in 'forever' is an insignificant part of our existence. Life could be absolutely hellish by our definition, but is less than an eyeblink on eternity. Can you imagine for a moment that you had a severe trauma that came and went in a nanosecond? What lasting affect could that have in your life? You would be hard pressed to even notice it.

The point is, suffering is an essential component of life, whether you're a theist, an atheist, or something in between.

Until and unless we evolve the moral,emotional and intellectual will to stop it occuring. (Enter hope!)


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

But Anton, you forget that God could create the universe any way he wants to - with or without suffering. So why choose suffering? I mean he could just as easily have put a light emanating from the part of us that has pain/problems. Or he could have granted eternal life for everyone right from the get go. Why all this half-assed creative creating?

AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago


Actually I haven't forgotten that some definitions of god ascribe that power ('anyway he wanted to') to god. That is sort of my point. If god exists and can create what he wants than THIS is what he wants. Why?

The only true answer to that question is, I don't know.

The point I am aiming at is that, given what we can observe of life, suffering is an integral part of it.

Any supposition that believes that a just god would not allow suffering is (I believe) missing that point.

Life as it has evolved includes suffering. If you believe in a creator you have no choice but to believe that the creator created the conditions for suffering to exist.

Now, why choose suffering?

One possibility:

Suffering (and pleasure too) are much more effective teachers than your light idea. Truly, your way would be much more benign, but the light can be ignored, rationalized away. We have lights now. for example, medical science provided the "Don't smoke." light decades ago (My dad ignored that one and died last year, it was only at the end that pain stepped in) Traffic lights, warning signs, things with no direct effect on our personal well-being get ignored all the time. Pain, pleasure, emotional well-being, they affect us on a level that cannot be ignored. Emotion is the teacher's best tool, divine or not. (no, I don't advocate the use of cruel punishment, but I am not tasked with educating the race of humanity for some future purpose either.)

As to granting eternal life. . .then how would we learn to value anything? If you came into the world with the sure knowledge of eternal life, what would loss mean to you? What steps would you take to prevent it?

Is it not conceivable that to an immortal being, the only way to learn to value is to be exposed to loss?

And again, is it lasting harm to have a lifetime of sorrow, when that lifetime makes up such a small portion of immortality? Athletes willingly go through serious mental and physical discomfort for less than 10 seconds of glory. We punish children, criminals, even family over a much larger period of life than life represents of immortality.

It is very likely that had I suffered like the rape victim mentioned above that I would have a whole different opinion. Emotion is a potent teacher.

Truly I don't know. It is the position of Christianity that god could have created any universe he wanted to and chose this way. (don't get me started on the 'its Man's fault' notion to exonerate god of the responsibility for his creation. That just doesn't make any sense at all, to me). If you believe in that god, then you have to believe that the universe is the way he wanted it. It then follows that suffering is a part of that.

Also, the fact that we clearly cannot know for certain must also be intended. Which means the not knowing for certain is also important for some reason.

Now, if you don't believe in a creator (just as much faith required as believing, although I accept that science is more compelling than any religion) then none of this is an issue. Suffering is a feature of life.

The rest is just chance.

Carl Sagan made a valid point (I paraphrase). "It would be a horrible tragedy if the world was destroyed by chance because we waited for a diety that may not exist." (bad paraphrase. Carl was much more eloquent)

Suffering is an essential part of life.

If you believe in a creator, you have to accept that either 1) the creator intended it or 2) the creator is not in total control of creation

If you don't believe in a creator, you still have to deal with suffering.

No matter what we believe, it will only go away if we make it go away. If we can't, then either we shouldn't, or we're just not capable.

again, enter hope!


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

I will agree that what you say has made sense. But I have watched babies die. They probably didn't suffer much and they sure didn't have an opportunity to learn the "value" of life. I just can't imagine having the power to make things well and beautiful and not using that power.

Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

"Life could be absolutely hellish by our definition, but is less than an eyeblink on eternity."

Yes but assuming this God is the all loving all knowing creator of the Universe would he not have EMPATHY? Would he not be able to understand that from our point of view having children get sick and die slow deaths from cancer or any other disease is intolerable and awful? See I have no problem with the idea that mortals can never understand God but what about God seeing where WE are coming from? You'd think after that whole Jesus incident God would get his shit straight.

