Page name: Strong Atheism [Exported view] [RSS]
2007-02-21 23:02:55
Last author: Dil*
Owner: Dil*
# of watchers: 13
Fans: 0
D20: 14
Bookmark and Share

Strong Atheism: A Philosophical Justification

Hello, this is a page created by me: [Dil*]. It outlines what strong atheism is and the various stances on the issue of the concept of god. The title of this page is named after a famous atheist book, that I haven't read yet, unfortunately. The title of the book has a nice ring to it.

This page will also contain the common arguments that theists put out and I will point out the logical flaws in them. I will also address "Intelligent" Design (aka creationism) and why the theory does not deserve equal time with evolution or any time in the teaching curriculum for that matter. The arguments are engineered towards the Christian bible god, but the same arguments can be applied to many mainstream religion (save Buddhism).

This page has zero tolerance for stupidity. Enter with caution and be prepared to defend your ideas against the onslaught. 

I can be nice, but not on this page. Not all religious people are stupid nor get on my nerves, but the years have finally taken their toll on me.(Why is Dil so angry?)

[ **Updates ]
-addressing misunderstandings of Ockam's Razor
-addressing attacks on atheism
-Why Christianity Offends me in Moral High grounds
Funeral Foolishness? - made by: [QueenQaab]
-Logical flaws in Christianity section update: Christianity is devoid of any logic
-A section on atheism asshole behaviour in moral high grounds
Added stuff to the section on creationism/intelligent design.
strong atheism members


Atheist - One who does not believe in god aka: Weak Atheist

Strong Atheist - One who believes there is no god, or that all interpretations of such a creator is flawed.

Agnostic - one who has no idea whether god exists or not, finds that the evidence on both parties is not conclusive.

Agnostic Atheist - One who does not believe in god, but is open to the possibility that one can exist

Agnostic Theist - One who believes in god, but is open to the possibility that they may be wrong. 

Theist - Believes in god, and prescribes to a religion.

Deist - Believes in a creator that does not interfere with human matters. Believes some form of intelligent life created the universe, but that creator doesn't really give a shit about the human race.

Atheology - Philosophy of atheism.

Xian - Christian who believes in the bible god. Christmas=x-mas Christian=xian.

The Burden of Proof

The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person/parties making a claim. Since the xians claim that there is some sort of god in existence that demands that we have to obey the bible, they have to prove this claim. Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back it up. I have really seen NO empirical evidence for god's existence. There is no empirical evidence for god's existence, therefore, scientifically; such a bible god does no exist. It's idiotic to demand that atheists prove there is no god. Atheists don't need evidence for god's non-existence. The lack of evidence is enough to conclude such a being does not exist. If you replace 'god' with something more humorous, the breakdown goes something like this:

Theist: An invisible pink unicorn exists, because there are many holy scripts that tell us about unicorns since thousands of years ago.
Atheist: No it doesn't, where's the proof for the existence of such a creature?
Theist: Prove that it doesn't exist!
Atheist: No, the burden of proof is on you.

Can you imagine finding empirical evidence for an invisible pink unicorn's non-existence? How the hell do you find evidence for the non-existence of something? It exists because it can be observed, or it doesn't exist because it can't be observed. I use the word observe in the loosest sense, 'detected' would also be a decent word to use.

Oh, but you haven't looked through the entire universe for a God, how would you know it doesn't exist?

Now apply this argument again to the existence of invisible pink unicorns. How do you know an invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist? You haven't searched the whole world for one! Or, how do you know Santa Claus doesn't exist; you haven't searched the whole North Pole for him!! So therefore Santa clause must exist, along with an invisible pink unicorn...

Or...We reject many things because we see no evidence to back it up. This is argument from basic logic.

[Warm up is over ]

Logical Flaws In Christianity

God = Omnibenovolent (pure good), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful).

1.God=omni benevolent/omniscient/omnipotent
2.God created everything.
3.Evil exists
4.God created evil

Premise 1 contradicts #3, therefore the god is not pure good, since it created evil. And so he damned the whole world to pain and suffering because of the actions of two naked teens (Adam and eve). That makes so much sense. Right, I think the sanity of the god needs to be put in question too.

