Magnum Opus of the Atheist Kind

The simple yet fallacious nature of an atheist cannot be understated.

An atheist believes that there is no god, which means that there is no big man in the sky, who created humans, who wrote the Bible and the commandments and set the rules for society. There is also no big man in the sky that turned the city of Sodom and Gomorrah to ash, and turned the guy’s wife into a pillar of salt.

It just really doesn’t make sense that a God would have a child, and then send him to Earth to die, and then bring him back. And it really doesn’t make sense that a God would speak to Moses and say, “hey, guess what? I’m a burning bush.”

If there was an all powerful and righteous God, he surely would not allow people to be hungry, have cancer, allow them the suffer from alcohol and drug addictions, go bankrupt, have things like Polio and Measles. Humans have been the cure for everything. We live in a world of incredible scientific and technological advancement. Today’s world is a world without Polio, Smallpox, but one that still has hunger and poverty.

‘Where the hell is God in all this? Where is God when you need him?’

Well, keep reading my essay and you’ll soon find out where exactly God is.

Today’s world has hunger, of course, because the rich keep getting richer. Today’s world has problems like methamphetamine addiction, which is a drug that was synthesized by a human in the twentieth century, but the world also has recovery programs and rehabilitation centers like Narcotics Anonymous, which all emphasize strongly in a belief in God. As David Sheff wrote in Beautiful Boy, a book that documents his efforts to help his son Nic Sheff [recover from a methamphetamine addiction], his story is simply the “the horror of addiction, and the miracle of survival.”

Strange - how this struggling father writes about how he can do nothing, alone, to get through to his addicted son, but instead credits the son’s recovery to his own personal efforts as well as enlightenment and belief in a higher power. Nic Sheff is now a famous author, who once was a teenager who found his own teeth falling out [as that was where the addiction led him]. But that is not the strange part. Every atheist will argue that it took him a while to find his own willpower, which then kept him sober. What’s strange is that Nic writes about his life, a testimony, and how God helped him recover from a problem that was caused by a substance that other humans had synthesized in the twentieth century.

‘Why does Nic not credit himself and instead credits the program that instills belief in a higher power?’

Well, he has lived a harsher life than most of us live. The one staggering thing about him is that he is alive to tell the tale. Why should we not listen to him?

In order to truly understand why God comes into the picture of a meth addict, let’s try and understand what the program is about. It is a spiritually enlightening program that shows possibility of a light at the end of a dark tunnel - they are told that there is hope for every soul, if they are to ask God to remove them of their shortcomings that includes their ego, inconsideration, denial, personal ambitions and desires, sexual conduct, harms, fears, and even resentments. They are then on the journey, a process, known as recovery from addiction, and are reminded to continually engage in prayer and meditation to remind themselves to never go back to the drug.

Nic Sheff writes, in his companion memoir Tweak, about the excruciating pain he has faced in his life, and how he has recovered from it. It is not just how he recovered, but it is how anyone else can recover too. David Sheff writes, “when I held in my arms my new born beautiful boy, I did not look at him and see a meth addict and an alcoholic… This is the story of my son, my Nic. He could have been anyone’s son, and even your son.” One word that sticks out from the writing is pain.

‘Alright sure, God helped a meth head, but that doesn’t make him real. The kid just believed in the idea of a God.’

Well, I guess God is just an idea to us all. He doesn’t have to reveal himself to us. We have a conscious need for knowledge, similar to what the Bible says about humans (bite from the tree of knowledge), and so we decided to find our own answers. The main question that needed to be answered was, ‘what is the meaning of life?’ And so, we found that humans have evolved from apes, or fish, or bacteria. That is how life came to be. Now after the main question was answered, we asked ourselves, ‘where have we come from?’ And so, we found that the ‘big bang’ happened and then that is how matter came to be. But then, someone asked, ‘how did that big bang come to be?’ And because the scientist had no answer, he said that the man should stop asking questions, because the questions will keep coming unless they are brought to a halt. So, we have found all the answers we will ever need, and hence we have also come to the invention of the word irony.

The discovery in science had to be told to the world. The only way to do so was with the use of language. And as soon as language comes into play, bias and persuasion are inevitable, no matter how concise or drawn out the text may be. Hence, with the answers preached to the world, everybody started to see reality - that there is no God. This is where atheism originated from.

‘Well, atheism is actually just the belief that there is no God.’

Is that true though? This, I question, in exactly the same way an atheist would question if he were to hear a story from the Bible. That is atheism in theory indeed, but practically it is a completely different scenario. The idea of science being the answer to everything has been spread all around the world, with language. Language can be used to change things from what they really are. They become something else, and most of the time end up becoming extremely detrimental to people, society, and the human race. An atheist, literally any atheist on planet Earth, would say that they believe there is no God, because…

That’s exactly it. They feel the need to give a reason and explain why they believe there is no God. They have a reason for their belief, or they quickly make up one. But almost all of these reasons, (unless the person is yet to care or think about spirituality) are more in favor of them disproving the existence of God, and not the belief in no God. Let’s take an example to elucidate this better.

The world, rather, laws in the world, were made using teaching of the Bible. Let’s accept it - they are purely Christian. Ethics and morals have been brought out and enforced into lives and society, which were all from the Bible, once again. There was a time where homophobia - the fear of homosexuality - was at its peak. It was a nightmare for LGBTQI people. It started with disagreeance on gay men. People committed their actions in the shadow of the night, either scared of what God would think of them, or (if they didn’t believe in God) scared of what the police would do to them.

Society said that homosexuality is devil’s work, and that there can be no salvation for them. People sympathized with them, and it was deemed that prison would set them straight. It is now a world where people are accepting and supporting those who are LGBTQI. And it shows exactly how far society has come. We as humans, have changed the laws and stance in society to be more accepting and considerate of people. We are the own creators of our fruition. We have been ignorant to the people suffering all this time!

‘The Bible says that homosexuality is a disease. It is not God’s work, and he was so sick at the sight of it, that he burned down the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Hence, sodomy has been looked down upon, for all these years. But for us to be so inconsiderate, and follow this word of God? This is one of many reasons I don’t believe in God.’

Any and every atheist will agree with the above point. That is one of many reasons (along with the famine and poverty, I have not forgotten about that) for an atheist to believe there is no God. But if they are to read finely, and set their ignorance aside (as they claim they are very much not ignorant), they will soon see the truth in their words.

I say that, ‘if any atheist were to actually have the kindness and consideration they say they have, they would see how every statement they make is purely fallacious. And if any and every atheist were to have half a wit, they would soon see how their own arguments crumble.’

I intend to prove this by using their very own words against them, just as they do to God. I shall do this, once I get myself a frothy latte.

So let’s review this belief of atheism. It is one of many. And if I prove the fallacy in this, you will soon start to see the fallacy in all their statements and arguments. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah. It was quite tragic indeed. Let’s study what actually happened.

‘There was a man named Lot, who was married to a woman, and had two daughters. He was quite a spiritual man, as he was contacted by God. God told him that there will be two angels that come, appearing as strangers, and ask him for shelter and residence. Lot agreed, and soon found two strangers that asked him for shelter and residence. He then held his end of the promise, but the word spread quickly about how Lot was harboring two fugitives. The city - especially all the men - came to his house with the intent of committing sodomy (the word has originated from this story) with the intent of putting that man in the right place. But the angels told him to take his wife and kids and run away from the city. He could survive the malevolence of the homosexuality of the other man if he were to believe in the word of the angels, and flee Sodom and Gomorrah. He did so, under strict instruction not to turn back and look at the city, as God planned to rain fire and burn the city, leaving nothing but a devastating mess and a fallout zone. His wife did so, unfortunately, and saw the fire rain from the heavens, and so she turned into a pillar of salt.’

This story from the Bible has been manipulated, and misinterpreted. If one were to read the actual text - and not just someone else’s preaching of the text - they would discover the fallacy in it that the entire planet managed to believe for nearly two thousand years. Nowhere does the Bible mention homosexuality - it does not say that homosexual actions were punished. It says that the ill intentions of those men, were the justification for the punishment. It was plain and simple - it was rape that was punished, and not homosexuality.

And if only someone were to really read between the lines, there would not have been such unrest in society for this long. The atheist speaks of science and accuracy, and logic too, and somehow completely fails to apply any of his mighty logic to the Bible. This is just one of millions of proofs that all express why and how language can be used to manipulate things, people, ideas, and thus affect beliefs. Sure, it is the priests, preachings, and articles that have all told a wrong truth. That does not change anything about the existence of God. Yet, an atheist still uses this to express why he believes there is no God, rather, express their disbelief in God.

Now that I have set the premise, and explained how one of the arguments of an atheist can be completely fallacious in nature, I intend to prove how every argument an atheist makes will crumble if they were to have half a wit. I will do that by making fun of someone that makes fun of others - a comedian! Let’s take Ricky Gervais, who presents himself eloquently and apparently portrays the fact that he does have half a wit. 

