5 Reasons That Atheism Is Stupid

Looks like it's time once more for a Christian site offering a list of why atheism is wrong/stupid... Up to bat this time is Therefore, God Exists.

What the Bible is expressing here is that the stance known as atheism is a foolish stance. To believe that God does not exist often leads one to deny fundamental aspects of reality. In this way, the Bible declares, the fool says that there is no God. In defense of this claim, I present 5 reasons that atheism is stupid.

But atheism isn't solely the belief that there is no God, or denial that there is a God. At it's root atheism is actual the lack of belief in God and not active belief that he doesn't exist.

1 – The existence of the universe.

Often, when asked to explain why they believe in the existence of God, people will find themselves just saying, “look around us.” They will cite the existence of the natural world as evidence for the existence of God. This is precisely what Paul did as well He said, (Romans 1:20) “For ever since the world was created, people

have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.”

That is because, if it exists, it must have an explanation, either, that it is eternal, or, an explanation beyond itself. Just imagine that you are walking along and you come across a ball. You wonder where it came from, and your friend says, “oh, it just exists, inexplicably.” Obviously, that would be ridiculous. But expand that ball to the size of the earth, or even the entire known universe. It still needs an explanation. That explanation cannot be natural, because nature cannot cause itself anymore than a man can be his own father. It must be supernatural, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Therefore, God exists.

What about God then? Where did he come from? The believer will simply say he has always existed and offer no evidence to back that claim up. The author is playing with semantics when they say that nature can not cause itself. Saying that the universe (what they are calling nature) can't be created by nature ignores that a natural cause here does not mean out in the woods somewhere, but that the cause follows the laws of nature. That's a huge difference. Furthermore, if a believer can simply claim that God always existed, why can't I just claim the the energy that comprises the universe just always existed?

Additionally, even if we grant that the universe was created, this doesn't automatically mean that God exists. Maybe instead of the Christian god, it's one of the many other creation deities. Or, the universe could be an advanced race's virtual reality simulation, or an alien's science project. There's no need to jump straight to the Christian god.

2 – The Big Bang.

Scientists have discovered that the universe does not just go back and back forever. But that it had an absolute beginning. The agnostic physicist, Alexander Vilenkin, said, “it is said that an argument is what it takes to convince reasonable men, and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the idea of a past-eternal universe. They have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”
He said ‘problem’ because atheists do not like the way the evidence points. If the universe had an absolute beginning, then it must have had a cause beyond itself, (unless you are willing to defend the idea that the universe just popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing – a scientific and logical absurdity). As the cause of nature, space, and time, this cause must be supernatural, timeless, and spaceless. Therefore, God exists.

Actually, he said 'problem', as in the sense of the next question that needs to be answered and researched. The idea that the Big Bang marked the birth of this universe, and that it doesn't go back forever is not new. Nor does it present a theological problem for an atheist. One reason is that atheists don't have to believe in the Big Bang. Also, we don't know what was before the Big Bang (at least not yet). Not being able to take our universe any further back doesn't mean that was the beginning of everything. There could have been another universe before ours. Perhaps it collapsed upon itself. Perhaps universes are cyclical.

Plus, as I've already stated, granting the proposition still wouldn't show that the Christian god is true. You'd still be faced with the task of establishing which god was at work, or if it was some other being entirely.

3 – The design of the universe.

In recent decades, scientists have discovered what is known as cosmological constants. These are elements of the universe, which if altered even a little, then life could not exist. 

Only life as we know it. Change the settings and a different kind of life may be the result. Lets not forget that we are a result of our surroundings.  To claim that the universe was tailored to us is putting
the cart before the horse.

The existence of intelligent life falls into a vastly small life-permitting range. To suggest that they came to be by chance is something like suggesting that the DMV’s random license plate system produced a plate that says “BOBISCOOL” for a man named Bob. It is overwhelmingly more probable that the cosmological constants are a product of design. Therefore, God exists.

