Atheos Dialogue: Atheists Suck

Atheists are arrogant, evil & stupid. You have to be stupid not to believe in God.

Select an ideal response for:

You atheists are evil.

Believers are way more evil.

No, atheists are good.

Do you think that there are good & bad people of all positions/religions/worldviews?

Certainly some atheists aren't good people, but that's not true for all of us.

Select an ideal response for:

Fair enough, but you atheists are hateful. You hate God/authority/theism/Christianity.

Why do you think that's true for all of us? Some atheists actually like the idea of a loving being 'up there'.

If you want to learn about hate, read the Old Testament.

Why do you think that applies to all of us? We have other reasons for being atheists.

No, atheists are loving & open-minded.

Select an ideal response for:

Okay, but atheists are stupid. You need to prove that God doesn't exist.

An atheist, or a-theist, is someone who doesn't think there's enough evidence to warrant belief in God. The atheist needn't disprove God.

Not at all, the burden is on the believer to prove God's existence. May I ask why you'd think otherwise?

Atheists are way smarter than believers.

Believers are the ones who are stupid. There's no evidence for God's existence.

Select an ideal response for:

You're not an atheist then. You're just an agnostic!

Whatever label you wish to use, we don't think there's enough evidence to warrant belief in your God.

No I'm not!

Most agnostics aren't theists, which means they are atheists. They simply find no good reason to believe in God.

I'm actually an atheist.

Select an ideal response for:

But there's good evidence for God's existence.

No there isn't.

There is no direct empirical evidence of God's existence. What's the 'good evidence'?

There is no direct empirical scientific evidence of God's existence. What is that evidence?

There is good evidence for God's non-existence.

Select an ideal response for:

What about the fact that there's something rather than nothing & that the universe is fine-tuned for human life?

How does this constitute evidence to warrant belief in Gods? Isn't this an appeal to ignorance fallacy?

Why would this constitute direct evidence of God's existence?

That doesn't prove God exists.

That we can't explain something doesn't mean 'you win'.

Select an ideal response for:

Don't the philosophical arguments for God give good reason to believe?

Not at all. They don't rule out all naturalistic or supernaturalistic alternatives.

No one takes them seriously.

The premises are all wrong.

No. They are all problematic & are also vague.

Select an ideal response for:

What do you mean?

Any explanation could work here.

Other explanations are better.

Even if they were logically valid & sound, they could just as easily point to the existence of a deistic or pantheistic God.

Well, I'm just struggling to grasp how those same arguments for your God couldn't also be used for other Gods.

Select an ideal response for:

But there's good historical evidence for God/Jesus/Muhammad.

No. The historian has no choice but to look upon the past with the lens crafted in today's empiricism.

Anything could've happened.

No. The relevant sources make wildly improbable claims.

Historical facts are unknowable.

Select an ideal response for:

The historical sources aren't making improbable claims if God exists!

Even if God exists, all or nearly all of these competing claims cannot be true.

But God hasn't been proven yet. To assume it now is to argue in a circle.

That's not how historians work.

God doesn't exist.

Select an ideal response for:

True. But that doesn't mean that these claims are false.

True, but we have no good reason to think that these claims are true either.

It's up to you to prove them true.

True, but we need good sources to overcome this problem (of low prior probabilities).

That's just an appeal to ignorance.

Select an ideal response for:

Don't we have good sources?

Yes, but…

No. They are highly suspect, apart from their implausible miraculous claims & could easily be exaggerating things.

No. Uncommitted historians don't uncritically accept what these problematic sources tell us. That would be bad history.

No.

Select an ideal response for:

You make some good points. I suppose atheists do have some good reasons to disbelieve.

Yes, you should be an atheist too.

Of course we do.

Yes. And even if they were mistaken about the evidence & were 'stupid,' they certainly don't deserve such derision.

Thank you. I look forward to a more religiously (and irreligiously) tolerant future.

Select an ideal response for:

I suppose not.

I'm glad you acknowledge that. I look forward to a more religiously (and irreligiously) tolerant future.

Damn straight!

Thank you, I look forward to more fruitful discussions with you in future. Perhaps you can share your reasons for believing?

You should examine your own reasons for believing.