Home > arguments against the Bible > Stupid anti-Christian logic: ‘If I don’t see it, it must not exist’

Stupid anti-Christian logic: ‘If I don’t see it, it must not exist’

I realized about 30 mins ago that those who don’t believe in God mere because they can’t see him, have that attitude towards other amazing things  too. It’s obviously a bitter childish response to God not giving them their way and showing them whatever they want to see. They think they can anger and annoy him into doing what they want him to do. That is why there are so many “Skeptics”, people who disbelieve anything amazing, or in a great change, at least what they think is amazing or a great change. Evolutionists are very arbitrary with their skepticism:

They believe in the amazingly long existence that the universe and Earth and the living things on Earth have had, including living fossils and millions of years old organic matter surviving still with moisture in it and DNA, and in massive catastrophes which killed trillions of animals leaving sea fossils all over the world (but not a worldwide flood!), all things they’ve never seen and have a far far less of a chance of seeing than a creationist has of seeing what happened for the past 6,500 years according to the known odds. An despite knowing that there are many living fossils, these evolutionists declare any animal they find int he fossil record that they don’t know exists as “extinct”. This is because of their abhorrence for truth that contradicts their belief that God had anything to do with the universe, at least beyond causing the their imaginary Small Bomb to make a big universe-sized explosion (which of course they witnessed in person tens of billions of years ago; not). They sense or know that living fossils contradict their faith that God doesn’t exist or has not created anything, and in their hatred they try to forget the evidence that refutes them, the evidence that angers and annoys them, and so they forget that just because they haven’t seen an ancient animal alive, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. They even know that animals which once existed recently, but which they declared extinct, have sometimes been rediscovered, and yet not even that shuts the majority of them up.

How stupid of them, knowing that there are living fossils all over the world, to say, “This millions of years old animal and plant is extinct, because we haven’t seen them, we evolutionists who usually don’t study written historical records, and who often deliberately ignore sightings of living fossils.”

  1. December 29, 2009 at 8:32 PM

    Whether your misrepresentation of the atheist point of view is intentional or unintentional, I don’t pretend to know. You should be made aware, however, that when you describe atheists as you have in your post, you commit the same intellectual sin that many atheists are guilty of when describing those of faith. Just as all Christians are not ignorant, superstitious, small-minded cowards, all atheists are not intolerant, stubborn, spiteful grinches. I would challenge you to quote one single, notable atheist as justifying their non-belief on the grounds that “if they can’t see it then it doesn’t exist”. That’s just stupid. There are plenty of things that we can not see which atheists do not deny the existence of–atoms, magnetic energy, even the wind. The problem that atheists have with the existence of God is that there is absolutely no evidence at all–in any form–that supports the existence of God. None. The only evidence that God exists is a work of two thousand year old fiction and the argument that if science can’t currently explain it then it must be God–the God of the Gaps argument. I’m not going to convince you that God is a fiction and you’re not going to convice me that he’s real. I have no problem with that intellectual stalemate. The problem I do have is when someone on either side of the argument decides that the only way to further their viewpoint is by making the other side sound ignorant or willfully stupid. I would propose that this isn’t true of the atheist OR the Christian–but considering what we DO know about the universe, willfull ignorance is not a rhetorical device that you, as a Christian, should attempt to employ for fear that the weapon could be turned much more effectively upon you.

    • December 29, 2009 at 10:23 PM

      I don’t argue with ignorants. It’s obvious you are from the “Whether your misrepresentation of the atheist point of view is intentional or unintentional, I” I saw. You can make mere claims all you want, but they don’t make you right. Learn what evidence is, look up the meaning in a dictionary, and stop assuming things about me and anything else. Just because you don’t see what else I’ve said or done, doesn’t mean I haven’t done it. I have searched for the truth about God and religion, and atheists and their philosophies and beliefs, and have found and understood them well enough to know if the Bible is true or false and most of it’s basic and hard teachings, with the exception of only the very hardest symbolism, and the details of every word in the original language. You’re obviously way behind me in that. You rejected the very obvious and plain correction I gave you in this short journal entry, assuming that I don’t know anything because you only read a little of what I said, and because you feel you know more about religion than me.

