63 thoughts on “Questions That Atheists Can’t Answer

      1. PIETZSCHE

        I’ve seen all these put forward for real tho’. Actually I think I’ve seen Kirk Cameron put all of them forward….

    1. woesinger

      Several are genuine creationist arguments. The banana one is from Ray Comfort and I’ve see the monkeys one used in anger on more than one comment thread.

      1. dylad

        why let science get in the way of thick religion. for instance, the banana argument absolutely ignores the fact that there are multiple banana species….

      2. Mark Dennehy

        The banana one is kinda funny, because it actually *is* a case of intelligent design — us humans bred existing plants in the wild together, selecting for smaller and more convenient and tastier fruit until we got a high-fructose banana that would fit in our hands (compare the modern cavendish banana with heritage plantains sometime) and then we grew only that plant (in essence all cavandish banana trees are clones of one another, hence the real worries over viruses and the like).

        So according to their own arguments, the banana is proof that Man is God….

          1. Mark Dennehy

            I know what they mean by it (and no, I don’t buy that “no, we don’t man God, we just mean some random supernatural agency who, like, Totally isn’t God, honest” line of theirs); I’m being a victim of Poe’s law here…

        1. Steph

          Hah! Fantastic! You win the prize of being allowed to brag about your logic skillz. And yes, that’s “skillz” with a ‘z’. You should be very proud.

  1. Amadan

    That Big Bang “Nothing exploded and made everything nonsense is sooooo ridiculous!

    It’s much more probable that a pork-shunning supernatural bearded entity who is his own father and with a taste for genocide and infanticide made it all in six days.

  2. Blah

    It’s a pity that theism debates are framed as atheists vs creationists. I know who’ll win that one. Creationists are disproportionately stupid.

    What about a proper debate between Serious Atheist and Serious Theologian? That’d be more fun. Or throw in Serious Agnostic Who Thinks Atheism Is Just As Faith-Based As Theism for giggles as well.

    1. woesinger

      There have been such debates and serious theologians seem to be no great shakes either. A lot of them have beliefs about god that are so vague as to be meaningless, while others profess positions that assume a very concrete idea of god, but then switch to woolly metaphysical evasions when challenged on those positions.

      1. Blah

        Cool. Link?

        I’d like in particular to see a proper agnostic vs a proper atheist. Obviously theist and atheist are just going to disagree, but I’d expect more robust debate from these two sides.

    2. well

      Because evolution is a horrendously long inefficient process of mutating living things either starving or hunting down and killing one another to survive, any god that chose it as a process to eventually create man would have to be exceptionally sadistic and cruel sociopath, not worthy of worship.

      The only way this really makes sense is to realize the universe is thoughtless, and does not care for your success or failure.

      That leaves you with a choice between, No God or no god that cares.

      1. Blah

        This this just follow.

        If you’re willing to grant the enormous assumption of the existence of some entity that created the universe, it’s not much of a stretch to say we might not understand their reasoning. For starters, it would define morality in a much stronger sense than we do. IF you grant that assumption, everything changes. Even science itself is questionable, since for all we know we could be in the matrix.

        Now I know this all falls from THE SUPER MASSIVE ASSUMPTION, but it’s a legit argument.

        Now it’s fairly reasonable to not work off that assumption. But it immediately puts the ball in the atheist’s court. That’s why I’d like to see an agnostic thrown in.

        1. PIETZSCHE

          It’s not a legit argument if you have to stick in an assumption. You’re asking people to accept something un-evidenced which supports your argument, so you’ve actually given up before you’ve even started.
          What reason is there to think that a Creator would “define morality in a much stronger sense”?
          You may as well say a Creator would define phlogiston much more strongly than we would.
          If someone doesn’t accept the existence of morality, your “argument” is just rationalising your own bias.

        2. PIETZSCHE

          How so? Who agrees to this assumption? Have you any evidence that morality exists at all? If not, there’s no justification for putting it in there.
          And there isn’t, so there’s no argument here, just confirmation bias.
          I don’t get why people interested in this stuff don’t actually follow the arguments that have been put forward over the centuries, if they did, then, for example, they’d realise that “morality” in the sense required by monotheistic religion is utter nonsense.

          1. Blah

            - PIETZSCHE “It’s not a legit argument if you have to stick in an assumption.”
            - Blah “This is wrong.”
            - PIETZSCHE “How so?”

            Almost all logic is based on if-then. The premise is that an assumption holds. You’re welcome to debate the validity of the assumption, which is fair; but you argued that all if then logic is illegitimate. That’s, well, wrong.

            - PIETZSCHE “I don’t get why people interested in this stuff don’t actually follow the arguments that have been put forward over the centuries, if they did, then, for example, they’d realise that “morality” in the sense required by monotheistic religion is utter nonsense.”
            Thanks for assuming that I haven’t read Margolis or Aquinas on moral relativism, but that’s false too.

        3. PIETZSCHE

          “Almost all logic is based on if-then. The premise is that an assumption holds. You’re welcome to debate the validity of the assumption, which is fair; but you argued that all if then logic is illegitimate. That’s, well, wrong.”
          No I said if you have to stick in an assumption, and clarified one for which there’s no evidence. Normal logical assumptions are ones which people who understand the subject accept, we can accept the existence of God for the sake of argument, but the existence of morality (which you’ve also assumed) is the central question of the argument, and can’t be assumed.

          “Thanks for assuming that I haven’t read Margolis or Aquinas on moral relativism, but that’s false too.”
          Couldn’t care less about either of those, the point is there’s nothing to sugest that a “higher” being would view morality as anything other than a primitive illusion.

  3. Liberty4664

    Correct me if I’m wrong but I think that humans evolved from a group of primates that developed a culture of behaviors which lead them to excel faster in their particular environment that came with different challenges or opportunities. The individuals with these new behaviors had a better survival rate and any physical adaptations that helped them to function grew more distinctive over generations. The other environments didn’t have these challenges… so primates needed only to stay as they were and save energy by not taking up any new behaviors.

    1. Mark Dennehy

      You’re *slightly* off.

      The original daft twaddle is completely wrong, mind you, because man didn’t evolve from monkeys, but from apes (different families – and if creationists don’t think monkey/ape is a big distinction, then well, they shouldn’t really express an opinion on evolution).

      But your comment is slightly out because modern members of the ape family have a common (and now extinct) ancestor; modern apes are *not* what we evolved from, they’re what we might have evolved into had random chance gone a different way a few hundred thousand years ago or so.

  4. Chucky R. Law

    Remember that the scientists have now proven existence of the God Particle, so they’ve proven scientifically that God created everything. How can the atheists argue any more against what their own science has proven?

    1. Logan

      Wait are you being serious? You do realize its called the Higgs boson particle which was actually named the god-damn particle because they couldn’t find it for ages. You do know that right? You cant have mass without it and it actually helps proves in many ways the big bang.

        1. The Old Boy

          Would that all creationists were just trolling in the greatest Poe ever concieved. How they must titter when our backs are turned.

  5. Steph

    I read an argument once that said that human mouths are the perfect size for the amount of teeth we have. This was not on a satirical website and no, I wasn’t failing to recognise one when I saw it.

    The argument is somewhat scuppered by the existence of a multibillion euro orthodontics industry. I myself have had four teeth removed because of overcrowding and anyone who has had their wisdom teeth removed won’t soon forget it.

  6. Redser

    How come no one would believe it if there were a pregnant “virgin”, or that a man could come back from the dead or even walk on water in 2012?

    Because people now have Harry potter, twilight and other fictional stories/films to occupy their – *keyword here… *Imagination. Due to lack of education and possibly anything else to do, these stories carried on and today, shockingly people still believe in the old age Harry potter.

    The end.

  7. Logan

    Just for fun, thought i would answer these questions in simple terms really quickly.

    1. Why are there still monkeys?
    a) we didnt come from monkeys we originally came from apes (and no not the apes you currently see but a different family of apes)

    2. Why is it 2012?
    a) Our world is extremely old around 4 billion years, did you know we separated time in BC and AC where its 2012 AD, however BC goes back billions of years e.g. 1×10^4 BC years (anything before the estimated birth of Christ.)

    3. The Big Bang
    a) I seriously cant be stuffed typing this out please read info from this link http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/bb_pillars.html

    4. Weird fish-cricket thing
    a) I seriously have no idea what that is, but if its something your trying to do to make evolution look silly then that is kind of sad, evolution is simply another world for adaptation of mutation, viruses mutate all the time, animals gains and lose characteristics. All of this is proven every day.

    5.Banana
    a)Ok yeah awesome, did you know that the Narcissus plant fit perfectly in your hand and will most likely kill you? Like i really dont see the point you are trying to make?

    6. Dirt
    a) No one is saying that. Its like me asking you how did my mouse (computer part) turn into a flying goldfish with 10 billion eyes? No one is saying that.

    7. Birth monkey-man
    a) evolution takes quite a while to turn an ape into a human, we are talking about millions of years.

  8. jimmy chin

    there must be a god. look at the way our ears, eyes and nose are positioned perfectly for spectacles.

  9. Jatwr

    “In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded” is the only valid one.
    Something came from nothing.
    Nobody and I mean NOBODY can explain that.
    The only explanation is that our understanding of Time is completely contrary to the reality of Time or whatever it is.
    Hence our understanding of everything is fairly scuppered.

    1. PIETZSCHE

      Actually, you’ve gone too far, we don’t know that something came from nothing, we know that our universe seems to have expanded from a single point, what came before that point, or even whether or not the phrase “before that point” makes any sense.
      But the big bang theory doesn’t posit something from nothing, it points to everything coming from a single point, that’s not nothing.

      1. Jatwr

        But where did the point come from?
        If you go back to the beginning of Time, then there had to be Nothing, at first.
        When you go back to the point in Time where the first thing exists, then you have to ask where did that first thing come from?
        It came from Nothing.

        1. PIETZSCHE

          Nah, you can’t say that, you’re applying rules which function in the world as we know it, to a world which all we know about, is that it doesn’t work the way ours does, but even then, why couldn’t there always just have been that point? Why couldn’t there have been something else which isn’t nothing? How does it make sense to say that “nothing exists”?
          There’s a tonne of work on this, but it all pretty much ends at Kant, there’s no way to even formulate sensible questions once you move beyond our own universe.

          1. Jatwr

            I think we agree with each other.
            I’m not trying to argue for believing in “god”.
            It is impossible for us to know the answer so I don’t believe (in) any theory.
            I just accept that it is impossible to know and I try to get on with life.
            Ok, I don’t know whether it is impossible for us to know the answer or not. Let science continue investigating.
            Maybe one day we will figure out the reality of what Time is or isn’t.

        2. Lan

          No, no there wasn’t!
          The universe exploded from an incredibly hot dense state (which may have been caused by a contraction from an old universe-but that’s just my favorite theory there are a number of other ones)

          1. Jatwr

            How did the Universe get into a “hot dense state”?
            or
            How did the old Universe get created?

Comments are closed.