Certainly suffering could have a purpose but not all suffering does. This is needless suffering, thousands of children starving to death every day, what PURPOSE does THEIR suffering specifically serve? Sure suffering itself might serve some general purpose, perhaps so that we even discern happiness at all, but needless suffering is what the issue comes back to for me.

Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

I suppose we are better off not knowing what "God's plan" is. Perhaps we should just have "faith".

AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

This next will be a bunch of 'perhaps' so please understand I am not saying that I believe everything I'm about to posit.

Austinstar, I'm feel for you that you have had to see babies die. (Okay, that I do believe) :)

It is the last sentence of that comment that opens a possibility:

"I just can't imagine having the power to make things well and beautiful and not using that power."

Consider then, that life, with all of its pain,(and pleasure too, lets not forget) has brought you to the place the creator intended. Assuming that you have an immortal role to play after life, I personally am happy that your immortal soul will do what is in your power to make things well and beautiful.

The babies' deaths have certainly been a part of that knowledge. It cost a hypothetical creator of eternity nothing to teach it to you (almost nothing. A tiny portion of several lives against their eternity) to create at least one soul that will do everything in its power to make things well and beautiful.

Do the babies get another chance at life? I don't know.

Are perhaps the babies' souls also the souls of those, who have determined, as you have, that our power should be used to create beauty, and allowed themselves to come into a cruel fate in order that you (and countless others) would learn such a lesson? (I think that's the biblical position of what Jesus is reported to have done) Remember, it only costs them an eyeblink.


God may have empathy. I submit that humans must learn it. I understand you feel that it is an instinct, but I don't think that precludes the necessity to develop it in humans. After all, I'm sure we both have met people who have an underdeveloped instinct for empathy.

Certainly I think any hypothetical god would understand that we find it intolerable (although as a race, we tolerate it every single day when we do nothing to prevent it, but that's another discussion)

Under this hypothesis, life isn't here to teach god anything. Life is here to teach us something.

Yes we wish for our lives to be better. Some pray to god to stop their suffering, the same way children beg their parents not to punish them in order to teach them

I'm sure most parents understand a trip to the dentist or to a doctor is uncomfortable and possibly torturous for the child,(thinking spinal tap for a three year old. Being the parent who has to watch that, even though we know it is for the child's eventual benefit has got to be its own kind of hell)

Now imagine a creator of nearly 6 billion souls, who needs each soul to take the measure of pain of suffering in order to develop their empathic instincts.

Now imagine this creator listening to all those crys of whys, of anger, of sorrow, and yet knowing that by taking action to prevent it, the creator would undo the very purpose of creation. This would take some kind of strength if this god was a loving god.

Again, the concept of needless suffering of thousands has brought you and millions of others to the notion that our inaction causes as much suffering as evil purposeful intent does. And everyone of those souls has an eternal role to play

Again, just a hypothesis. But I offer it to suggest that the presence of suffering does not preclude the existence of god. It only causes us to (rightly) question the nature of god. Which we are all doing.

Which is my home position. We were created to explore the nature of reality, not to know it, since the knowing would remove the value of having survived it. It is the fear of what is after death that creates in us the need to survive. (This is the whole subject of Shakespeare's 'to be or not to be' speech from Hamlet)

Anyway, offered as a position. Suffering does not demonstrate that god does not exist.

Although, Austinstar, I think questioning that reality is absolutely an essential part of the human experience. If faith alone were enough, we would not have been granted reason as well.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Anton, you need to be a hubber here at HubPages, please join today. You write very eloquently and present your ideas well.

Titen-Sxull's ideas mirror mine almost word for word, but I do enjoy reading about the "other side" of things.

AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

I thank-you, Austinstar. I'm enjoying (some might say obsessing on) the interaction here. We've all got a piece of the elephant. The more we talk, the better shot we have at building a working elephant.

I am planning to join hubs, once I get a better handle on how hubs itself works.