Given enough Bobs and enough chances, this would eventually happen. It seems that the author is failing to grasp how many chances there were for life to take root. There are billions of galaxies, with billions of stars, and planets orbiting those stars. There are an almost endless number of chances for life to 'get it right'. The universe is an exceedingly huge place, yet only 0.0000000000000000000042% of it contains matter. This sounds like horrible design to me. But given that there are likely 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets just in the observable universe is it any surprise that everything was just right for life like us to evolve on at least one?

4 – The design of mankind.

The most common argument for design has been the design of biological organisms. Charles Darwin is said to have explained away this design with the theory of macro-evolution. He hypothesizes that organisms had a very simple beginning, and evolved to complexity. But what Darwin did not have access to was the DNA molecule. The first life, that he thought was simple, was not simple at all.

Not macro-evolution, just evolution. The distinction between macro and micro-evolution only exists in the desperate minds of believers who wish for any way to try and discredit the truth of evolution. And so what if Darwin didn't have the ability to study DNA? He did a damn fine job of making a tight case for natural selection without it. But why is the author bringing up DNA? DNA evidence actually goes on to only prove even further that evolution is an unquestionable fact.

The atheist biologist, Richard Dawkins, pointed out that a single DNA molecule has more information than 1000 encyclopedias. To suggest that this came to be by chance is something like suggesting that the Library of Congress came to be by an explosion in a printing shop. We all recognize that messages only come from minds. DNA is an extraordinarily complex message. Therefore, DNA came from a mind. Therefore, God exists.

Again with the ridiculous analogies... I suppose that they fail to realize there were precursors to DNA. Also, the 'information' in DNA is not information like in a book or on a CD. The information in DNA is not digital or analog information, but chemical combinations. These specific combinations result in different traits. It's like when you mix two chemicals together in science class to cause a reaction, albeit much, much more complicated.

5 – The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

Do I even need to respond to this one? It's pretty obvious that this one is not proof or an actual reason, but begging the question.

When most Christians want to express why they believe in Christ, they will say that he rose from the dead, therefore proving his claims. However, they are usually unable to prove that or provide any evidence for it. So, most people think that the resurrection is just something that one believes in by faith, or not.

 Probably because there is no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus....

But there are a number of confirmed historical facts that are best explained by the resurrection.

Like? This would be news to me, so do tell...

Historians have come to a consensus that the following biblical claims are true: Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea;

Except that there is no such consensus.

Jesus’ tomb was found empty;

A verified tomb of Jesus has never been found, let alone empty.

the disciples had experiences of Jesus alive after his death

Which is only recorded in the book making the initial claim. That is not evidence, but worthless circular reasoning.

and the disciples came to believe so strongly in the resurrection, as to be willing to die for the truth of that belief. 

Again, this is only recorded in the Bible. But even if it wasn't, it wouldn't matter. Believing in something strong enough to die for it doesn't make it true. The members of the Heaven's Gate cult believed so strongly that there was a spaceship behind the comet Hale-Bopp that would take them to Heaven that 39 committed mass suicide.

Most historians hold to these facts.

It would be nice if some examples were provided rather than empty claims, because I've found that the claim being made here is rather false. 

The best explanation of these facts, that makes the most sense of them, is that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Actually the best explanation is that the Jesus narrative was lifted from earlier myths and legends that are known to have existed and told anew. And seeing as to how these stories were believed in their previous guise, is the prospect of them being believed again very far fetched?

That is why the historian, Doctor NT Wright said, “As a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity, unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.”

How rich! 'Doctor' Wright hold degrees in theology and ministry. He is a former bishop, not a historian. He only looks through history through a Biblical narrative. Of course when you look at
things through a lens of the Bible being true, you will inevitably see things as he did. But what about the rise of every other popular religion through the years. Surely their rise can also only be explained by them also being true...

So what we have here is yet another vacant list. It makes a big claim, huge mistakes, and even larger assumptions. It doesn't prove God, but it does prove that some believers still have no idea what will.


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter