You know that Atheism isn’t the BELIEF that no god exists, but the LOGICAL CONCLUSION that no god exists, right? Atheism is as much of a religion as off is a TV program.And the response:
No wait, hold on. This is bull****.Atheism is a religion. I've made that argument before as have many others. How could a non-religion have so many debaters and courtroom-crusaders? Whenever a debate happens with an Atheist about intelligent design, the Atheist is so completely and blithely certain of their own position that they don't even bother listening to what their debate counterpart is even saying. What you see every single time is a farcical mummers show featuring a blind man arguing with a deaf mute. What you watch is smug condescension and cheerful reminders that everything the other person is saying is wrong because that other person is a deluded fool. This is of course an asinine circular ad hominem argument. I.E. You are wrong because you're stupid, and if you weren't so stupid you'd know you were wrong. In addition my own position is correct because what I believe is true, and I know it is true because I am smart.
Let’s take your metaphor and run with it. So in this metaphor, religion would be like a fandom (or Star Trek or Supernatural or Firefly etc) and fandom does all sorts of things like hold conventions and hang out at websites and clubs and read material related to the show (so all that would be faith conventions, websites, church, holy text etc). So atheism is like the “Off” tv ‘program’? But there’s conventions going on that are all dedicated to “Off”. One can find entire campus groups all devoted to “Off”, they even have buildings and incorporations. There’s countless websites devoted to “Off” and large amounts of fanfiction on it. That’s not even getting into the spokespeople that bill themselves as the biggest fans of “Off”.
First argument of Atheism: if two religious beliefs contradict each other, then at least one of them must be wrong. If multiple religions contradict each other then at least all but one of them must be wrong. If a religion contains self-contradictory beliefs then it must be wrong. Every religion can be shown to contain self-contradictory beliefs. Therefore every religion must be wrong. ------ My rebuttal: we're not debating the question of whether any particular religion is or isn't true. We're debating the question of whether accidental and spontaneous generation of life is possible or was life designed? We're not asking whether God parted the Red Sea for Moses, we're asking where did this universe we live in come from? That's the debate. Don't read me phrases from some ancient scroll and ask me to defend them.
Second argument of Atheism: if there is an all-knowing, all-powerful God then he's an evil God because he allows so much suffering to happen in the world. Only random chance is benevolent enough to believe in. ------ My rebuttal: God didn't have to be all-knowing and all powerful to create the universe. He just has to be powerful enough and knowing enough to get us to where we are today. Furthermore, perhaps the random and sometimes brutal element of chance which shapes not only the lives of men, but of all life, is the most efficient method of perfecting his original imperfect creation.
Third argument of Atheism: there doesn't have to be a God to explain the existence of everything. It's an unnecessary, improvable, and pointless complication when a simpler explanation can explain everything. ------ My rebuttal: Great, please explain where the "Big Bang" came from. Also, please explain how a sterile ball of dirt and simple elements and compounds could spontaneously arrange itself "accidentally" into a life-form capable of reproducing itself. Mankind hasn't yet figured out a way to create life from scratch with all our science and super-computers, but it supposedly just happened by itself? Science hasn't succeeded in any way shape or form in explaining how we came to be here.
That's all they've got. All religions are logically incoherent and self-contradictory, life sucks too much to be an intelligent design, and science already explains the origin of everything. Except that a creator might not have or need a religion. A creator might not give two-shits what Richard Dawkins thinks about his design. Finally science hasn't explained anything regarding the beginning of the universe, or the beginning of life. None of the preceding however is the point of this blog post.
All these lengthy debates between apologists and Atheists are conducted and they all seem to go the same way. The apologist is on fire; he or she is passionate, intelligent, enthusiastic, and possesses a lengthy list of well-thought out debate points with which he or she plans to trip up the Atheist. The only problem with this plan is that the Atheist isn't going to respond to any of their debate points. He's simply going to sit back, smile condescendingly, and explain why the apologist is stupid. How can you debate a passive-aggressive a-hole who only wants to mock your beliefs and try to get a laugh out of the audience? These Atheists don't debate the apologists, they're too busy sucking up to the crowd, recycling the same tiresome jokes that only Atheists think are funny or insightful. The title of this blog post might as well be the Atheist's slogan. Why don't Atheists just get the tee-shirt? That way their debate counterparts would at least have some idea what they were dealing with.