Thanks, Titen-Sxull for allowing me to drone on :)


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

It's a cool place. This is one of the better places on the web to write.

profile image

Rad Man 5 years ago

While I agree with Anton with respect to suffering and pain not offering proof that god doesn't exist, it does go a long way to making a convincing argument. Unfortunately it's probably impossible to prove that god doesn't exist, but that's not our job is it? The only proof of the existence god is the bible. Intelligent design failed. First, show people how flawed the bible is. I have nothing against religion except when it interferes with science and education or if it perpetuates racism or sexism. So my argument is not with the belief in god, it's with religions such as the various christian religions or islam because of their use of the bible or qur'an to perpetuate sexism. Way to go France for having a secular society and forcing women to go in public unveiled. The U.S.A. wants to be secular, but Christianity keeps creeping in. Canada is secular but doesn't want to upset anyone so they won't make a stand. Way to go France.

Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Sweet, I had heard that France was going to do that. I wish they would here in the USA as well. I don't care how modest someone is, they don't need to be covered in wool coats in central Texas when it 110 degrees outside. Try telling the Muslim men to do that - ha! How stupid. And 72 virgins? WTF?

Christians are just as bad. The Pentecosts make their women wear creepy dresses, no makeup, 3/4 sleeves and never cut their hair. Also stupid.

Strange how the scriptures always say that mankind was created naked. Duh! So what's the deal?

AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

Hi RadMan,

Okay this is just a quibble, but "the only proof of god's existence is the bible"?

There were theories/philosophies and religions that predate the bible and others that exist alongside it, and no book is 'proof' of anything. The book is an opinion of the writers.

I'm not sure 'forcing' women to go in public unveiled is a better solution either. Still someone else telling a woman how to dress based on a cultural prerogative. (No I don't favour the 'women must be unseen in public' stance of the religion in question, but I also haven't bought into the notion that I don't have the right to keep my face to myself either, regardless of the weather.

The face is not always the most reliable method of i.d. anyway. If that was really the concern, why not fingerprint, retinal scan, knuckle prints. These are all valid i.d. functions.

As long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't care how anyone dresses. If I need to know who they are and their belief says the can't show me their face, then lets sit down and talk about the issue, not simply decide someone is wrong because I'm the dominant government. That mentality created religion in the first place.


profile image

Rad Man 5 years ago

Hi Anton,

Do you have any (proof, for lack of a better word) of a God besides the Bible or Qur'an? I personally don't see these books as proof as they are filled with fallacies, but many that believe, believe these books are the word of God and perfect.

Look, I'm Canadian. I don't care how people dress either. Most of the time Canadian walk around in parka's anyway. It certainly is sexist to cover up your women and not do the same for the men. More on this later...

Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

@ Rad Man, I can't speak for Anton but I think his general point was that there were god concepts and deities that far pre-existed the Bible and Qur'an. There were also logical arguments that exist, such as the First Cause argument, that are not contingent upon any religious doctrine or specific religious god concept.

Of course such arguments are usually less than persuasive or logically flawed in some manner but the point is there are many sources of theistic belief besides religious texts.

Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

The notion of a god or gods appears to have started with early man worshiping fire. It cam from the sky in the form of lightning bolts and negative "proof" happened. If you prayed to the sky god and lightning did not strike you, then the "fire god" found you worthy enough to live.

As for telling a group of people how to dress in public, it's just a dumb way to control the populace. It's sad that so many people lack the common sense to dress how they feel like dressing and accepting those that want to dress a different way. Why is it important? Who the freak cares?

AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago


In this case you speak perfectly for me.

Rad Man,

I think you and I agree more than disagree, with the possible exception that I believe that there is more to my existance than can be currently measured by science. Granted this may be wishful thinking, hubris, ego, or just plain hope.

I'm also Canadian, so appreciated the parka notion. From the Yukon actually so at least in winter we are covered more than any religion could possibly dictate. I agree requiring anyone to dress the way you want based on their gender is flawed.

However, if I put on a dress, people look at me funny at least, and getting assualted is not unlikely. We've been gender differentiating dress in our culture since I've been alive at least (men don't wear pink, or dresses or lipstick and rouge). We don't legislate that, but the dress code is still pretty entrenched.

As to proof of god, nope no proof, but offer this instead.

If cause and effect are true of all things (observation supports the theory) then where is the thinker of the thoughts? (Deepak Chopra)

Science has successfully demonstrated that our thoughts are generated by neural activity. What it has not been able to do is determine the cause of the neuron 'firing'. Sure most neurons fire in response to other neurons, but what makes the first neuron fire? and where does that object/energy/sentience reside?

If its inside the body, science hasn't found it yet.

If its outside, where does it reside?

Does it need us or do we need it?

Nope not proof. Just interesting contemplation. If/when science discovers that, I think it will be closer to proving or disproving one or another version of god.


profile image

Rad Man 5 years ago

To Titen and Austinstar,

I completely understood Anton's general point that the concept of god existed before the holy books. I should have acknowledged that. It is a very good point. My point was that people perceive these books as fact and proof. Intelligent design has failed, see (The End of God, A Horizon Guide to Science and Religion) as science has filled in the gap Intelligent design used to try to disprove evolution. If you show fallacies in the holy books, no proof exist of Gods. I would love to believe in God again. Living forever in heaven sounds wonderful. Just because I want it doesn't make it so. Santa and the Easter Bunny are nice concepts as well. I only see proof that no god can exist. I'm okay with that. I'm not sad. I'd rather except the truth than live a lie. My children attend Catholic school and I don't share my beliefs with them. When they ask, I'll tell.

My point is, just because science has not found why neurons fire doesn't mean it's divine. It just means science hasn't found it yet. I bet there are those that do know.

Your neuron firing reasoning is interesting, and you're waiting for science to answer why we don't have all the answers. If a god existed and wanted to show us proof of his existence (is why the books were written) would he not have given you the answer to your neuron question in a holy book? Or something profound, like the exact dimensions of the earth. Instead we have something about land being held up by four pillars or stretched like a carpet or shaped like an egg even. Once again, if you disprove the holy books we have nothing but feelings or hope.

I do apologies if I make grammatical errors. Dyslexia will do that to you...

Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Grammatical errors aside, you have made some good points, Rad Man. God is a concept as FatFist and AKA Winston can attest as is Santa and the bunny. Good call.

AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

I've attempted this point in other comments so pardon if this feels repititious.

"I only see proof that no god can exist."

I would counter that you have seen proof that no religion is an accurate representation of any god you can believe in.

Okay, that sounds convoluted, but bear with me.

I have come to the belief that no religion has come up with an accurate representation of reality, and that it is impossible for any one religion to do so. Consider what has to happen before it can:

1)A human or group of humans has to reason, or find, or be told reliably (provably) the nature of reality and all its working parts (concepts, objects etc.)

2) A human or group of humans has to understand what they have reasoned, found or been told.

3) A human or group of humans has to successfully communicate to other humans what they have reasoned, found or been told

Candidly, I often don't understand a child, or someone who speaks another language, or a bear's aggressive behaviour. What are the odds I would understand a non-human intelligence with the society and technology available to the writers of, say the bible?

I don't think it is fair to dispute the Quoran (sp) with science and then say that god is therefore proven false. The most we can say is that my view of what science tells me is not consistent with the conclusions I have found in the Quoran, therefore I don't believe the Quoran. (or the bible, or the torah, or origin of species)

Just because the writer of the book got it demonstrably wrong, it doesn't mean that the inspiration that compelled its writing doesn't exist (also doesn't mean it does). It can mean that they didn't understand everything they were seeing, and substituted their own morals set down by society at the time. (Leviticus explained!! Eureka) (no, I'm just kidding)

"If a god existed and wanted to show us proof of his existence (is why the books were written) would he not have given you the answer to your neuron question in a holy book?"

This assumes that god wants or needs me to know for certain that god exists. What if god thinks it is necessary that I do not know for certain? What if that is key to the meaning of life?

If one believes in a god that created everything to a purpose, observation has to tell you some things that conflict with religion

1) There is not only one way. If there was, there would only BE one way. The god who created everything also created uncertainty by allowing everyone to have their own opinion

2) We are not meant to know, but to search. If we were meant to know, we would know, and curiosity wouldn't even be a concept.

And if I'm god and want my humans to search as a necessary component of life, then I of necessity give those humans two attributes:

1) Uncertainty

2) Curiosity

This is why I don't have an answer to the neuron question

And also why I search for it.

And the search is so much fun! Way better than having the answers!

