Rebuttal to reasons atheism is stupid

Sometimes I read an article and get incensed enough I have to write a reply, the below did that for me, don't worry they are the same arguments you have heard for years; http://thereforegodexists.com/2013/11/5-reasons-atheism-stupid-2/

Lets start with the opening, yes the bible says the fool has said in his heart there is no God... it also said; "anyone who claims another is a fool is in danger of hell fire" Matthew 5:22. So I guess that writer of Psalms and this writer are going to hell if it exists.
I shouldn't need to point out that an insult is the lowest form of attack, a simple ad hominem attack, with no merit. I agree that ideas need to be challenged and they can be insulted, but if you ever complain about someone calling your beliefs stupid then you have no right to put that label on someone Else's lack of belief... even if your beliefs include a talking snake, a talking donkey or a being who sent them self to earth to atone for their creations sin that offended itself, to appease itself so it wouldn't send its creation to a hell it created or allowed to be created... If we are going to go on stupid, surely buying the story of a virgin birth is stupid, surely buying the water into wine, walking on water, and the posthumous empty promise of punishment or reward is right up there with the stupidest things mankind has ever believed. But I digress, lets get into it.

1 - The existence of the universe.

Yes the universe exists, wow that must be proof of God... uh no, it would clearly be better evidence for the existence of God if we humans existed in a space that was not a universe, say a floating realm where all our need where met...

The analogy here with the ball is silly, we have explanations for how balls come into existence from existing matter, as do we for planets, stars, galaxies and the entire visible universe, they are all natural explanations. Sure the explanation for the initial conditions the singularity are not yet known, but it is more honest to start with "I don't know" and search for an answer than to start with "Magic pixies started the universe off" and then only look at things that confirm your assumption.

Therefore God is as likely to exist as universe creating pixies.

2 - The Big bang.

The universe contracting back and forth forever isn't quite settled, some evidence is pointing to that it may in fact be part of a multiverse. Regardless if all of this fails to bring sufficient evidence, you can't say "I don't know"..."therefore God", as this will put your God in the ever receding pocket of ignorance that its forebears occupied, ignorance such as Thor being responsible for lightning (sorry Thor, you are totally the reason for lightning), a giant wolf eating the sun during eclipses, and the earth being held aloft by a giant tree.

Atheists I know are happy with whichever way the evidence points, atheists like Bill Nye and Matt Dillahunty have both said all it would take to convince them that their position on God/s is wrong is evidence, theists like Ken Ham just said nothing could convince him his position is wrong, which is more intellectually honest.

So again to take your argument and give it undue merit, lets say the universe had a definite beginning 13.8billion years ago, not the 6-10,000 that creationists argue, not the length of time humans have been around as a literal interpretation of the bible suggests, but 13.8billion years ago. OK, so what, it doesn't have to have a supernatural cause, everything so far observed has had a natural cause why should this be any different. There are plenty of possible causes from quantum mechanics to the bounce theory of universe inflation deflation, all of them infinitely more likely than a timeless, spaceless pixie... sorry God.

Therefore God is as likely to exist as universe creating pixies, which are both a lot less likely than natural causes we have observed.
3 - The design of the universe.

There is a bit of an argument to authority here, just because one previously atheist cosmologist now believes in God, doesn’t mean there is any evidence in modern physics or cosmology to point to God. In fact to counter your argument to authority with an argument ad populum (argument to numbers), 70% of the USA’s national institute of science, doesn’t believe in a personal God, Hawking has said God is un-needed and Victor Stenger has written a very good book debunking these cosmological constants need to be just perfect for life to exist. The truth is we just don’t know, life could actually be more likely in a universe with different constants, or it could be worse, we don’t have another universe accessible to us with these different constants in place in which to test your hypothesis that life is only viable in universe with constants with these particular values.

No one is suggesting that life came about by chance, no biologist or physicist I have ever spoken to is that naïve. Natural selection seems to be a driving force for biological life. The constants being the way they are may not be chance, they may not be able to be any different. There is a principle called the anthropic principal, which basically states that the universe is capable of supporting life because we are here to observe it, eg I have seen these arguments before, because I tend to read websites with these arguments. It would be more amazing and confounding if we existed in world incapable of supporting life, or if everywhere was capable I mean the 99.999% of the universe that is extremely hostile to us the vacuum of space, the radiation… if all that was not there and the entire universe was habitable then your argument would hold more water, at present it is weak.

