I have officially found the absolute worst list of questions for atheists ever. Every question is loaded, every question is leading and the author of this list is unaware of how absolutely unclever he is, in spite of an evident puffed out chest of pride.
So let’s tear the fucker a new one, shall we? Grab a stress ball, some Jägermeister and a helmet and we’ll jump right the fuck in.
1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?
Breath in 2… 3… 4 and out 2… 3… 4.
First of all, Clever McNever, this question is as absurd as Mitt Romney’s magical man-panties. But let’s attempt to answer asinine queries with some logic anyway. Yes, I am just about as absolutely sure there is no god as I am of anything. Why? The age-old elephant analogy: yesterday evening, when I came back from the lake with my little boy, I was absolutely, 100% sure there had not been an elephant in my home while I was gone. I know this, like anyone would, because of the lack of fucking evidence. An elephant in my living room would have surely left behind some kind of mess, some sign he’d been there. The same applies for god. If he was around, there would be evidence beyond a bunch of mortal humans writing a book they claim was inspired by the word of god 2000 years ago. There is no evidence for god, like there is no evidence for leprechauns, like there is no evidence for there ever having been a decent Everclear song. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Therefore, G-dawg don’t exist.
The second question is now useless, since god is impossible. Moving on to the third, transparently sneaky question. One cannot ask “can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?” without first knowing that I don’t want to look at the evidence. If you had first asked if I wanted to look at the evidence, I would have said, quite eagerly, YES! But there is none, outside of a book written thousands of years ago by people who claim to be inspired by god. People can claim anything! Alien abductions, psychic powers, foot-long schlongs and more. It doesn’t make something the truth just because someone says so. Especially when that someone lived thousands of years ago, spoke a language you can’t understand and says the exact same shit as every fresh-smoked crackhead I’ve ever had the pleasure of conversing with.
2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe? Sure, I agree that intelligently designed things need an intelligent designer, and absolutely I would agree that evidence for intelligent design of the Universe would imply the Universe had a designer. Your problem here, my testimonious tool, is that there is no evidence that the Universe was intelligently designed. Complexity is not evidence.
3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?
No one has suggested that there was nothing prior to our Universe. Lead me, my sanctimonious schlemiel, to one who has uttered such nonsense. The point you’re missing here, is that we don’t know. It’s okay to not know. Not knowing does not automatically equal god.
4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?
Let’s face it, some farts are more detectable than others.
Of course – but for me to buy that something exists, I do need to be able to detect it in some way. There are many ways to detect things in existence without using your naked eye. If there weren’t, blind people would not be able to detect anything. You can detect things via reactions (gravity, magnetism, the wind: we can see the effects of these forces), using equipment (microscopes, telescopes), using other senses (farts) and more. God is not detectable. Until he is, I do not believe he exists.
5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?
Sure, if it was just limited to seeing it. However, if we cannot detect god in any way, in spite of many people searching for evidence over hundreds of years, and in that process finding evidence to the contrary, then yes, it means he does not exist.
6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?
Again, there’s that nothingness again. The very same nothingness that no one has ever asserted was the case pre-big bang. Someone didn’t do their science homework!
7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?
See 6, Santa pants.
8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)
Oh for fuck’s sake, would you listen to yourself. Like, just read the question back after you type it. The analogy is that the DNA contains as much information as a thousand encyclopedias, not that it contains a thousand actual encyclopedias. The information in the encyclopedia would still exist and be true without someone compiling it all into an encyclopedia. In fact, every fact outside of the man-made realm contained in encyclopedias would still exist without humans ever existing.
9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?
Ohhh, my fettered friar, put down your one book and pick up a few more. If you’re talking about the big bang, then you already know that the cause was greater than the effect. If you’re talking about before that, once again, slower this time… we.. do… not… know. And that, darling devoted, is okay. It does not, however, prove god.
10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?
Of course. We’ll start with you. You’re wrong. But aside from that, science has found plenty of evidence that shows a sense of morality present in animals other than humans. Morality is an innate survival mechanism that predated the bible. This is why people were able to refrain from wanton murder, rape and violence before Moses hit the rock and hallucinated himself a burning, talking bush.
11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?
Not all laws need lawgivers. That is an assumption based on zero evidence, and quite a bit to the contrary (law of gravity, etc).
12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?
I don’t even. I fucking don’t even.
What the actual fuck.
13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?
I’m sorry, I must have skipped the class in which they taught that there was definitively no cause for the whole Universe.
14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?
The observable Universe is currently finite. We do not know that the Universe is finite.
15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?
No, no, absolutely not. Not without evidence.
I honestly can’t believe I made it through that. I’m gonna go get drunk.