      I quote you liars, and you liars claim that I misrepresent you. Stupid. All the accusations, that you liars make, are hypocritical lies, you always accuse those who love God of the very thing you are doing: always lying in hypocrisy, or that the sins we commit are much greater than your breaking of your own arbitrary ever-shifting twisted rules of convenience, and you always make your false hypocritical accusations without any evidence. That is the way of the hypocrite and the liar. That is how you live your life. So it is you, who misrepresent yourselves by pretending that you are to be honest, good, pretending to want the truth about your beliefs and God to be known, and often deluding yourselves into thinking you are honest, good and want the truth to be known, or better than Christians or better than those who believe that the universe was created by a being wiser than you.

      Babblers like you claim that it’s arrogant to think that we are alone in the universe (and as usual based on your personal unscientific morality of convenience), yet you are blind to your own arrogance when you claim there can’t be anyone wiser than you or wise enough to come here from another planet. God-deniers are insane.

  2. December 29, 2009 at 11:10 PM

    Daniel, I took your advice and looked up the word “evidence” in the dictionary. If you’ll indulge me for a moment…

    Evidence–noun. “that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.” Random House Dictionary 2008

    When I said that there is no evidence of God’s existence, I meant just that–none. I never said that there was no evidence of any element of the Bible. There can be a flood without a Noah. There can be a Pharoh without a Moses. There can be a bible without a God. There is no evidence for the existence of a supreme, all-knowing, all-seeing, personal God that answers prayers and takes an interest in the lives of individual human beings. None. At all. Ever. Anywhere.

    With that being said, I would urge you to read my comment again. I wasn’t debating the existence of God with you. I say he’s fiction, you say he’s fact. We’ll have to agree to disagree. I was simply telling you that when you lump all atheists together with some derogatory label, you are doing the same thing that you don’t want them to do to you–you are stereotyping. Not only is that disrespectful, but it’s not accurate. You did the same thing in your reply. I can’t count the number of times you used the word liar (or some derivation thereof) in your rambling, barely comprehensible, stream-of-thought retort. Who lied? What did I lie about? I made no claims and therefore could not have told any lies. “God-deniers are insane”. Really? Is that what you call respectful discourse? If name calling is the best you’ve got, perhaps you should pray for some better rhetorical tools and call me when your God replies. I’ll be the guy in the corner turning blue from holding my breath.

    • December 31, 2009 at 9:30 PM

      Just one dictionary? Or should I read on and see that you consulted multiple dictionaries, rather than went for a quick shot attack? You should have started out peaceful, it would have motivated me to read more than just the first sentence of whatever you say. Besides, those on your side are always telling me things as long as your replies are “so many paragraphs”, “TL / DR”, or “rant” or a “book”. Or would you like to tell me that’s a misrepresentation too despite those being their exact words? Yes, yes I know not everyone is as lazy as that whom you side with, but you clearly one of them being that you made that “misrepresenting” comment, showing you have little life experience or ignore the utter obvious, daily.

      Oh and, you think I’m bad? See what happens when you post Christian replies against atheists and pagans in answerbag.com and answers.yahoo.om, your replies will be deleted immediately, and soon after if you keep making them, you will be banned, and sometimes your email account. But I’m the one who hides the truth you and your group says. I don’t think so.

      • December 31, 2009 at 10:36 PM


        If it helps, I’ll keep this very peaceful and concise. If you would stop being angry for a moment and actually read what I’ve written, you’ll see that I am in no way trying to convince you that you should abandon your faith in God. I’ve stated several times now that neither of us is going to change the other’s mind on the issue of God’s existence. I have simply been trying to say that it is unfair and counterproductive for either side to make blanket statements about the other as if there are two homogenous camps of believers and non-believers out there that share a common ideology and personality. You keep talking about what those on my “side” have said or done. I have no side. I have no camp, no army, no coalition. There is only me. I’m not part of an organized movement against you. I simply read your post and thought that you were being a bit presumptuous about what ALL atheists are like. You DID misrepresent the atheist viewpoint. I know because I’m an atheist and I don’t believe the things you said. See, simple.

        Also, your replies aren’t doing you any favors. Your grammar and sentence structure make what you write nearly impossible to plod through and the points you make have nothing to do with the conversation at hand. I have no idea what “TL/DR” even means or what the length of my paragraphs have to do with anything.

        Lastly, I’m sorry if other atheists have treated you badly on other sites. Perhaps it has something to do with the incredible amount of anger that comes through in your posts. You will find that people generally respond in kind. However, I make no assumptions about your life experience, work ethic, education, or truthfulness and I would appreciate it if you would extend me the same courtesy–it just seems like the Christian thing to do.

  1. December 29, 2009 at 10:04 PM

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: