ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Atheism & Agnosticism

Rebuttal to "Sin, Denial and pride"

Updated on December 10, 2010


In this Hub I hope to offer a rebuttal to a Hub written by a Hubber called spiderpam. The Hub in question is entitled: "Sin, Denial and Pride: The atheist "logic" and can be found here:

I would have merely posted a comment or sent the user a message however both options were unavailable.

Any quotes or excerpts used fall under the Fair Use Doctrine of copyright law protected as comment and criticism.

Point 1:

spiderpam wrote:

"Is atheism really the logical way to view the world? Do they really have the monopoly on logic and reason? The answer is no."

My response:

1) Atheism is not a way to view the world. Atheism deals with one thing, the question of belief in a deity. Theists believe in a deity, atheists do not. The question of whether or not atheism is logical depends on what reasoning each individual atheist has used to come to their disbelief. Some atheists never adopt a belief in God, they remain atheists from birth to death, in their case logical reasoning about the god question may never even be necessary.

2) I agree that no one group has a monopoly on logic and reason.

Point 2:

spiderpam wrote:

"So what is it? Why can't atheist see the obvious? What is the reasoning behind denying common sense? What does the Bible say In Romans 1 18-32, the Bible talk about atheists and other skeptics (the irony here is if they were half as skeptical of evolution as they are of the Bible they would be born-again Christians)." (Emphasis Added)

1) I used to be a Creationist. I was vehemently skeptical of Evolution even after I'd lost my Christian faith I still refused to accept Evolution. So deep was the brain-washing that long after I'd left Church and religion behind I was still too stubborn and closed-minded to even look at any of the evidence for Evolution. My point is that Evolution and atheism have no correlation.

2) There are a great many born-again Christians who accept Evolution. Why? Because the evidence shows that Evolution occurs. Most Christians who accept Evolution believe it is to the greater glory of God that he would create in such a way, without the magical intervention seen in Genesis. There is no logical link from Evolution to atheism, both theism and Evolution can exist in perfect harmony. The only thing that Evolution is truly in conflict with is a literalist interpretation of Genesis.

Point 3:

"God made it evident to them" (Part of Romans 1:18-32 as quoted in spiderpam's Hub)

My response:

1) I used to be a Christian and during all those years nothing was ever made evident. I assure you that as an atheist God has made nothing evident to me.  The Apostle Paul, to whom Romans is attributed, is lying.

"For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever."

1) There is no evidence of a creator. Now obviously the Apostle Paul could not have known that since modern science did not exist in his day and information was so limited and muddled by myth and superstition as to be nearly useless. In that day and age it was generally held that the world was created by most people because there was no other explanation. God filled in the gap in their knowledge. Today we understand this as a fallacy known as the God of the Gaps argument.

2) I find the distinction between an All Powerful creator and his creation to be negligible, if he possesses all power and created all things than all things are an extension and part of him by definition. In the same way a painting is an expression and extension of the artist if a God exists we would be part of it. Also it is only logical to worship what DOES exist rather than what appears imaginary. Animals and plants, the sun and stars can all be seen and are readily available to human sense perception. I can go up to a tree or a bull and worship it and bow before it (not that I would mind you) however Yahweh is a bit harder to find and is, in fact, indistinguishable from the imaginary.

3) In these versus Paul mentions unbelievers as incurring wrath. This makes perfect sense. Of course they would want to threaten apostates and doubters with horrible vengeance, they want to keep people in the religion and one of the best ways to do that is to make people afraid to think for themselves.

Point 4:

spiderpam wrote:

"Denial is not evidence"

My response:

1) I agree, however atheists do not need evidence to disbelieve. Just as I don't need evidence that fairies don't exist to not believe in them I don't need evidence in god(s) to lack belief in them. The burden of proof is on whoever is making the claim. I don't need evidence that Santa Claus doesn't exist to discard my belief in him, the lack of evidence in his favor allows me to do that.

2) Most atheists do not make the claim that there is absolutely no god and those that do are a small minority known as Gnostic or Strong Atheists. The vast majority of atheists, including myself, are agnostic atheists. We do not pretend to know for certain there is no God (agnostic) but we lack belief in God (atheist).

Point 5:

spiderpam wrote:

"Sin: What it all boils down to."

My response:

1) If I wanted to sin as much as I possibly could I would remain a Christian at all costs. Christianity is a religion which states that an innocent man has died for me and that no matter how many sins I commit they are covered by his blood sacrifice as long as I say I'm sorry and believe in him. So if I want to escape responsibility for sin I would become a Christian. If I were a Christian it would be impossible for me to take responsibility and actually be punished for my wrongdoing because God would always forgive me.

2) As an atheist I don't need a magical being to tell me to be nice to people and I don't need the threat of eternal torment to not be a total jerk. We humans are social animals, we live in groups and societies. If I act like a jerk I will be treated differently than if I am a kind and loving person. If I commit horrible acts such as murder I will be arrested and possibly executed. In short I am responsible in the here and now to myself and to others for my actions and the effects my actions may have. There is no need for supernatural consequences in order to persuade me to behave as a good person.

3) In fact your own Savior, Jesus Christ, supports my assertion. Do Unto Others, the Golden Rule, never mentions supernatural consequences or sin and yet it is a fantastic moral rule to live by. If you want to be treated with respect you should treat others with respect. Jesus teaches many practical rules like that, ones that are not bound to any fire and brimstone bullshit but are based on the fact we are a social species who react to each other based on our words and actions or what our words and actions are perceived as.


The Hub in question does not present an accurate depiction of atheism and relies on ridiculing rather than presenting a logical or well-reasoned argument. The videos included in the Hub are almost laughable in the amount of straw-manning, quote mining and genuine lying the video-makers have done (however I don't hold this against the Hub author).


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Paladin_ profile image

      Paladin_ 5 years ago from Michigan, USA

      As always, another excellent hub, Titen!

      In particular, I wish to strongly disagree with one of your points and strongly agree with another. First, the disagreement:

      You stated in your reply to spiderpam's first point that, "I agree that no one group has a monopoly on logic and reason." With all due respect, I submit that most atheists are non-believers precisely BECAUSE they consistently apply logic and reason in their approach to discerning the truth. It's why they're atheists!

      As for my point of agreement, I find your reply to spiderpam's point 5 to be both brilliant and devastating! Who, more than a Christian, is able to freely sin? Who has more of a rock-solid guarantee that he (or she) will be forgiven for that sin? The believer has, in essence, a "get out of jail free" card. The atheist doesn't.

    • Titen-Sxull profile image

      Titen-Sxull 6 years ago from back in the lab again

      Thanks Learn Things Web :)

      An important thing to remember is that you can be a strong/gnostic atheist about some gods while remaining an agnostic/weak atheist about others. For example I am a strong atheist about Yahweh and Zeus while I remain an agnostic atheist for more nebulous deities such as those believed in by deists and pantheists. It's amazing how nuanced the issue can get :D

    • Learn Things Web profile image

      Learn Things Web 6 years ago from California


      I always love your hubs. They are so well thought out. And I just learned from you that I am a strong atheist. I hadn't heard that term before. I guess I'm a minority within a minority.