Xian Counter-argument Against the Problem of Evil

We have free will; therefore we can choose to be evil. Thus, evil exists in the world because of man. If we choose to turn away from god, we become evil.

Right? WRONG.

1.God=omni benevolent/omniscient/omnipotent
2.God knows exactly what will occur in the future (or exactly what/how everyone will behave) either during creation of the universe, or before the creation of the universe.
3.We have no free will, from #1 and #2.


God knows everything; this includes the future, the past and the present. God created everything (the universe), so he either knew exactly what would happen to his creation during or before the creation of the universe. If he had everything planned like that, we'd be like machine puppets who would have the illusion of free will, but not *actual* free will. It/he/she knew exactly how we'd behave, yet would still send its 'dysfunctional' puppets to hell.

The xian god is either amoral or insane. Or, isn't exactly omniscient. If the god isn't omniscient, then this must be some sick experiment. Except when it doesn't like the results, they send the 'badies' to hell.

Ockhams Razor


entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,
which translates to:

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. "

To the untrained mind, Ockam's razor is about accepting the simplest explanation because the simplest explanation is probably correct. But, that is a misunderstanding of Ockam's razor, Ockam's Razor is about having as few assumptions in an explanation as possible, basically, don't assume extra things in an explanation without a basis for it.

Big Bang Theory - the Universe started at one single point and expanded outwards in a type of explosion.

Some theists or agnosts say that God may have started the big bang..or 'first cause' or whatever.

Theist Argument:

The Big Bang couldn't have started from nothing. "Something" must have caused the big bang, and that "Something" must be God.

-Ockham's razor rejects such a claim because it's essentially the first claim (big bang) with added baggage. 

1.The universe was created by The Big Bang.

2.The universe was created by The Big Bang which was caused by god.

According to Ockham's razor, we reject the 2nd statement because it has more attached to the statement than necessary and it makes more assumptions than necessary. #1 has more logical merit.

Another more humorous example:

1.A tree burned down because lightning struck it.

2.A tree burned down because lightning struck it because Zeus (god of thunder) was angry.

We don't need #2 because it has more assumptions than necessary to explain the above phenomena.

Christianity is just devoid of logic

We have the earth.
God's creation.
We have people that god made.
The people god made pisses god off.
God kills everyone except for Noah and one species of each animal.

Okay, what the fuck just happened there?
Okay, let's examine what we know.
1. God created humans
2. God knows exactly how everyone will behave and knows the future

So God's grand plan was to make people to piss him off that he could kill later?

If this hasn't gotten through your thick skull yet...
Here's an analogy:

I build a robot. I know this robot will piss me off by hitting me upon completion. I built the robot with full knowledge that it would hit me. I build the robot. The robot hits me.
"How dare you defy your creator!!"
"Prepare to meet your maker! Me!"
*destroys robot*

Okay children, why would god be so angry if he knew things were going to turn out the way they did? I thought god was perfect, he doesn't make stupid fuckups like that. I guess the xian god doesn't exist then :/

On Faith

faith  ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)

For our purposes, we'll be using definition #2. Belief that does no rest on logical proof or material evidence. Faith is the key factor in keeping religion alive. I despise faith, and religion endorses it. It is that happy ignorance with confidence in something while having nothing to back it up. Why would one reject logic/reason in the face of faith? It makes no sense to me; the wholesale endorsement of content ignorance. Ideally, in the xian religion, one is not supposed to question the word of God.

So that would mean, ideally, a xian is supposed to follow this blindly without criticism. That makes no sense to me, whatsoever. We don't follow anything blindly like that, and for some reason, alot of the time, religion seems to be beyond criticism. Are we still pretending we actually respect other people's beliefs? NO we don't, the only exception is things of faith. If a person said the sky was red, would we simply 'respect their beliefs' or would we call them on it? If a person said that they thought Hitler was a jolly fellow would one 'respect their beliefs'? Do you respect a communist's beliefs?