(oops. Emotion again. Bad anton. bad. go back to the books that tell you how to behave. hmmm. Which books were those again?) :)


Learn Things Web profile image

Learn Things Web 5 years ago from California

"I’ve never heard anyone argue that there should be NO suffering if a good God exists."

I would argue exactly this. If God is all powerful then he can create things any way he wants. If God is good then he should only create goodness. Consider all of the creatures that will be hunted down, killed and eaten today. Someone who is good would not create a system where this has to occur. If a good God existed, I would expect no suffering. I don't see any purpose to it.

Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

You might have a point there. The question of how evil would even exist if such a God created the Universe does come up - in fact its arguable that not only would a good God create a Universe without suffering but that he would incapable of creating one in which suffering existed at all.

Learn Things Web profile image

Learn Things Web 5 years ago from California

Exactly. Someone who is perfect should be incapable of creating imperfection. As soon as they do, they would no longer be perfect. I think this is why the problem of evil is such a problem. We are told that God is all powerful. But then when the problem of evil comes up, we are told that God has limitations placed on him.

He had to do things this way because (fill in the reason). God had to send us through this life rather than creating us directly in Heaven because (again fill in the reason). But if God had to do things a certain way, it indicates that there are limitations on what he could do. If there are limitations, then he is not all powerful.

profile image

Rad Man 5 years ago

It's hard for me to wrap my head around why anyone would still believe in God as an adult. We could be arguing about the existence of Santa and it would be the same for me. It seems harder to me to believe in God then come to terms with my own mortality. I wanted to believe in Santa when I was eight but something was telling me that his existence is a lie. At twelve the same thing happen with my belief in God. It just seemed silly. Someone watching over us making sure we are good. Or else! Santa and God have the same message. At one point most of us should not need an eye in the sky anymore. I'm told less than 1% of inmates in the USA are Atheists. I didn't do the survey myself.

Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

@ Learn Things Web - The origin of evil was always one of my biggest questions back when I was a Christian. I was always told that Satan had been the first to sin and thus created it by making a choice contrary to God's Will. Doesn't make much sense for a perfect being to create an angel with the capability of being imperfect.

@ Rad Man - A lot of it has to do with indoctrination, faith can get planted so deep that it bypasses natural skepticism.

And yes Santa and God are very similar, I noticed that myself, but theists never see it that way when I explain the obvious parallels.

AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

Okay, this might seem like a quibble.


Kind of like saying 'spanking = murder'

I understand (I think) the point you are making, but equating the two is an oversimplification.

No one credits Santa with building the universe.

the reason why theists don't see the comparison is a result of their emotional response to the trivialisation of their belief system.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

I agree that saying the two were equal would be silly however I make the comparison only because the two are similar and both require faith to be believed in. I once made a list of their similarities:

God is a supernatural being.

Santa is a supernatural being.

God lives in Heaven but when we look up into space we don't see him or any evidence of him.

Santa lives at the North Pole but when we look at the North Pole we don't see him or any evidence of him.

God has supernatural helpers called angels.

Santa has supernatural helpers called elves.

God punishes the wicked for their misdeeds and rewards the righteous. He knows the inner workings of your mind and knows everything you do and say.

Santa punishes the naughty for their misdeeds and rewards the nice. He sees you when you're sleeping and knows when you're awake. He knows if you've been bad or good.

God can be prayed to in order to gain things. Ask and you shall receive.

Santa can be written to in letters. Ask and you shall receive.

God must be believed on Faith.

Santa must be believed on Faith.

God is offered money in the collection plate and will bless you for it.

Santa is offered milk and cookies and will bless you for it.

God can be in all places at once.

Santa can visit all houses in one night.

They have their differences of course but the similarities are pretty staggering in my opinion. And of course both must be believed on faith.

AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

It is clever, I'll grant you that.

One can find similarities in just about everything that is observable and since most doctrines, religion included, were designed to control rather than reveal, the behavioural similarities are not surprising (he knows you've been good, ask and you shall receive, you must believe to see, etc)

And I get that your point is 'why would you believe in something that is similar to Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny or the apparent favourite of the Hubs 'Flying Spaghetti Monster''

But surely you understand that comparing god to santa will create an emotional response in those who believe in god.