My favourite quote on this is from Douglas Adams;

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in -  an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.”

The universe doesn’t appear at all designed for us, surely if it were designed for us the entirety of space would contain breathable air, no deadly radiation. It is as likely for a God to exist that created the universe like this as it is for a tornado to whip through a scrap yard and build a 1979 Valiant charger.

4 – The design of mankind.

We don’t know what the first life was, just like a lot of first things they aren’t around anymore. The other issues is microscopic weak early cells don’t fossilise or leave much of a trace. Darwin was likely right, the first life was likely simple, probably not even DNA at all, but RNA like viruses that contain half the information that DNA does. I am no biologist, but they are currently looking at non-biological replication, such as rusts and the like that are leading us to some interesting conclusions. Again why does life have to start with a supernatural cause, when every other thing we have witnessed gets started with a natural cause.

Yes Dawkins is right a single DNA molecule has a lot of information, but he didn’t suggest that just popped into existence one day, that is the theists claim. He proposes as do a whole swath of scientists investigating abiogenesis that life took millennia to form even the simplest of single celled bacteria. DNA is not data, or code or a message. It is just chemistry writ large, it only has a code that we have assigned to it, a message due to the way we or amino acids interpret it. Therefore DNA didn’t require a mind, just as chemistry doesn’t, therefore God doesn’t need to exists.

5 – The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

Which historians have come to a consensus that Jesus even existed. A consensus means all the historians agree, this is simply false; there are plenty as listed below;

These all have their own cases, the Nazareth bit of the name is supposedly a town, that didn’t exist till well after Jesus’ death, the time line in the gospels is wrong, the story inconsistent between the gospels, as well as known forgeries and additions, look up “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” for some fun, a section that there is almost consensus on it being a forgery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Saying that the willingness to die for ones beliefs validates them is also wrong, the suicide bombers the world over are willing to die for their beliefs, the Romans fought and died for their Gods as did the Greeks, Egyptians and others.

Again an argument to authority here, a historian can’t explain the rise of the popularity of Christianity unless Jesus rose from the dead… I can’t explain the rise in the popularity and wealth of the Mormon church unless Joseph Smith did get those golden plates and speak to the angel Moroni, I can’t explain the rise of Islam so quickly across the middle east unless Mohammed did speak to the angel Gabriel. These are erroneous arguments, the popularity of an idea even the quick rise in popularity does not lend any credence to the claim.

Not all of the previously mentioned claims of religions can be true, but they can all be wrong.

The best idea is to way the existing evidence for a claim with the logical possibilities or impossibilities of that claim, say if I claim I have a mobile phone. It is not that impossible a claim so you may accept it out of hand, say I am God and you can see the logical impossibilities in this statement (why do I bother working, why aren't I killing the first born of Egypt etc), and you can also weigh this with the fact I have given no evidence of my God-like abilities and you can dismiss my claim. This is all that an atheist does with religions.

The cult of personality

The cult of personality is something I have noticed occurs all over the world, it is similar to Hero Worship, but has the added layer of being spread by propaganda and an added reverence for the individual at the centre.

First some definitions, the Cult of personality is typically defined as when someone uses methods to make an idealised hero or god-like persona ascribe to a person, this is usually done through mass media or propaganda.

Religion we know does this, people dare not question anything an Imam, Pope or archbishop says. They use their media reach and personality to get noticed and get their word out by any means necessary. Take a look at the pontifs twitter, every evangelical tv channel worldwide, including the international channels operated by the likes of the Mormons and the Seventh Day Adventists, and every Sunday morning hell that is tv evangelists.
Though some cracks are starting to form, in the Catholic Church polls have shown people disagree with what their clergy have said, but the question here would be how they were asked this very important question. For example do you support the use of contraception, the answer you may get would be fairly positive. However ask a Catholic, do you think the churches stance on contraception is correct, and you would get a similarly positive response. This is similar to the break aways in more liberal protestant denominations, removing the dietry requirements or the requirement for a literal 6000 year old creation interpretation.
This all comes down to the inability to see their hero, in this case the church as doing anything wrong.
References: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/us/poll-shows-disconnect-between-us-catholics-and-church.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality
In religion the cult of personality is rife; this is usually how a religion starts. Put yourself in the place of an uneducated peasant in the early first Millennia CE, someone tells you a story of a hero who took all your sins upon himself, committed miracles, and promised you ever lasting life. You may be convinced, and you would hold the person in those stories in the highest of regard. This behaviour over generations leads to a reverence that no being has ever earned.