Human-centric Beliefs

So can anyone explain to me exactly why the creator of the universe would even give a shit about us puny mortals? I think it's an increasingly arrogant position to believe that we even matter to such a being (if it existed). So now I get some people on forums saying that god hates fags so :. gay marriage is wrong. So can anyone explain to me, why the fuck the creator of the universe would give a shit about someone being homosexual? I think the ridiculousness is self-explanatory. Not only do we think such a being gives a shit about us, we claim to know..or even 'follow' it's 'grand' plan. Aha, how can our finite minds comprehend it's infinite mind...? Oh, and they pull a: "Your puny mind can't possibly understand the creator's, but I 'know' what he wants." Damn you and your self-defeating arguments. If I (as a finite mind) cannot comprehend the creator, then you cannot claim superiority over me for comprehension. But apparently you can 'see' better with 'faith'. Sorry, but I don't want to put on bullshit lenses today. You know what, I can 'see' an invisible pink unicorn in the room right now...that's how I can tell it's pink.

"He's a jealous and wrathful god" What the heck? Why are we assigning human characteristics to such a being; when you're friggin' omnipotent, I don't think it's possible to be 'jealous'. Once again, we are finite beings, and thus, have finite characteristics. :. assigning any finite characters to a infinite being is false.

We're in a unimaginably large universe, a speck upon a speck. I guess the only way to cope (for some theists) is to imagine a position of importance. You know what, we aren't important in the grand scheme of things. In 10^40 years, everything you see will be gone. We'll be less than a speck on a speck. Depressing? Well, that's reality.

Which God?

There are 10,000 denominations of Christianity, all competing for the final say about what God's message is. This is not even counting in the many other religions (and their denominations).

Right, how the hell is one supposed to find the right god? I mean, if this creator person is supposed to be so intelligent: you would think that they would have made their message a bit more clear.

"Is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's blunders" - Friedrich Nietzsche

It really pisses me off when a xian of a certain denomination tells me that their way is the correct way. SAYS WHO?! YOUR STUPID WORTHLESS OPINION?!

All of these denominations are on the same level, and them saying otherwise is opinionated arrogant "My god is better than your god" garbage.

Dil's Razor (Argument From Probability)

People interpret god(s)/creators(s) differently. Throughout time and throughout different cultures, the face of God(s) seem to change frequently. Everyone has their own unique idea about god. So everyone has their own interpretation of God. God's being is open to interpretation. Nobody thinks of God exactly the same. God is an interpretation. There have been countless interpretations of god throughout history. The probability that one's interpretation of god is correct is 1:(infinite possibilities). Your interpretation of god is improbable. And since each hypothesis is not necessarily more valid than the other, it leads to infinite possibilities. No one interpretation is superior to the other due to total lack of evidence on all parties. One has a better chance of passing through a solid wall than having their interpretation correct. I'd sooner believe that one could pass through a wall than believe (for say) Jimmy's interpretation of god being accurate (even in the slightest).

God is too subjective an idea and cannot equal reality.

"Everyone is basically an atheist, I just believe in one less god than you." (a note on all the gods that exist and have existed)


Moral High grounds

Theists like to claim that without god, there will be no morality. So all atheists would be immoral, right? WRONG. And they seem to have the burden of proof for this claim too.

Atheists are not less moral than theists. 

It's interesting to note that long the 'bible belt' part of the US (located in the south which has the highest church attendance) is one of the areas of the greatest violence in the US. It's also interesting to note that in Sweden, a mostly atheistic country, the violent crime rates are among the lowest in the world.

It's also interesting to note that when the xian religion ruled everything, that time is referred to as The Dark Ages

It's awful that America is a secular country, we can't even burn disbelievers anymore!!

"Those who glorify him [Christian god] as a god of love set too little value on love itself. Did this god not want to be a judge as well? But to love is to go beyond reward and punishment" - Nietzsche


Is a completely hateful and immoral concept. In a nutshell, it's infinite torment for finite sinning. There is no justice. Eternal torment equals eternal wrathfulness and evil. And isn't this supposed to be a just and good god?

I concede the xian god is immoral, and this is just using the one hell concept. The bible has a frightening amount of atrocity within.

Why Christianity Offends Me

First and foremost: politics, they can't keep their sticky fingers away from attempting to force their ideas about morality on the masses. why is dil so angry? outlines this effectively.

