Ya Just Can't Trust an Atheist!

Humans are unintelligent because they’re intelligent.

That paradox makes perfect sense.

(I’d like to apologize to Mr. Uccisore, for the following abuse of any exclamation points!)

Well, I can certainly feel the love in this particular thread!

I shouldn’t be surprised though. Given the truth of the Christian philosophical outlook, these are exactly the sort of responses I would expect.

Since I have so many admirers attending to this post, I feel it prudent to respond to a few individually, (with the exception of Mr. Saytr, who has frightened me off with his relevant critiques, and threats of pulling my pants down.)

Mr. Uccisore:

I’m surprised you posted here. I’ve come to expect a certain level of courage in your posting (from my observations in the past.) Courage is something that is lacking in this discussion to date. I greatly appreciate your input.

I am curious as to your actual position though. You begin with a criticism that I have leveled at myself: “but you may have covered a little too much ground.” It is hard to explain an entire argument in such a brief space, I agree. This is why I’m confused when you (in a later response) admit that perhaps I didn’t cover ENOUGH ground!

I have stated repeatedly (in my paper, as well as in subsequent responses) that it is not the intention of this particular article to detail the Christian’s epistemic justification of sense perceptions. I did list two books which lay it out clearly. I also admitted that, if there was enough popular demand for such a discussion, I may consider starting a thread on the issue.

My critique here, however, focuses on the more common form of Atheism (that the young Christians I wrote this article for will most likely encounter in a forum or a chatroom.)

This seems to be a common misconception among those who would present a counter argument. I am suspicious that, despite their claims, they really have not read the article. If they had, they would realize that it is not the mere fact that a person is an Atheist, which disqualifies the acceptance of their sense perceptions; but rather, it is the fact that they, as metaphysical naturalists, do not have the philosophical consistency in their worldview to account for such perceptions!

At least, I have no reason to grant validity to them. As I say in my paper, they have to earn it. Insults, unfortunately, won’t alleviate this issue.

To Mr. Erlir,

You say this:
“Unless you respond to my post, in total, this will be the last time I post in this topic.”

You then go on to make two additional posts in this topic, providing yet one more affirmation of my position. “Ya just can’t trust an Atheist

To Mr. Faust:

You begin your critique by attempting to chip away at my first argument.

To see how you really do miss the mark here, I’ll briefly re-state it.

I, as a Christian have no reason to believe an Atheist (metaphysical naturalist) who believes in evolution; since given that belief, it is only natural to use deception to get ahead in this life. Therefore, when an Atheist makes “simple allusions” such as, “this post sucks, trust me,” or, “Priest molest little boys, I know because it happened to a friend of mine;” I should not automatically grant them the truth of the simple allusion. It is very likely that they are lying.

You respond by attempting to show that coherent renderings of evolution can account for all sorts of animals that exist today.

Yes, they certainly do try to account for them, don’t they?

This is never-the-less irrelevant. Can you show that deception is not vital, (or at least VERY important) to the theory of evolution? (Remember here how I’m defining the term. I could care less about getting into a semantical argument with you over what we both mean by “evolution.”)

You then make another irrelevant statement, concerning my feelings towards the moral depravity of cheetahs. If carnivores utilize deception to “earn their living” then they certainly are liars. The moral depravity of all of nature should not be “bizarre” especially given that it is a commonly held view by many Christians. Perhaps it was your false characterization of my argument that you found bizarre? I can only speculate.

I believe that much of what follows in your “critique” arises from a misunderstanding of my position. Keep in mind Mr. Faust, that I am claiming that I have no reason to trust an Atheist who makes (what I called in the article) “simple allusions.” These usually include claims about his or her personal experience.

If however, they make claims to perceptions that are more generally accepted, (such as priest molesting boys); then a deeper critique of their ability to make valid conclusions from their perceptions will be needed. I believe I even discussed this in my article.

You state my two examples, (greed among churches, and Christianity’s bloody history) as if you think I was positing them as arguments to be refuted. Honestly those “arguments” are so silly, that I considered them easy fodder for a quick illustration. It is the very sense perceptions themselves that I am critiquing, not the particulars of the perceptions.

You then go on to posit the same argument that others here have suggested. Specifically, that I, as a Christian’ cannot validly utilize my sense perceptions either. Please see my above statements to Mr. Uccisore as an answer to this argument. (Also see my responses to Saytr, and Erlir who tried using the same argument.)

I also applaud your usage of the term, “Cartesian.” But, just to forewarn you; not all Christian philosophers are as duped by Greek philosophy as Descartes, (and subsequent philosophers) have been.

You then go on to critique my statements about deductive and inductive inferences. It seems that you expect me to grant to you, that Christianity has the same epistemological issues in this area as the metaphysical naturalist. That sir, just plainly isn’t the case. If the metaphysical naturalists and the Christians shared the same epistemology, we’d all get along MUCH better!

You conclude by stating that my post is a “straw-man.” If I have unfairly represented the position of the materialistic naturalist, and they can indeed account (on an epistemological level) for their own sense perceptions, then, SOMEONE here needs to at least TRY to show it.

