The Atheist Blogger

Ray Comfort tried very hard to show that atheists are unreasonable but inadvertently highlighted the same method Creationists use to try and disprove Evolution. Ray claimed that atheists simply do not like the idea of Hell and therefore do not believe in it. He then goes on to say that we use this kind of logic on God as well. We (apparently) don’t like the idea of God and so choose not to believe in it.

You could carry this further if you didn’t like gravity, history, the wind or love. Those things can’t be seen, and therefore wouldn’t exist if you didn’t believe in them either. Anything that you don’t like will not exist if you just say that you don’t believe in it.

Before I continue it should be stated quite clearly that the reason atheists do not believe in God or Hell has nothing to do with not liking either. In fact, my disbelief in Hell came as a direct consequence of my disbelief in God. I do not believe in God for multiple reasons, none of which are simply because I “don’t like the idea”.

Secondly, whilst Ray is quite correct that gravity, history, wind, and love cannot be seen (although given his past allusions about sight I have no idea how he came to this correct conclusion), he fails to mention that such things can be observed and tested based on their interactions with the rest of the universe. History is the one exception because it is simply the human expression for what has happened in the past, but this can too be observed by its affect on the present.

What is really striking is Ray’s last sentence. Anything that you don’t like will not exist if you just say that you don’t believe in it. Ray reckons this is exactly how atheists live their life. I wasn’t too concerned with his ridiculous argument though. I was more wrapped up in the obvious irony of such a statement.

As a Creationist, Ray Comfort subscribes to the same idiotic idea that he is trying to oppose above. Namely, that they do not like Evolution (it goes against the Bible) so they say they don’t believe it in, and they reckon that is a good enough argument to refute it. They don’t look at the evidence, and simply use the same arguments over and over, even though they have been refuted so many times by science.

The subject of existence, belief, and reality can be summed up very easily.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away. ~ Philip K. Dick

A copy of Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” fell off my shelf today, and opened on page 83 which contains a rather humorous “proof” of the non existence of God based on the qualities of a creator. It was written by Douglas Gasking, and is really a joke / parody of similar theist arguments FOR God. However I think it is a perfect example of how atheists view the beauty of the world without resorting to any form of god.

1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because and even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.

   Ergo:

7. God does not exist.

Now perhaps theists can understand our stance on the beauty and complex nature of the world we live in. Sure, they have a God who made it all, but we believe that all this beauty and complexity came into being without a designer, which makes it all the more wondrous and inspiring.

Our non-existent “creator” is way better than yours…