For modern day examples look at the Guru's in India and you can see that they build followers via stories that are built up about them. These Guru's perpetuate and have stories made up of miracles they have performed, revelation and prophecy they have fufilled and divined.
A good documentary on how this is done is Kumare, where an American of Indian decent decides to run an experiment on some people convincing them he is a Hindu Guru.
These Guru's cash in big time and build rules up to stop them from being questioned, rules that given time would lead to the idea of infallibility or making a death sentence seem a sane punishment for simply asking a question. Does this sound like any other religion?


The very slow loading page http://www.siliconindia.com/news/general/SuperRich-Spiritual-Gurus-of-India-nid-110419-cid-1.html shows how much these Gurus can amass, just in case that no longer loads.

Guru	Worth RS crore	Worth RS	Worth $AU
Baba Ramdev	INR 40,000.00	INR 400,000,000,000.00	$7,044,840,000.00
Mata Amritanandamayi	INR 1,500.00	INR 15,000,000,000.00	$264,181,500.00
Sri Sri Ravishankar	INR 1,000.00	INR 10,000,000,000.00	$176,121,000.00
Asaram Bapu	INR 350.00	INR 3,500,000,000.00	$61,642,350.00
Gurmeet Ram Rahim	NA, but some 250 Ashrams world wide, a chain of petrol stations across India, a hospital and 705 acres of prime agricultural land are all owned by this Guru.

The lead Guru there Baba Ramdev is reportedly worth over $7 billion Australian dollars at current exchange rate of 1rs buying $AUD:0.0176121 (source http://xe.net)

Look at the cargo cults of Polynesia, with the character who probably never existed, John Frum.
John Frum was supposedly a soldier or civilian who was an incarnation of an existing Polynesian god, who possibly during a Kava-induced vision told a prophet that he was going to return and on his return all non-natives would be exiled from Vanuatu and the natives would receive the cargo to get them to the level of wealth of westerners. John Frum is supposed to come back on February 15, he has his profits including one man who talks to Frum on a radio, a wire wrapped around an old woman who blathers uncontrollably as he talks to her and tries to discern what Frum is communicating to them. But there is a reverence for Frum, reverence in their marching and flag raising ceremonies, and in their painstakingly created uniforms and adornments. So much reverence that a man that claimed to be him was imprisoned, publicly humiliated and eventually exiled.
References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frum#cite_ref-6


This reverence for a mere human being should not be done under any circumstances, sometimes it is hard with some people commanding such power and charisma that you want to give it to them. But I am sad to say I have witnessed it in non-belief. There are secular people who revere the Tony Robbins of the world, there are secular people who even show reverence for the more likely suspects of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss, AC Grayling and Stephen Fry, maybe I am just being conceited but I think I have even been on the receiving end of this special treatment. Being recently given possibly better than deserved scores at a debate group. I think this reverence and special treatment shouldn't happen.
These revered shouldn't be questioned in some people's eyes, all they have are good ideas. But they don't just have good ideas, they are fallible like the rest of us, so should be questioned just as stringently if not more so.