Surely you knew this when you made the comparison.

Knowing this, knowing that the comparison would bring emotion into the debate when you are counselling the faithful to remove emotion from the debate in favour of rationality seems to me a bit self-defeating.

Then (as many of these hubs do) it just turns into name calling and insults, direct or implied.

No one of faith will interpret the comparison as anything but calling them 'childish' at best, and 'stupid' at worst. Anyone who is approached that way will likely defend themselves and emotion will guide the debate, not rational thought.

I just don't think it is designed to further debate, but end it, tally up the points and go back to your corners to prepare another hub, and do it all over again as each side tries to recover from the insult they think they've been given.

I'm not assigning blame here, I just think that while the intellectual point is valid, it won't change minds, it will only make people become defensive and stop thinking.

Just a thought (though I'll admit a large and cumbersome one.) ;)


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 5 years ago from back in the lab again Author

I suppose they might perceive it as an insult. In no way do I think that the strategy of comparing God to Santa will cause any true believers to deconvert. You're probably right that most will react with emotion rather than reason but a few might power through that knee-jerk reaction and see what I have to say to support the comparison.

profile image

Rad Man 5 years ago

AntonOfTheNorth - I do see your point about Santa. Perhaps I should not have brought it up. It has been my experience that theists are very emotional to begin with. I think there brains are just wired that way. I am not very emotional, or at least less than some. I tend to think with logic. Why do some people raised with religion just stop believing as I did at a very young age. I discussed my thoughts with no one. Played around with ideas in my head for a few years, then said goodbye to religion. Then I married a Catholic... She after 20 years is starting to see the light. I never argue, I just show. Show them the parallels between Santa and God. Show them the abuse that catholics are experiencing from the vatican. My point is to show the knowledge and let them think for themselves. Let them use there emotions against the problems with religion rather than against the messenger. This get me into deeper water.

Paladin_ profile image

Paladin_ 5 years ago from Michigan, USA

Another excellent hub, Titen! From what I read of your quotes from Grayknight's hub, he's quite fond of bulding strawmen. Glad to see you have a high-powered flamethrower!

Rah128 profile image

Rah128 5 years ago from Southampton


Throughly enjoyed reading it and some interesting points of views witch you have nailed an i agree to myself..

Keep up the good work and the hopefuly the freedom of infromation is going to change the way most people think about religin and how they view the world.

Rah :)

profile image

Mklow1 3 years ago

I don't think atheism is inconsistent, I think it is negative.

Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 3 years ago from back in the lab again Author


Atheism is merely disbelief in gods, or the belief that there are no gods. It favors neither optimism nor pessimism. Many people believe atheism favors nihilism but the way I see it having a positive or negative outlook is something outside of atheism. I've met happy enthusiastic atheists and I've known some pretty miserable Christians.

For me realizing I was an atheist was liberating. Freedom from years of mental slavery, guilt and fear about a god that wasn't actually there. If you really think that escaping that mental prison is negative that's fine but for many atheists its anything but.

profile image

Mklow1 3 years ago

parva leves capiunt animas

Communism is also supposed to be about individuals working and sharing for the collective, but we see how that has turned out. Some things just sound great on paper, but don't pan out to well. As for atheism, I only see the negative in it's representatives and by your comments, you are on par with that.

I have been a Christian my whole life and I have never been a mental slave, felt guilty, or feared God. That sounds more like a personal issue because one projects on others what one feels.Your problems seem to stem from issues with people, not God, but you are young and easily influenced by others, no doubt.

Like most atheists, you are confusing your feelings for the church with whether you should believe in God or not. I wish you well on your journey. Good day.

Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 3 years ago from back in the lab again Author

"Like most atheists, you are confusing your feelings for the church with whether you should believe in God or not."

I'm not sure where you get this idea from because in almost all of my hubs I discuss logical problems with the existence of God, Biblical inconsistencies and immoralities, etc. I usually don't discuss people unless I am directly addressing the claims of a specific apologist or a doctrine endorsed by a specific subset of a religion. In no way was ANYTHING I observed at my church as a child instrumental in my becoming an atheist. The biggest contributor to my atheism was the Bible itself.

"I have been a Christian my whole life and I have never been a mental slave, felt guilty, or feared God."

