Proof From Atheist Absurdity

Atheist Church

Over at John C. Wright's blog, Basic atheist Ilja Deifts copiously demonstrates why no one takes atheism seriously anymore.

The verbal onanist spews quite a torrent of sophistic effluvium, so I'll just hit the high notes from his smug, effeminate efforts to rebut Mr. Wright's argument against an infinite regress.

First up, our very own D.J. weighs in.

As always, an #IFuckingLoveScience! type retreats into intellectual nihilism rather than confront the reality of You Know Who. Philosophical illiterates like Deifts fear the light so much that they'll plunge us into a dark age to escape it.

Enter JCW.

It looks like John's laser scalpel logic might have cut through the fog dimming Deifts' intellect.

I spoke too soon. The cool, rational atheist who spends hours obsessing over the God he doesn't believe in on the internet just can't help himself. And once again, he undermines his own position.

Before making a rookie category error.

JCW delivers the coup de grace.

Atheism briefly gained some traction in the previous decade by plying the gullible with a world where they'd be free to indulge their vices with impunity. Their gains evaporated when even the less astute realized it was also a world without accumulated knowledge, electricity, or indoor plumbing.

Having cataloged so much of it lately, I'm tempted to cite internet atheists' sheer absurdity as a proof for God.


  1. Now I'm by no means a philosopher. So when their errors are evident enough that I can see them, they're obvious indeed.

    All I did was remembering some of C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, so Lewis gets at least as much credit as I do.

    And I find myself more willing to be confrontational when required, to step into the breach rather than be too conflict-averse. Not sure precisely why, but it's a good thing.

    Prompting of the Holy Ghost? Perhaps. I've had that happen before. Very odd.

    I still pray that these words may be used for God's glory and by His grace help others.

    1. Yes, the Spirit is giving you the grace of courage.

      The Church has been passive for far too long. The model should be St. George, not Rod Drehr.

    2. Something that irked me but I didn't get why until just now: "Brain is not the instrument of truth. Brain is an instrument of survival." [Seen in the first image at the bottom.]

      That's straight out of the playbook that Jordan Peterson uses: Truth is what is useful for survival.

    3. Thank you, Lord, for making your enemies ridiculous.

  2. My brain hurt just reading that guy’s drivel. Great job DJ!

    The crux is that atheists will do whatever it takes to handwave God away, contorting themselves into ever-tightening spirals of nonsense to get there.

    And redefining key concepts as needed. Why does anyone take them seriously?

    1. Because it provides a fig leaf of justification to continue their sin.

    2. American atheism can typically be reduced to "I want to sleep with someone the Church disapproves of" or "I want to smoke, inject, or imbibe something society disapproves of." Very few are reasoned into the argument.

    3. *nods*

      And now some are starting to get scared out of it.

    4. Well, that and the society they've created actually gets them far less of what they want than the more-Christian society that came before it.
      Which was always obvious to anyone with a functioning brain and a rudimentary knowledge of history.

    5. Knowledge of history is another atheist weak point.

  3. Truth is whatever is actually true. The universe doesn't care if you believe in gravity or not. It won't pout or try to censor you if you are skeptical of the germ theory of decease. Your belief will not change the reality of what is. How science worshipper can claim there is no objective truth is beyond me.

    1. If I had to guess based on what I know of his background, it's probably the usual gamut of stultifying sins.

  4. A great regret of mine is being intellectually unarmed to stand up to a philosophy professor lecturing on theodicy, concluding that an all knowing all loving God does not exist. Perhaps it would be prudent to make a post on such so that others do not find themselves in the same situation that I was in? Theodicy is a favorite standby of what atheists remain (especially in Academia where this demonic activity has taken toot)

    1. *root

      But you know what, toot works as well

    2. Yes, I will have to do a post on theodicy. The Problem of Evil is probably my favorite atheist disproof of God. It's also the easiest to refute, because it's not an argument against God's existence at all. Its rhetorical punch relies on the assumption that God IS all-good, omniscient, and omnipotent. Otherwise why would anyone find the existence of evil scandalous?

    3. The proper response is, "An all-good, omnipotent God exists and evil exists. So what?"

    4. Without an all-good omnipotent God, how can you even define good and evil?

    5. You can't, despite vocal claims to the contrary.

      The Problem of Evil argument is pseudo-dialectic that works by scandalizing believers.

      "Baby rape is a thing!" says the atheist. "How do you square that with a loving god?"

      [Missing premise: Evil cannot coexist with a loving, all-powerful God. The omission and failure to prove this premise makes the argument circular.]

      The believer is expected to say, "Wow. Baby rape exists, so I guess God doesn't."