I know this is an anecdote but it is an important one. When going to GAC (Global atheist convention) in 2012 after the first mornings introduction I starvingly raced out to get some food, wandering around looking for something that my fickle tastes would enjoy I saw Richard Dawkins. I had only seen him two days prior at the when I went to get my Magic of Reality books signed for my kids after the "Something from nothing" event at Sydney Grammar School. I was actually a little disappointed at this signing as I wanted my kids names in the books for them to have when they were older, if anything it reduces their on-sale-ability, but I digress.
At this event I had been excited to see them both, and felt I had to ask Lawrence Krauss about his pin that looked like the ever famous xkcd comic, it turned out it wasn't but he admitted to being a reader. I was a little let down with Richard Dawkins as he seemed a bit grouchy, but like anyone under the spell I equivocated and said that perhaps he was jet lagged.... although Krauss didn't appear to be.
So back to the GAC, by this stage my star-struckness had lessened somewhat having spent lunch helping AronRa fix problems with his phone. So even though I saw Richard Dawkins I decided not to intrude as he appeared to be on the same quest I was for food, but I was struck by the way I saw a person approach him at that moment. This person had hunched themselves over with hands folded into themselves, and in an almost ceremonious way approached Richard Dawkins, I thought wow, this is hero worship in the extreme, I thought to get my camera out but decided against it and I noted it in my head to write about later.
Later in GAC I remember someone commenting on how they forgot to call him Professor Dawkins, and how disappointed in themselves they were. Again odd behaviour, he is not your professor, sure he is a Professor, he is also an ape just like you so give him the same respect you give yourself.

On to another anecdote, this time from someone with more exposure to non-believer thought, Sean Faircloth and his recent jaunt in Australia.
In fact the reason I decided to hold the pub night, was in an attempt to dispel some of this Cult of personality, and hero worship that we see. I think seeing him as a human, just as prone to the effects of imbibing alcohol as the rest of us, may have gone some way towards that.
I mentioned this very talk to him and we had a good long chat on the way to the social from the far side of Hyde Park. He mentioned that on the Richard Dawkins page there have been several instances of this blind following of the exalted leader. For example if he posts an article about climate change or gun control he will get hundreds of messages of derision, some calling for his dismissal from the page as admin. The funny thing is as he puts it, Dawkins is fairly liberal and believes in climate change and gun control but these people commenting can't bring themselves to accept that they disagree with their replacement deity on anything.
Yes I said deity; I think the worship may have started to get to that level.

It is even evident in the general public, a number of times I have been asked after revealing I am an atheist "oh you must follow that Dawkins guy" or "oh you must love that biologist from England". Yes I think he has done some wonderful work in popularising science and bringing atheism to the masses, but he is not the bee's knees.

I disagree with Dawkins. 

It is a rather minor disagreement in the grand scheme of things. But it maybe that I am seen to disagree with a lot of people, even people reading this. I think evolution is important, I think our origins via Abiogenesis and evolution are of extreme importance, and I think popularising science is important. But I don't think evolution should be that big a deal. At least here in Australia very rarely do we actually meet someone silly enough to not have been taught evolution, and not to take it as the fact that it is. I think it is to some extent a dead horse, but then again biology has never held my interest for a great deal of time... unless it is reproductive biology of course.


To move on to the next of the worshipped heroes of atheism, Christopher Hitchens. A more eloquent and finer debater will never be met. The issue that arises now with Hitchens is one of his death; he is being remembered with increasingly more and more rosy glasses.
But he had his flaws, everyone even his most ardent worshippers will point to his death as his smoking and drinking, these are things I actually don't disagree with him on, it is his body he can do what he wants to it, as long as it doesn't harm another I don't care, and I support his right to do so.

I have witnessed people talking of Hitchens in hushed tones with hope to not offend anyone, I am sure he wouldn't want it this way, I am sure he would want us to fight against even irrationality in him even post-mortem.


I do disagree with Hitchens.

So there are points of disagreement with Hitchens, some I think are rather large. Nothing that would stop me reading his wonderful works. That is not how I think freethinkers should work. I once had a colleague that told me he could no longer read a particular author of physics because of the authors professed atheism. I find this absolutely stunning, it would be like me saying I can no longer enjoy the Nania chronicles as they were written by CS Lewis a Christian apologist and even written as an allegory to Jesus and God, absolute rubbish, they are fantasy just like the stories they were based on.
So back to Hitchens, most will say he was wrong to support the war in Iraq and while there was very little evidence for WMD's there the liberation of the Iraqi people seems to have been a goal and I can see support for that to some extent. So I am mixed on at least this most polemic of points.

No I disagree on Hitchens and his borderline misogyny.

No not the Hillary Clinton issue, which in context makes sense, she was kind of playing up her gender to get and maintain a spot in the race. Hitchens said she was seen crying during the primaries where she lost a state and commented, that you would never see Maggie Thatcher sinking to that emotional level.