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom - Proverbs 9:10

My yoke is easy and my burden is light - Matthew 11:30

Here Jesus compares his followers to cattle. Also in Matthew Jesus tells his followers that anyone who loves their family more than they love him is not worthy of him. Throughout the Bible God is personified as Lord and King of everything, a tyrant, you either give yourself to him willingly or burn in Hell.

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. - 2nd Corinthians 10:5

Every thought is taken CAPTIVE to the OBEDIENCE of Christ. You may not feel like a mental slave, perhaps a kinder and gentler version of Christianity was taught to you. The version taught to me was not kind, it was a fundamentalist variety. The issue with fundamentalism is that it follows the Bible quite closely, and the Bible is a horrid, immoral and barbaric book when taken as literal truth. Here's a great line out of God's mouth from the book of Jeremiah chapter 19

“‘In this place I will ruin the plans of Judah and Jerusalem. I will make them fall by the sword before their enemies, at the hands of those who want to kill them, and I will give their carcasses as food to the birds and the wild animals. I will devastate this city and make it an object of horror and scorn; all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff because of all its wounds. I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh because their enemies will press the siege so hard against them to destroy them."

Of course what keeps me an atheist is that there's no evidence for any gods. That verse about God driving people to canibalism wasn't out of the mouth of any God, it was written by men, as were all those ancient stories. It is difficult to appreciate mythology, however, when you have millions and millions of people that believe such tales are true AND that they tell of a "loving God" rather than a barbaric mythical storm God named Yahweh.

profile image

Mklow1 3 years ago

"Like most atheists, you are confusing your feelings for the church with whether you should believe in God or not."

I'm not sure where you get this idea from because in almost all of my hubs I discuss logical problems with the existence of God, Biblical inconsistencies and immoralities, etc. I usually don't discuss people unless I am directly addressing the claims of a specific apologist or a doctrine endorsed by a specific subset of a religion. In no way was ANYTHING I observed at my church as a child instrumental in my becoming an atheist. The biggest contributor to my atheism was the Bible itself.

On one hand you ask how I came to the conclusion that you are confusing your negative feelings of the church with your disbelief in God, and then in the last statement (below), you answer it for me. I am not a poker player, but I do realize that people always have a "tell" that they don't realize they have! lol In your first post, you told me all I needed to know about how you come to your conclusions, and in the last one, you only confirmed it.

"Every thought is taken CAPTIVE to the OBEDIENCE of Christ. You may not feel like a mental slave, perhaps a kinder and gentler version of Christianity was taught to you. The version taught to me was not kind, it was a fundamentalist variety."

I can tell you are very young and impressionable by the way you are stating other people's ideas, but in time, you will have your own. Good luck with that.

profile image

Rad Man 3 years ago

Mklow1, there is no need to be condescending.

profile image

Mklow1 3 years ago

I think it fit quite nicely because that is where the conversation has been led. I made a pretty valid point, although with a little flare.

Although he also made some condescending comments, I am pretty sure why you came to his aid and not mine. Birds of a feather tend to flock together.

profile image

Rad Man 3 years ago

Actually to be honest I only read yours.

profile image

Mklow1 3 years ago

lol. gotcha

profile image

Mklow1 3 years ago


To clarify much of that statement above yours, I did not put quotations in the right place, so much of that is Titans words and my response. The atheist dialogue is no doubt his.

Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 3 years ago from back in the lab again Author

"I can tell you are very young and impressionable by the way you are stating other people's ideas, but in time, you will have your own. Good luck with that."

I didn't become an atheist based on anyone else's thinking or ideas. As for simply dismissing me as "young and impressionable" that's a pretty presumptuous and premature conclusion. But I guess since you're such a wonderful judge of "poker faces" you can offer such little gems of insight.

profile image

Mklow1 3 years ago

Yes I can. One day you will grow up and realize I am right.

profile image

Rad Man 3 years ago

It's what happens in school yards when someone is losing an argument. They resort to name calling as a way of supporting their ego.

profile image

Mklow1 3 years ago

And there is always some instigator egging the fight on.