"Till then, I have no reason to grant to you that you would know what a straw man looked like if he climbed off of his post, and danced with you all the way to Oz!

Kudos to the rest of you for showing me the “love.”

I hope God continues to bless this discussion, as well as Mr. Anthem!


What has frightened you off is your ianbility to post anything but polemics against those who can’t swallow your simple world view.

You equate anyone that does not adhere to your epistemological lack as being untrustworhy when your own faith is the most guilty of human attrocities and stunting of the human spirit.
You posit no alternative source of experience and knowledge to replace empiricism.
You take this slight interest in you as a product of a threat that you represent, comforting yourself that you are truly a formidable intellect, when it’s more a product of the natural human attraction to any weakness.
A hunters interest.
They wait for you to actually say something, besides posting evasive tactics and an ‘offense is the best defence’ technique, so that they can then tear your beliefs to pieces.

Survival of the fittest at work.

Still nothing of substance.

This was the funniest:

We’ll have to take your word on it, as you’ve taken another’s from a Book.

Just calling your outlook ‘truth’ doesn’t constitute an argument nor is it evidence.
Your judgment has yet to prove itself worthy of respect and consideration. Implying your correctness only adds to your simplicity.
Please use this as your next excuse to not respond.

Keep running, little lamb. You’ve perfected the art of speaking without saying a thing.
What shall anyone comment on, that you don’t trust atheists?
Do you trust non-believers in Santa Clause? Who cares what a poor judgment judges?

I love you to Satyr!

I love you too, maaaaan.

Too bad.
What a wasted life.

Perhaps God will still find some use for me?

In the meantime… maybe you could ask me for help in this discussion? I’d be glad to give you some pointers… a few ideas, or lines of thought you could pursue to attack the argument I’m making here.

Just let me know.


Doesn’t everyone hate this? When they encounter a post or OP that is so critically flawed and the person making the argument is so immersed in the belief, that its difficult to even consider starting to correct the post?

Thats a personal pet peeve of mine.

Animals aren’t selected at the species level, they’re not even selected at the individual level, selection is done at the genetic level, at the level of genes.

Which is why genes on the X chromosone can and somtimes are actively damaging for males, because they’re twice as likely to end up in a female body and as long as it slightly benefits the female can and somtimes will spread.

entire species have almost gone extinct through this very process, as all males in the species started ceasing to exist. (insects)

That is, animals don’t survive as a ‘species’ selection happens at the gene level, but when a gene or trait associated with a gene translates into the slightest survival advantage, it spreads throughout a population like wildfire, and the adaptation becomes species-typical.

But we don’t survive ‘as’ a species in that way. Theres been research/studies done on the situation, and apparently even if an adaptation or gene translates into survival 1 out of 100,00 (i honestly think it was 1in 100,000) that means, if you have a gene that causes you to see a wolf or tiger thats about to attack, even 1 out of 100,000 of potential danger, that it will become species typical in just a few generations.

And perhaps little green men will abduct me and take me away from here.

Sure, and if you ever want some pointers on what reality is or what logic and reason means, let me know.

I can also help you with overcoming your stunted development.

I alread posted why I don’t trust Christians.
Muslims…I don’t trust them, either.

He’s set up a situation wherre he thinks his beliefs will be justified and his idea that he’s a thinker will be preserved.

He will avoid anything that threatens this situation.

He knows he cannot win a rational argument if he exposes his beliefs to criticism. What he does is turn the tables, atacknig the opponent, and avoids positioning himself on the subject, other than to declare that it’s rational or too powerful or shit like that, and he interprets his evasive tactics as evidence of his superior mind.

It’s like he’s outside the rink taunting the fighters and preserving the insinuation that if he were to enter the rink he would beat the shit out of them all.
Meanwhile he finds ways to excuse himself from actually entering the rink. It’s a win win situation.
A cowards victory.

It’s simple, really.
As simple as he is.

Isn’t it sad? Usually we see this in the religion forum. Someone who takes any objection to their outlandish claims as proof that they are right. It is the messianic complex in overdrive. The proof of their truth is to is to be “crucified” by those nasty non-believers. It is their whole justification. No amount of rationality, no logic, no common sense can sway such a person. There is no way to talk to someone who already knows how everything is. Shotgun will believe what he believes because he KNOWS. The rest of us poor delusional people would do better talking to the wall.

Ahhh. I have a better understanding, now, shotgun.

Yeah, the ability to deceive is either an attribute of certain animals or it is not. You seem to be saying that if God created the animals without evolution, then they are not deceptive, but if evolution obtains, then these same animals are deceptive.


But in any event, you are claiming that people who believe in a theory have the same characteristics as that theory.

Which is, technically, insane.

Believing in Newton’s theories does not make me grave, for instance. A belief in Einstein doesn’t make me “relativistic” or as fast as the speed of light. Believing in Santa Claus doesn’t make me more generous.

There are many ways in which animals adapt to their environments - a case can be made that humans are evolved for religion. But believeing that doesn’t make me religious.