Hitchens was a pro-lifer which I believe is removing a woman's right to choose what happens with her own body. Of course he makes the mistake that most abortions happen in the first trimester when the foetus has a chance at being a human, has little to no brain activity and very little nervous system ability. He unfortunately buys the anti-choice crowds idea that brain waves start at 8-weeks, when in fact the study that claimed this was found faulty and taken out of context and more recent studies show that bursts of Neural activity start around 12 weeks, but normal brain patterns don't start until after 22-28weeks.
There is also the issue of abortion saving an adult life at the expense of an undeveloped foetuses life, but let's leave it there as I don't want to make this a discussion about pro-choice.
I also disagree vehemently on the women can't be funny article he controversially published. Women can be funny if Julia Sweeny's excellent stand-up show "Letting go of God" or almost every "Garfunkel and Oates" song ever are anything to go by, sorry but this one is a little vulgar but I had to share. I think this is a little of his possible superiority complex leaking out, but then again he is superior to me in dictation, so what do I know.

References: http://mediamatters.org/video/2008/04/05/on-tim-russert-hitchens-asserted-clintons-actio/143122
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/01/hitchens200701
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211008852
http://www.svss-uspda.ch/pdf/brain_waves.pdf
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/8/947.full
http://www.salon.com/2011/05/26/abortion_saved_my_life/

Another person who gets revered even more possibly since his passing is Carl Sagan. A great man and incredible science communicator. He had the gift of eloquence, passion for his subjects and knowledge of science to back it up.
In fact this talk and article in part came about due to his book "A Demon haunted world" where he points out where and when he was wrong to make himself more human to those who would read his book.

Yet I disagree with Carl Sagan.

As people who know me will attest I am a massive Carl Sagan fan, I have read many of his books, sport t-shirts with quotes from him on it and love me some Carl Sagan Symphony of science or pale blue dot for when I am feeling a little down.

But yes I disagree with him on a definition. A pretty big one, he didn't say he was an atheist, he said  "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."
He either made this distinction as he feared coming out as an atheist, or he simply didn't research the word well enough. Atheist, from the Greek meaning godless. From his own descriptions on God he like me would be an agnostic atheist.

Refferences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#cite_ref-USCatholic_52-0
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

Another person I admire greatly is Lawrence Krauss. I have read several of his books, also have shirts with quotes from him on it, and will tell anyone who will listen of sitting down to have a drink with him and discussing physics during GAC 2012. Yes this one on one activity brings a person down to your level, but maybe it doesn't quite do it.

Yes I disagree with Lawrence Krauss.

Lawrence Krauss thinks we shouldn't send people to space to some extent, he has had this argument with the director of the Hayden Planetarium Neil deGrasse Tyson. Tyson thinks we should send people as it inspires people, Krauss thinks the risk is to high versus the reward and that we should just send robots to do the science for us. I think we are going to have to move elsewhere in space to give our species a redundancy and chance of surviving, as Carl Sagan said it is our duty to the universe, as we are a way for the universe to know itself.  Plus some science that we will want to do requires human ingenuity, something robots just don't have and likely won't for a long time.
References: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-the-dream


One final example a person I do find inspiring, and someone who I find myself agreeing with a lot. Stephen Fry.

But I don't disagree with Stephen Fry, I just see his human failings.

No I have yet to find anything to disagree with him on, he damn well corrects himself the next week whenever he is wrong on QI, but the way he has written his biography "Moab is my washpot" he has humanised himself. He has humanised himself talking of how he cruelly as a pre-pubescent boy convince a younger boy Bunce to take the fall for him and receive the cane even when Fry himself would receive it as well. This brought him down in my eyes to the flailing mess that the rest of us are.


So my advice to solve this problem of hero worship and the cult of personality is to bring them down to your level, meet with them as I have tried to do. Dispel their power by reading of their failings, they are sure to have them and look for areas of disagreement with someone you respect, and be grateful when you find one as it is said "If you always agree with everything someone else says, then one of you is unnecessary". Don't revere a person as reverence is never warranted for a person and rarely for an object or place and most importantly remember times when you were wrong and be happy and gracious when someone points out you are wrong as I hope people will do on this talk and remember you are also a human like all the aforementioned and unmentioned great thinking heroes so you, like they make mistakes.

Slide deck and talk to come...