Secondly, it offends me the same way neo-nazi propoganda would. Sure, the neo-nazis in this day in age, can't do much, or they'd get owned by the law, but they still offend people with their horrifically immoral beliefs. Xians, on mere virtue of their beliefs offend me. They believe I deserve to burn in hell for all of eternity just for disbelieving in their dogmatic idea of god. How is that any different from believing Jews deserve to be put in ovens. Guess what? There isn't much of a difference. And anyone with any sense of morality would be simply offended by neo-nazi beliefs and Xian beliefs.

Being an Atheist Asshole?

Yeah, I can be a bit of an asshole with my atheism, but it's still not that terrible compared to the fact that they actually think anyone who believes in anything else apart from their bible god will burn in hell. I mean, the idea is pretty awful. And it's even more awful that they think people deserve to burn in hell for all eternity. So, the next time you think you've been insulted by an atheist, they got offended in the first place with the dogma that they deserve eternal torment for their 'sins'.

I mean, I call people stupid, but I still don't think they deserve eternal torment for being stupid. Actually, I don't even call people stupid. Only if they piss me off really badly. Or if their fundies...even then I'd just laugh at them. But I can't help that.

"If people don't want their beliefs laughed at, they shouldn't have such funny beliefs."

Addressing Xian Arguments

Pascal's Wager

"To Pascal, God was the Christian God of the Bible. The Bible provides information about the Christian God but not proof for God. Should you believe in this God? In his Wager, Pascal provides an analytical process for a person to evaluate his options in regard to belief in the Christian God. The person who has no more information than that which he finds in the Bible would find himself facing the following possibilities:

You may believe in God, and if God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
You may believe in God, and if God doesn't exist, your loss is finite and therefore negligible.
You may not believe in God, and if God doesn't exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
You may not believe in God, and if God exists, you will go to hell: your loss is infinite."

Pascal's Wager is inherently flawed. It suffers from the false dilemma fallacy. There are more than two options in this wager. We'd also have to consider ALL religions and THEIR god(s). What if one believed in the wrong god and another god was correct. So the xian could burn in the Muslim hell, or the Muslim can burn in the xian hell. Or putting a humorous spin on things, all theists will burn in an atheistic hell for being gullible enough to believe in the theistic gibberish put forth.

Addressing Attacks on Atheism

1. "Hitler was an atheist and he used Nietzsche's philosophy to justify wiping out the Jews."

FALSE. Hitler was a baptized Roman Catholic who used Christian dogma to justify his actions, including, the wiping out of Jews as seen in his book Mein Kampf. The pope never excommunicated him and there are numerous pieces of evidence to suggest he had the support of the Roman Catholic Church. Also, Hitler never used Nietzsche's writings to justify his anti-Semitism, this is a myth, and not once does he mention Nietzsche in his book Mein Kampf. It's also interesting to note that, of all the books the Roman Catholics have banned, mein kampf has never been on that blacklist.

2. "There have been atheist mass-murderers such as Stalin and Hitler."

FALSE. I've already addressed Hitler. Atheism wasn't the motivator to kill people. Communism/totalitarianism was, they didn't kill people because of their atheism, they killed people because they were communist totalitarians. On the other hand, the holy crusades were about 'slaying the heathens'. And they killed people because they were 'heretics' and 'demons'. Not all communists are atheists, and not all atheists are communists. And if you look at scale, religious wars take the cake for body count. That's for sure.

3. "Atheism is a religion."

FALSE. Atheism, in the most base form, asserts nothing. It is not a belief system, it's the denial of said belief systems. Atheism is the disbelief in gods, which is different from Strong Atheism which states that there are no gods.

"Saying atheism is a religion is like saying bald is a hair colour."

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian (taken from











Addressing Creationism/Intelligent Design

There's no evidence for Intelligent Design. Just some vague observation and a stupid opinion. The Intelligent Design argument goes something like this:

The world, it's so complex. Everything fits together perfectly. A creator must have made it so that everything fits together perfectly. Watchmaker Argument: If one were to find a watch on the beach, do they assume that it 'evolved' or is it apparent that someone 'designed it'? Advocates of intelligent design use the watchmaker argument often. Of course Richard Dawkins (famous evolutionary biologist) has spent a whole book debunking this called: "The Blind Watchmaker".

Okay. Onto the debunking. 

Argument from Crappy Design

There are many levels of eyesight. Octopuses have better eyesight than humans. Humans have better eye-sight than dogs and dogs have better eye-sight than.tadpoles. This shows varying degrees of optical capabilities. Did the creator like octopuses more than humans? Bible god gave the octopus's better eye-sight? Why is it that our eyes are inefficient? We have to flip the images in our minds before they are the right way up. The receptors are placed in an awkward location. We have a blind spot. Some crappy creator. I thought god 'created' us perfectly? I guess not.

Who created the creator?

They argue that since we are intelligent and complex, there must have been a creator to make us that way. But...the creator obviously must be intelligent and complex. Who created the creator? And who created that creator? This leads to infinite regression. This is severely flawed logic.

Watchmaker Argument

Flaws: premises, organic things are not the same as inorganic objects. If you look at a watch, has these strange markings on it. Look even realize it says: "Made in China". 

Now...where's this huge stamp on the earth that says: "Made by God" or something equally as absurd as a location of manufacture?

Argument from complexity

Every snowflake is unique. It must of had some sort of snowflake god to design it. Trees are complex, a tree god must exist. The specimen I picked from my nose is also unique in it's own special way....let's..stop now.

"[Intelligent design is the equivalent of saying] this thermos keeps cold things cold and hot things hot because it is God". - Bill Maher

Dil's Logical Proofs:

1. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed
2. Energy can only be converted to matter and vice versa.
3. Matter and energy have always existed.
4. The universe consists of matter and energy
5. The universe has always existed

On the big bang:

1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
2. Energy can only be converted.
3. The universe started out as a super dense mass with potential energy.
4. The big bang wasn't caused by external energy; it was simply releasing the potential energy it had in the first place in the form of kinetic energy.
5. :. No external explanation is needed.
6. :. No creator hypothesis is needed.

note: ockam's razor states that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.

[under construction*** ]

strong atheism members - list of strong atheists and personal reasons for being a strong atheist.

Other Wikis:
why pro-choice is better
The church of reality-mine
dilandau's philosophy-mine
fair abortion discussions-mine
ask an athiest- not mine
hf gay marriage-not mine (kicks the shit out of any anti-gay marriage arguement)
the proof-xian wiki

External Links (I highly recommend this page, the forum is very nice, I suggest the forum to theists, agnostics, deists, weak atheists or even strong atheists...they're a nice bunch.) (there is also a forum there, enter the forum with caution, these people don't suffer fools gladly, take my strong atheism and times it by 20 and you something like them. I do not suggest theists to go there.) (a short thing on atheism being harmless in america, and a list of celebrity atheists...) (christianity is delusional)


Username (or number or email):


2009-10-31 [Mortified Penguin]: While I'm sure that's an accurate statement, it doesn't necessarily deal with my attempt to convince the people here that agnosticism is the way to go.

Do you admit that atheism is as illogical as theism or not?

2009-10-31 [Mortified Penguin]: It's like this:


There is one of two colors behind this brick wall. There is either blue or red.

Atheists say the color is absolutely going to be blue.

Theists say the color is absolutely going to be red.

Agnostics say that it could be either color.

While atheists may be right and it is actually blue, they can't tell for sure, because the brick wall can't be moved. So saying that they are absolutely sure that it's blue without being able to prove that they're right, is illogical.

By admitting that there's a possibility of the color behind the wall being either blue or red, you're giving the only perfectly logical statement. You don't know what's behind there, so you can't pick a side.

2009-11-01 [lacklustre]: I don't disagree however I cannot agree. More or less I have to fence sit on this one. Seen a lot of crazy stuff go down. And I highly doubt physics was to play a role in that.

2009-11-01 [Fizban]: I agree. I said I was agnostic, with the suspicion that its blue, because arguments for red really suck in my opinion. I know irrelevant of the arguments, it doesn't change the probability of the color, however based on what I know, I have an Idea of what the color could be. However, as I said I know I don't know.

That doesn't address what I said didn't react to my argument at all...:O

Sure there is still a brick wall, but your arguments surrounding that brick wall are flawed, and I have said reasons as to why.