BTW, I never called anyone a name

profile image

Rad Man 3 years ago

Ahhhh, when you tell someone to grow up you are calling them... Let's not forget "very young and impressionable"?

profile image

Mklow1 3 years ago

Those are not names, they are adjectives, which is hardly name calling.

Is he not young? Aren't young people not usually impressionable?

Why do you feel the need to jump in to our discussion? You are getting like Troubled

profile image

Rad Man 3 years ago

"You are getting like Troubled" I'll take that as a complement although it was not meant to be one. You are now attempting to attack my character? There is no need for that in meaningful dialogue. Treat people with respect and discuss the topic, not the person. With that I'll leave you alone.

profile image

Mklow1 3 years ago

That was no more an intent on attacking your character than you saying I was being condescending or saying I resort to calling someone names and insinuating that I am egotistical. Keep in mind, you chimed in to me unprovoked, not the other way around.

profile image

Rad Man 3 years ago

Condescending is behavioural while impressionable and you're getting like... is a reflection on character. I'm hitting the "do not follow button". Bye.

profile image

Mklow1 3 years ago

You conveniently forgot about egotistical! lol

Wow. Some people's hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 3 years ago from back in the lab again Author

See telling me that I have to "grow up" and that I'm 'young and impressionable' would have made sense if I was a kid. But I'm 25, not 15.

I've been an atheist since late 2009. I've researched and believed in many forms of superstition and pseudoscience but I've yet to see any evidence. So I'm really unsure what you could mean by my needing to grow up, other than, as Rad Man says, you have nothing of substance to say and so dismiss me with senseless ageism.

profile image

Mklow1 3 years ago

First of all, being grown up isn't always about age.

Second, it's not that the things I say don't have substance, it is that you don't like to hear them. Big difference.

Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 3 years ago from back in the lab again Author

What was in your original comment "atheism is negative", okay, no substance there. If you want to join the discussion that's fine, but you can't accuse someone of being unable to listen when you really haven't said anything. Just dismissing me as "young and impressionable" or unwilling to hear what you have to say doesn't exactly move the discussion forward. We just go in circles with petty dismissals and insults until we're not even sure why we're talking to each other. If you want to have a discussion about religion or the content of this hub than by all means we can or we can agree to disagree.

I'd be glad to discuss the points of which we disagree. I may not agree with you, I may attempt to refute what you claim, but that doesn't mean I'm not listening.

profile image

Mklow1 3 years ago

It was not meant to have substance. I left a comment stating that opinion of atheism is that it is not inconsistent; it is negative. I was not trying to have a discussion. Last I checked, this was not a discussion board, it was a comments section. You chose to answer me by saying your opinion, which was that religion was like mental slavery to you and that is fine, I have no problem with that. But your answer is that you became an atheist because you had a strict upbringing which means you are confusing your anger with the church with there being no God. The fact that you are actually saying it but not realizing it has led me to believe that you have come to your conclusion because you have been easily influenced by someone or a knee jerk reaction and not from deep thought.

If you are so sensitive to other people's opinions, then maybe you should stick to writing on video games instead of the tough stuff like religion.

Ayhies 2 years ago

Fist of all, to all atheists, I adrmie your faith. Of course, I personally think it is misplaced, but anyone who can see the world I see and declare that there is no God has far more faith than I do, where it is relatively easy to come to the conclusion that God exists from what I see and experience.I see you hit on the concept of universal moral law, as C.S. Lewis does rather well in Mere Christianity (still one of my favorites), as a sign indicating the presence of an ultimate good that can only have been put into the heart of man by God. I, too, liked the Coca-Cola story. There are many signs, if you will, at least indicating the existence of something more than mankind.While I would not agree that atheists simply do not exist, I would say that the existence of atheists certainly does not mean that God does not exist. He can't be done away with , much in the same way that anarchists can not create a world without government (perhaps in this light, I do agree with your inital post, Heretic). True anarchists say we should not have a government, which is in itself a government. If there were no law, then the strongest of us physically, or the most wealthy, or most ruthless, would fill the void of government by default. There will always be a ruler, it is simply a matter of who, and how the government is carried out. Claiming there is no God is in the same way declaring yourself a God, in essence still having a God .it's just yourself.If this is your belief, then so be it. However, I know myself well enough to know that I am unfit for the throne.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article