Swiss Atheists

Instagram Debunk

The Swiss pride themselves in being neutral. This means that they don’t take sides in any issue or debate. This is central to their foreign policy and was codified in 1907 at the Hague Conventions. This neutrality is not a statute or law but is part of the national ethos. So should we expect from Swiss atheists? No less, we’d expect.

Enter the picture @swiss.atheists.  A secret chat group dedicated to attacking AiD was infiltrated and @swiss.atheists was present in the chat with extremely biased positions. Not knowing that we had infiltrated the secret chat, when confronted his/her response was the below:

First @swiss.atheists denied being involved in the chat and invoked the national pride in neutrality. It was time to call him / her to task:

And the response was to admit participation in the secret chat but deny any bias. As we’ll see shortly, bias was heavy in that secret chat:

It’s debunking time. Rummaging through the chat we can find heavily biased statements. It’s one thing to assume atheists have higher IQs, it’s another to then conclude theists are dumb. But we have exactly that from@swiss.atheists where he bashes others and calls them dumb. One would think holding the view that most theists are dumb is really not neutral. We also know that IQ as a measure of intelligence has long been debunked. You can have a high IQ and contribute nothing to society and have no empathy or no emotional intelligence (EQ).

 

We also find the following statement from an agent of “neutrality” in the same secret chat group:

Where’s the neutrality? It’s out the window. Neutrality would demand that you not take a side. In fact, if atheism was truly a lack of belief such a chat group dedicated to the demise of AiD need not even exist. But alas, AiD lives rent free in their heads.

 

The God Claim Myth

General

The first trap the theist falls into is the myth that God is a claim. And since it is a claim, the atheist says, the theist now has been positioned to carry the burden of proving that claim. For the atheist, this positioning is advantageous because no criteria has been established on what is or isn’t proof. Therefore, the atheist merely needs to reject it, an easy task for the ill-intentioned.

The notion that the existence of God, a supreme Being and Creator, need not be a claim anymore than reality is a claim. For most theists, God is the greater reality and what we perceive to be reality is now only a temporary state. When the atheist then asks what the proof for this greater reality is, the theist merely needs to demand atheist prove reality exists without committing and type of fallacy. This will be impossible for the atheist because any proof of reality requires use of reality as evidence. The atheist falls into a cyclical conundrum. The more accomplished atheismist realizes this problem while the foolhardy atheismist persists in proclaiming evidence of reality doesn’t presuppose itself.

Put more succinctly – The concept of God supersedes the concept of reality in the mind of the theist. The atheist is satisfied with mundane material as the end all and be all, unable to prove that reality exists while defiantly establishing an entire worldview based on that unprovability – others would call it a delusion.

Independent criticism of atheism

General

Prove it.

There’s no atheismist that can survive these two words. Atheismists would have you believe they own and have a monopoly on these two words as they run amok across the Interwebs demanding proof for things. However, I’ve found that asking atheismists for proofs for a great many of their claims really ends up putting them in a bind. Atheismists carry a large number of myths, rumors and fallacies.  It is always a joy to see an atheismists reaction to “prove it”. Many atheists look appalled and shocked, as if asking an atheismist for proof is audacious, arrogant and condescending act, something beneath them. Other atheismists exasperatedly claim it is ironic that I’m asking them for proof. Only a few will take up the challenge. But most all will fail to prove much of the claims they make.

“Most scientists are atheists”

Prove it.

And they still can’t.

This is why AtheismIsDead.com is about one thing and one thing only: The independent criticism, critique and questioning of atheism, its logical implications and questions, the history of atheism and the violence it has unleashed, and the common and popular myths and fallacies atheismists peddle and perpetuate. Atheism can and should be criticized without the fallacious atheismist narrative that it can only be criticized in the context of the presentation of proof of God. No, it doesn’t and there’s nothing an atheismist can say that needs to change that. It is entirely legitimate and acceptable that we criticize atheism for what it is and not feel obligated to place us at the feet of an atheismist, presenting evidence in hopes of gaining some sense of acceptance. Those days are over, atheismist.

 

How To Become An Atheist In 3 Steps

General

Here’s how to become an atheist in three very short steps:

  1. Pick any god besides your own
  2. Give reasons why you don’t believe in it
  3. Apply now same reasons to your own god

Voila! You should be an atheist instantly.

Except that it is an entirely fallacious heuristic.

I came across this meme, the preferred mechanism for atheismists to disseminate and absorb knowledge, that stated the above Insta-atheist formula, in a bright yellow background and typographic chaos. You can view it here, but I warn you, it looks like an 8-year old’s third day ever using Microsoft Paint. We made alterations to the meme to suit the mood.

So what’s the problem with these steps? Actually, there are quite a few but first and foremost is that it commits the false equivalency fallacy (we’ll call it FEF). This fallacy is committed when two arguments are made to seem equal but are not. In our context, the FEF is that all gods are equal. The basis for this equalization is the unproven assumption that there is no evidence for God.

The way to counter this fallacy is to first identify the assumption embedded in it and then pick it apart. Doing so will force the indoctrinated atheismist to commit several other fallacies which you can call them out on and correct. Here’s a simulation:

Atheismist: “..apply now same reasons to your own god! Aha! I’m so clever!”

You: “Your approach is only valid if all gods are equal. Prove all gods are equal.” [Tease out a claim]

Atheismist: “Your an idiot! There is no evidence of any god!!” [Makes a claim, usually coupled with a spelling error / insult combo]

You: “Prove there is no evidence of any god.” [Place burden of proof]

Atheismist: “Your such a child! Prove your God!” [Shifts burden]

You: “I made no claims about God, you made a claim no evidence of god exists, prove it.” [Refocus on claim]

Atheismist: “You can’t prove god exists? I thought so!” [Ad hom]

You: “There is no burden of proof on me since I made no claim. Do you refuse to prove your claim?”

Atheismist: “I don’t need to prove it, you need to show evidence that I’m wrong!”

You: “Are you suggesting you can make a claim and I need to prove it?”

Atheismist: “It’s unfalsifiable, dude! Everyone knows that! It cannot be proven!”

You: “Therefore you cannot claim it. And if you can’t claim it, you cannot use it as an assumption to arrive at conclusions.”

And they are done, minus the hysterics, repeated demands, insults and theatrics that will follow.

Usage? Rinse and repeat. After over 2,000 debates with atheists, I guarantee this will more or less be the structure of their debate. The key is to remain calm and just deliver the counters. Be careful that they don’t reverse a question that you ask and conveniently and fallaciously turn it into a claim, i.e.

You: “Prove gravity exists.”

Atheismist: “HAHAHA hey guys check this guy out he thinks gravity is not real”

The additional set of assumptions that are conveniently made include:

  1. The assumption that each god is mutually exclusive
  2. The assumption that each god doesn’t in effect represent a belief in one higher God
  3. The assumption that polytheists do not believe in one higher God
  4. The assumption that the epistemology, or how we come to gain knowledge about God, are identical for all gods
  5. The assumption that a different name for god is a different god

The atheismist’s strategy is to divide and conquer (and theists do help atheismists in this regard, I must  admit, in their constant quarreling with other theists) and segregate out gods as independent objects. What they will refuse to acknowledge is the general consensus among theists, deists and most polytheist is the general notion that a higher power exists and we differ in some of the interpretations. Because the name of God may differ with different peoples, atheists wish to sever that tie that bonds theism and create and leverage friction.

Let’s look at this another way. Imagine a true god X exists. Not everyone believes in true god X because not all people necessarily choose to believe in things that are true. Theist A believes in god X. God X has revealed a text and that text somehow, for argument sake, establish its authenticity and integrity as being from god X. Theist B does not believe in god X. B’s reason for rejecting A is that the moral code in the text does not fit with her worldview of justice. So she commits a false negative in rejecting god X.

Using the heuristics proposed by atheists above, the atheismist should also reject god X. Because, after all, someone rejected god X and therefore god X should be rejected.

We can also play around with this set of heuristics, for illustration purposes only:

  1. Pick any set of morals besides your own
  2. Give reasons why you don’t believe in it
  3. Now apply same reason to your own morals

Conclusion: Everybody’s morals are wrong. If that didn’t make it clear how fallacious the heuristic is, this should:

  1. Pick any country besides your own
  2. Give reasons why you don’t live there
  3. Now apply same reason to your own country

Huh? All of a sudden, this should all stop making sense. The atheismist will complain well not all countries are the same and so on so forth, which is exactly the point. It is unproven that all gods are the same and it is on the atheismist to prove that.

Let’s revise our 3 steps to becoming an atheist. They are:

  1. Make an unproven assumption
  2. Pretend the assumption is true
  3. Derive a conclusion from that assumption

That’ll do it. Its worked for millions.

The etymological fallacy

General

Often you’ll find atheists (or atheismists, as I’d like to call them – and you should too) claiming that the definition of atheism is the lack of belief, and despite over a dozen other dictionaries saying otherwise, atheists will adamantly stick to the one or two dictionaries they can cherry pick to suit their agenda. Alternatively, a subset of these atheists will resort to using the etymology of atheism as proof of its definition and will reposition your rebuttal and rejection of etymology as proof of the definition of a word to the strawman that you are rejecting etymology. What these atheists commit in this case is the the Etymology Fallacy, where they claim the definition of atheism is its etymology.

An example of this fallacy is using the word breakfast. When you eat breakfast you are not strictly and necessarily breaking a fast. It is possible, and often so, that you haven’t eaten at all while you slept through night, not waking up to drink or eat something. Despite that, however, you are not breaking a fast in the morning but are having breakfast. Words go through semantic change and depart from their etymology. Breakfast food  is food that we associate with having in the morning, perhaps cereal, toast or eggs.

The Economist has an interesting article on this fallacy, using the word transpire, which etymologically means “to breathe across”, a meaning no one uses today. Check the article out here: Etymology fallacy.

Enjoy and use it on an atheist TODAY.

UPDATE: No sooner than posting this on our popular Instagram page did an atheist commit the very strawman I said they commit, namely shifting the argument from rejecting etymology as necessarily the definition of a word to the strawman of rejecting etymology. You can see the post here. Thanks for the gift Aaron!

fullsizerender-9

 

The Atheismist

General

 

In my debates with atheists, a recurring theme and a trend gaining momentum is the notion that atheism is not a belief that there is no God but a lack of belief in God. The goal of the atheist is to position themselves in a debate to have the upper hand by claiming they have no beliefs and are therefore not liable for anything. Touche, atheist, touche. However, we can differentiate between this definition of an atheist and an atheist that specifically has beliefs about atheism. What kinds of beliefs about atheism? Almost any, and here are some common one’s that I’ve come across in my debates with atheists on Instagram, Twitter and now Facebook.

  • “Atheism is a conclusion”
  • “Atheism is true” or any positive assertion about atheism.
  • “Atheism is science and science is atheism” and statements like this linking atheism to science.

Here are two examples. The first an atheist on Instagram who vehemently asserts atheism and science are the same thing:

atheismisscience

And the American Atheist’s homepage that states, regarding an upcoming convention,

Speakers will cover a broad range of topics…but we will pay particular attention to the intersection of the sciences and atheism”.

You can see this statement in the screenshot below. Why does atheism, supposedly only a lack of belief, all of a sudden now have an intersection with “the sciences”? Here’s why. The atheist has decided to associate anything positive they possibly could with atheism and then hide behind the “definition of atheism” when disassociating or positioning themselves to remain on the offense.

 

aa

For these kinds of atheists, I propose a new term: atheismist. An atheismist is an atheist that has any type of positive belief about atheism or negative belief about theism. They also typically  associate or correlate atheism with anything positive. What does emerge mentality about atheism is a body of popular beliefs atheismists have. Which is what I focus on debunking. If atheists feel they can hide behind a definition of atheism, they shouldn’t be spared on the beliefs they have about atheism.

Till next time, tootle loo.

 

The Definition of Atheism

Instagram Debunk

When debating atheists, it is not uncommon to arrive at a point in the debate where atheists use the definition of atheism as some form of shield from what ever argument they are trying to make or evade. Often, atheists will have certain beliefs regarding atheism and when these beliefs are questioned, such as the belief science and atheism are linked or that atheism is an outcome of refuted evidences. These beliefs are then shielded behind the definition of atheism, as atheists feign the notion that these beliefs require no substantiation because atheism is defined as merely and simply the lack of a belief in God and is not a claim. Theists fall into this trickery and are advised to learn to separate atheism from the beliefs atheists have about atheism and force atheists to substantiate the beliefs they have for atheism. Even still, as we’ll see below, atheism is predominantly defined as a belief and not a lack of one. Hence the need for a word and hence many atheists are very active in defending their supposed lack of belief.

What is helpful is to understand how atheism is defined in the English language. Most atheists will cherry pick a certain definition of atheism and use that. Particularly, if atheism is defined as a lack of belief, atheists will peddle this definition and hide behind it. Below we show several dictionaries and an atheist philosopher and how they define atheism. Share it with atheists and eliminate that shield they hide behind.

First up at bat is Julian Baggini, PhD, an atheist, and in response to the question on what he understood by atheism he states:

It’s a belief that there is no God or gods. But it’s slightly more complicated than that because, for most self-identifying atheists, it’s not just that they don’t believe in a God or gods, but that they don’t believe in any kind of supernatural realm. So I think an atheist is, 95% of the time, a naturalist.

He wisely does not state atheism is a lack of belief. Let’s look at a few other dictionaries. I’ll display the actual screenshot from the dictionary accompanied with a link to the dictionary’s page for your verification.

Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines atheism as

The BELIEF that God does not exist

definition-of-atheism-oxford-learners-dictionary

 

Dictionary.com defines atheism as:

The DOCTRINE or BELIEF that there is no God

definition-of-atheism-dictionary

Merriam-Webster defines atheism as:

A DISBELIEF in the existence of deity and also as the DOCTRINE that there is no deity

definition-of-atheism-mw

Here’s Macmillan with a heavier slant on it:

The BELIEF that God does not exist

definition-of-atheism-macmillan

Collins makes it a little more severe:

REJECTION of belief in God or gods

definition-of-atheism-collins

Cambridge Dictionary agrees:

The BELIEF that God does not exist

definition-of-atheism-cambridge

Chambers:

The BELIEF that there is no god

definition-of-atheism-chambers

The Free Dictionary:

DISBELIEF in or DENIAL of the existence of God or gods

definition-of-atheism-free-dictionary

Longman:

The BELIEF that God does not exist

definition-of-atheism-longman

(Getting the point so far?)

The American Heritage Dictionary:

DISBELIEF or DENIAL

definition-of-atheism-american-heritage

Wordsmyth:

BELIEF

definition-of-atheism-wordsmyth

I think we get the point, as much as atheists are desperately seeking to eradicate atheism (yes, atheism), by eradicating it’s true definition, atheism is still a belief.

Requiem for atheism

General

A common retort atheists make on the Atheism Is Dead Instagram page is that “atheism is rising.” Here’s why that’s not true and why atheists feel the need to use it as an argument.

Tell an atheist that there are far, far more theists in the world than atheists and you’ll get some snarky response like “Numbers don’t matter” or statement (misstatement) of some category of fallacy such as “appeal to authority” or, more accurately, an “appeal to popularity”. Despite knowing this category of fallacy, atheists will still peddle the notion that atheism is rising. This notion is no less an appeal to popularity but atheists will conveniently adjust positions to suit a particular argument or debate, a tactic we like to call with a term we’ve coined: arbitrary posturing. Why do atheists have a need to call out a fallacy and then turn around to commit it themselves whenever it is convenient? The answer is simple: To project an image of imminent dominance and obscure the fact that atheists have been the global minority for thousands of years.

So is atheism rising? Not really. According to Pew, atheism is projected to decline globally.  Here’s a graph (click here for source) from Pew that shows the percentage of the unaffiliated declining. Now, mind you, because someone is unaffiliated doesn’t make them an atheist. What that means is that atheists are even a smaller segment of the global population than the unaffiliated.

FT_15.04.02_unaffiliatedTotal

Pew even goes on to say:

Some social theorists have suggested that as countries develop economically, more of their residents will move away from religious affiliation, as has been seen in Europe. But there is little evidence of such a phenomenon in Muslim-majority countries. Moreover, in Hindu-majority India, religious affiliation is still nearly universal despite rapid economic and social change.

So the future for atheism is grim. Advancement in technology and an increasingly educated population are no guarantees people will move away from religious affiliation, much less become atheists.

Cracking Enigma: Atheists get it wrong

General

Recently we asked atheists on our Instagram page who they thought was the first person to crack the German Nazi Enigma, an act that many believed ushered in an end to WWII.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BMJ8fdXDKmT/

 

It wasn’t a surprise when many atheists responded with Alan Turing as their answer.

fullsizerender-3

 

However, Alan Turing is not entirely the correct answer. This is possibly because the two movies on the subject, The Imitation Game and Enigma, are centered around Alan Turing and atheists tend to pass around fallacious information on Instragram without taking the time to research the matter thoroughly.  Alan Turing alone cannot be credited with the success of cracking the Enigma. Poland was first able to decipher the Enigma. At the forefront of this work was the Polish mathematician Marian Rejewski. In fact, there is a plaque in Bletchley Park which states in “commemorating the work of Marian Rejewsk, Jerzy Rozycki and Henryk Zygalski, mathematicians of the Polish intelligence service, in first breaking the Enigma code.” The US CIA page also attributes Poland with first breaking the code here.

And here is Sarah Knapton from the Science section of The Telegraph stating “But few people realise that early Enigma codes had already been broken by the Poles who then passed on the knowledge to Britain shortly before the outbreak of war”

Sorry, atheists.