2009-11-01 [Mortified Penguin]: What are the rewards of a universe without a God or an afterlife? What's the point in existing if you're going to disappear one day and be buried in the sands of time? You'll be forgotten and all your accomplishments will be for nothing. It's a depressing thing to think about for most. It's better if people truly believe they're going to find a peaceful afterlife once they die.

The premise for your first argument was that, we are so small we need to believe in something so big, or else it's just pointless to be so small.

The point wasn't to show that size is relevant to importance, but to show that without a God, your existence has no meaning. The description of the vastness of space was simply a literary device used to get you in the mindset of being insignificant compared to it all. Heck, you could be the size of a star (ha ha! fat joke) and your existence would still be equally as meaningless.

Now, when I say 'meaningless' and 'pointless', I mean exactly that. What good is your existence? What good is the existence of the Earth and all its inhabitants? Things may be meaningful to you and you may be meaningful to the entire world, but to the universe, you're nothing. You don't matter.

However, I want you to completely ignore all of that that I just said, because that's not my purpose here. My purpose was to get the people here to see that atheism isn't logical. Furthering the discussion about the meaning of existence and all the crap is purposeless. It isn't helping me to achieve my goal here.

So far, you have said you were already agnostic anyway, so talking with you any further is meritless.

[lacklustre] said that he/she/it was 'on the fence', which would mean that he/she/it is agnostic whether he/she/it likes it or not.

I'm still waiting for acceptance or a rebuttal from the other two still present here.

My other goal is to get you to eat at Bob's Diner. Did you know that Bob's Diner is now serving real meat by-products? It's true! Our burgers are now only 59% rat feces! That's only 22% more than McDonald's!

2009-11-01 [Mortified Penguin]: Of course, you can choose to be an atheist if you want, just don't claim to be the one whose beliefs are based on logic, but that's not true. Atheism is faith based, just like theism. You have faith that you're the one who's right and that the color behind that wall is blue. It's faith that leads you to your decision, not logic.

2009-11-01 [Fizban]: While as I said, I completely disagree with life being meaningless without god, and that I think that it's more sad to need said ideal to be able to have meaning. You continue to give your opinions on worth to base happiness, I am content with existence and life without god, I believe I have meaning and this belief has nothing to do with god, which means boom! One does not need god to have meaning for their life, so saying that its necessary is inaccurate.

But if all your going for the is the agnosticism route, then knock yourself out.

2009-11-01 [lacklustre]: well if it's a he/she/it then it's shit. We all got a gender.

Simply put, don't roll me into anything. I'll make my own decisions-thanks.

2009-11-01 [Mortified Penguin]: You can make your own decisions. However, you can't claim to be on the side of logic and still believe in atheism without being a liar. You can be atheist all you want, as long as you admit that your belief is rooted only in faith.

2009-11-02 [lacklustre]: I didn't say I did believe atheism. Even then being a liar is an opinion based on facts and even then it's part of bias.

2009-11-14 [Duke Devlin]: I have faith that my atheism is rooted in logic as I understand it.
But moving on - I personally do not believe in a god, of any kind, because there seems no logical reason to spend your life worshipping something that you can't be sure of (either way). I'd rather spend my time enjoying the life I have been given, and if there is a god, be forgiven at the end of it (after death, not repenting) for my disbelief. I would have not wasted the life I had.

2009-11-15 [Mortified Penguin]: I don't care about your misguided views on religion anymore... I'm bored with this argument!

2009-11-15 [Fizban]: Lol, ofcourse you are. Go on Duke Devlin!`

2009-11-15 [lacklustre]: I love delusions of eloquence.

2009-11-19 [Duke Devlin]: LMAO thank ya, Fiz. ;D

2009-11-19 [Duke Devlin]: Also Lacklustre, get over yourself. :)

2009-11-19 [lacklustre]: please don't capitalize my name.

2009-11-19 [Duke Devlin]: I'm sorry - lacklustre.

2009-11-19 [lacklustre]: well there ye be Duke Devlin!

2009-11-20 [Mortified Penguin]: Shut up, Blockbuster! *smacks you*

2009-11-22 [Duke Devlin]: LMAO

Number of comments: 607
Older comments: (Last 200)

200 older comments
(0, 0-31):

Show these comments on your site