      But that conclusion doesn't follow from the argument. At best, you might conclude that God is either not all-good or not all-powerful.

      The atheist is generating cognitive dissonance and leading the believer to relieve it by denying God, or at least His goodness/omnipotence. But like D.J. said, if you deny either of the latter two divine attributes, you remove any grounding for objective good, so there's no such thing as evil, either, so there's no reason to be upset by baby murder in the first place. It's self-refuting.

    6. World governments run by smrt folk, of course.

    7. "...so there's no reason to be upset by baby murder in the first place. It's self-refuting."

      I'm guessing they'd retort with a libertarian NAP morality that simultaneously disallows both child murder and the Christian God.

    8. Probably. But they'd still be left to contend with a god--remember, the Problem of Evil doesn't address God's existence--who's not all-good and who created human nature but not objective morality. Therefore the NAP would be objectively wrong.

    9. True.

      Out of curiosity, what's your rebuttal to someone who refutes Christianity purely on the order from God to murder the female and infant Amalekites, which (presumably) precludes His omnibenevolence? My brother being the target... bulletproof to my points that God kills infants everyday, that the Amalekites harassed the Jews first and thus lost the privilege of existing (an antetype of Final Judgment), and that leaving a survivor would only delay retribution until the avenging child came of age (which is what happened, since the Jews didn't carry out the order, to my understanding). I also get into the whole nature of Christ's divinity, how the religion spread, and the unprecedented preservation and unity of the Jews themselves, ancient and modern, but nope, bulletproof.

      As you're a trained theologian I appreciate any help in advance.

    10. Atheists like your brother are arguing from an a priori anthropocentrism which is absurd if God exists, which the Problem of Evil presupposes He does. A finite being can have no moral claim against the infinite Author of his nature.

      The specific example took place long before Christ's saving Passion. From the expulsion from Eden until Calvary, all of mankind stood guilty of mortal sin. God could have summarily killed anyone--or everyone--at any time, and it would have been perfectly just and moral for Him to have done so. It's a testament to His unfathomable mercy that He did not.

      Don't let atheists who ultimately deny objective morality flip the script on you. Humanity is not the center of the universe. God is. We only have value and dignity owing to our creation in His image and likeness.

      Also, remind your brother that God would be perfectly justified in preemptively obliterating the entire universe rather than allow the smallest sin to offend His infinite majesty.

    11. Also, remind your brother that God would be perfectly justified in preemptively obliterating the entire universe rather than allow the smallest sin to offend His infinite majesty.

      Amen. The existence of the imperfect universe is testament to His infinite mercy. The existence of a way to reconcile us to Him is testament to His infinite love. It makes me want to fall to my knees and weep for joy and gratitude.

    12. That would be the correct response.

    13. Thanks for your response.

      "A finite being can have no moral claim against the infinite Author of his nature."

      He'd say he believes in God (in a new agey "thou art God" sense, there when you want it, not when you don't), and that this episode merely disproves the Christian God, ie no justice, judgment, or displeasure, not to mention it's a violation of the 5th commandment. Yet he talks out of both sides of his mouth, in that he cites the existence of evil with the implication that there is no God, or only a deistic absentee god. Or something. He's exactly the skeptic John C. Wright and Max of Red Pill Religion just talked about.

      All that talk about God's wrath poured out justifiably strikes his bambi ears as far too harsh for the real God. I say picture the most violent thunderstorm or tornado, which contains all the power of His hangnail, but bulletproof. God apparently doesn't have terrifying might.

      He's just annoying haha. Committed to living how he wants, textbook "will preceding intellect" case imo. His religion is to basically despise Jews, and he considers Christianity a Jewish psyop. Hitler was a good guy.

  5. They're trapped in arguments from 2009. For people who pride themselves on being progressive they sure are out of date.

    I was half-expecting a "Shadilay" to show up.

  6. So why according to polls, youtube views/likes, and so on, it's growing, since "nobody takes it seriously anymore"?

    I think your premises conflict with the data, here. You'll have to adjust one or the other.

    1. You thought wrong.

      Atheism is the fastest-declining religious affiliation on Earth as a percentage of the global population.
      1970: 4.5%
      2010: 2%
      2020: 1.8% (projected)

      TL; DR: Lul neckbeards, ur done here.

    2. "and so on"

      Great data you've got there.

      You must have missed the youtube atheist heyday over a decade ago. Skeptics are now the punchline of the site. It's nowhere near what it once was and it never will be again.

      So yes, it was a fad like new age in the '90s or fast food Buddhism. There is no glorious Utopian future up ahead. Just the next fad.

    3. Perhaps the Darwin bumper sticker set should have spent less time producing self-congratulatory videos and importing people from the fastest-growing religions and more time breeding.