Also, to miss the fact that animals utilise camoflauge, for instance, is to miss a simple, observable fact - one that Billy Graham, the Pope, St Francis of Assisi and small children can see for themselves and do not consider controversial. You seem to be the only person on the planet who does. “Evolutionists” are not the only people who see this, in other words. It is an easily observed attribute of animals. Evolution or not. Everyone believes this.

A real Christian on display.
Not the idealized bullshit these people fling around.


Even Pen & Teller have more brains that this guy.
God bless America!!!
Thetruthof the everyday Christian.
They look trustworthy. :-&
The Foxhole Manifesto.

Shotgun’s family tree.

The God that wasn’t there.


I see what your essay was going for - or more so - was implying. Though, you seem to deny any possibility of what people are saying as replies to your essay.

You are telling many of the posters here that what they are saying is irrelevant, that they should critique your essay, that they didn’t even read your essay.

Critique isn’t always, “Bravo! Perfection! Genius! Yes, yes!” This has brought me to believe that this may be a joke on your part, but that people are not believing it to be one? I thought it was, but now I believe you are not joking.
You titled this, after all, “Ya Just Can’t Trust an Atheist!” Your ways of trying to reason with, or trump what you call the common atheist would probably make the overall argument, or debate, or easy-way-to-know-that-an-atheist-is-not-worth-listening-to, worse.

There have been enough people replying to your essay who have been explaining further in-depth what I am saying, and all you give are irrelevant this, irrelevant that. Responses that show your essay to be weak, and so on, seem to be rejected by you completely. You cannot accept what anybody else is saying, yet you go on saying that they should provide statements outside of their own experiences and beliefs created and built by themselves and their environment. An argument that says you cannot trust the average atheist because he cannot think outside his own perceptions is pointless in this way, because when you are given statements outside of your perceptions, you deny them and call them irrelevant. It could be said for the common Christian, couldn’t it? Oh wait, no, for that is limited to what I have defined as a common Christian in my experience, just as you with the idea of the common Atheist in your experience.

“…It is of humor that I foresee man viewing many branches…then screaming of blasphemy and madness. Of higher humor still is one that has me laughing into despairing highs, the riddle: is it not the madman who calls all else is mad, but also declares himself to be sane?” - The Damned speaking to The Saint in Tree of Branches Withered, from the chapter Madness and The Behemoth
(thought this might fit what I am trying to say about you finding so many comments irrelevant)

Mentioning something like “false beliefs” is not a good idea, I would think. Since when is a belief false? Since psychology started speaking of delusions? A belief applies to the believer. If they believe in something, they don’t falsely believe. If somebody has a belief in something, it is a belief. Not true, not false. Maybe if you are speaking about somebody who says they are a believer in something, and are not truly. Then again, in that sort of situation, they wouldn’t be believing at all.

The point of Christianity is not to be more right then the next man with a different belief. An Atheist doesn’t believe in Gods and structured religion, should the Christian care? Should the Christian want to trump any argument or counter coming from one who doesn’t believe? Shouldn’t the Christian continue on with their god-sent moral values, ignoring an Atheist? In this case, trust wouldn’t be a matter. Using a title like that is like having a conclusion pointing out how Atheists have poor arguments that you can pay no heed to. Even if their argument was strong and valid, a Christian should not lose faith, should they? Unless their belief is not as strong as a Christians belief should be?

Yes, I am sorry, all of these comments are based off of my own experience and situations in life, not somebody else’s, or of some separate being outside of our reality, or of statistics. If I recommended, or took a quote from a book by some famous author or figure directed for/against your comments…would that make my point more valid? I am afraid not, because that sort of logical argument is known as a logical fallacy. It is like saying, “This guy said this, so it is more relevant than anything I say, or anything you say.” There are many kinds of logical fallacies, and they do not help your argument when you use them.

Two simple points:

  1. Not all atheists are God haters. Some of us, simply do the math, and as an impossibility reaches infinite calculations, we accept the obvious; that which defies any/all known Universal properties/principles must be self-induced fantasy.

  2. “reality” is the human attempt at keeping perception in stasis. “reality” is a false perception individually created to safeguard the sensation, phenomenally, of “I, myself”. See Baudrillard; those who slumber comfortably in stasis have never been part of Reality.

Mr. Mastriani,

Despite how tired your philosophical statements here may be, they none-the-less fail to offer any counter to my article.

Perhaps you should read it before commenting.

Pay special attention to the first footnote.

In Christ


Why do I think most of you atheists don’t believe in God because it will hinder your “will-to-power”, rather than being irrational?


Given the Christian view of the world; unsaved men are driven by their quest for autonomy.

Any “light” that shines into that particular “darkness” will not be understood or accepted.

It is a laughable facade that I often find among a plurality of God-hating philosophers.

They all stand united against the Christian God in an attempt to maintain a semblance of personal autonomy.

I’m sorry, shotgun, but I am as against Christianity as Atheism.

I’m against everything of this world.


I didn’t suspect otherwise of you Aiden.

Thanks for being honest though.