Let’s hear what he has to say about God, and why he is an atheist.

“If you weren’t allowed to teach anything to children, until they were twenty, I think we would see a different pattern. The human brain is a sponge and it needs to be educated by his parents. It then gets a lot harder to undo that. People are conditioned.”

Okay, sure, parents keep telling children that they will burn in hell for sins. This is wrong, they aren’t letting the children learn for themselves, and they surely aren’t letting the child put his hand in the fire.

Why then, I ask, did David Sheff open up and tell people about the horrors of addiction? And, why did Nic write a companion memoir? He could have let anyone try the drug and figure it out for themselves. David could have allowed Nic to stay on his own, but instead he chose to help him. People around the world need to learn about the horrors of addiction.

It is that parents fear for children. They are being considerate because they are heartbroken to see children make the same mistakes. My father might allow me to touch the fire and learn for myself, but for the rest of his life he has to look at me with a burned hand. I would probably use my right hand, my dominant hand, and hence I can never be able to shake hands again. Inconsiderate? I think I have just proved why Ricky Gervais is not entirely as thoughtful as he sounds.

“I look at all religions the same way. There are multiple religions, and it is a coincidence that you are born into the right God. It is important for everyone to find their own beliefs.”

Well, there is one thing you mentioned before. People are conditioned. And so, is it not possible that your beliefs are just further work on your conditioning, dear Ricky?

“Well, if anyone proved to me that God existed, then I would believe,” says Ricky Gervais, in a tone that boasts confidence in intelligence.

Do keep in mind that intonation, choice of words, speed of speech are all parts of language. And are all factors that change how persuasive language is.

This statement of my dearest Ricky, that there is no proof of the existence of God, is the number one argument placed forward by all atheists. Okay, there are no remnants of the burning bush, there is no garden of Eden, and there surely aren’t the burned cities Sodom and Gomorrah.

If my dear Ricky (and all my lovely atheists) had read one book in his life, he would have found the comedy in himself. We’ve been laughing with him until now, but never at him.

Douglas Adams writes, ‘“Proof denies faith,” says God, “and without faith, I am nothing.”’.

Why the hell would any ‘all-powerful, vicious’ God leave traces of himself, when proof clearly denies faith?

Douglas Adams uses this idea to prove why God doesn’t exist. He speaks of a fictitious item, the Babel Fish, and writes about it as a ‘bizarrely improbable and mindbogglingly useful’ item that could not have evolved ‘by chance’. It proved that God existed, and so therefore, by God’s own arguments, it proved it didn’t. That same great thinker that proved God did not exist also went on to prove that black is white, and got himself killed on the next zebra crossing. He uses this small anecdote as a clever way of defining the stupidity of mankind, and the stupidity of thinking. Does Ricky Gervais write real humour? I wonder.

Let’s use this anecdote to bring some sense into the minds of deviants, in the same way a comedian uses anecdotes to make jokes. ‘Proof denies faith’ - it is true, and has been agreed upon. Now, humans are not a bizarrely improbable invention and existence, are they? Well atheists have clearly proved they aren’t. Science has shown where man has come from. And so, this proves that man hasn’t come from God. That does not mean that there is less proof of the existence of God. Proof of evolution of man is not proof of the existence of God. The technicality that atheists often hold high, seems to have been forgotten by them, when they want to be correct.

Humans have gone on to prove more and more things, reasons, and ideas, and have done nothing more than increase the doubt that there is a God, but no one ever says that it increases the faith that there is a God. So, they are essentially just helping God cover his own tracks. The more proof we have, the more we find that it causes doubt over God.

“The Bible is not proof. It is a history book.”

Whoa, okay there Ricky. You seem to have a good point that I already have illustrated. Because of the lush text, and frivolous imagery, people are persuaded by the language of the Bible. They are told stories, and hence are brainwashed of their own intrinsic ideas. This usage of narratives can be quite deadly indeed.

When asked about his belief in atheism, Ricky said, “Well, I didn’t want to be Christian. When I was around eight years old…”

What he says after has no real importance. Sorry Ricky, your life is of no interest to me, as I presume it is as pathetic as can be. You did also say that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and so here is mine of yours.

But to really make people believe his stance and his belief in atheism, he started to tell a story - a narrative. But then he complains that the Bible tells narratives that manipulate and persuade the people. Hasn’t he just done the exact same? Atheists are quite stupid, else Ricky Gervais is, and hence contradict themselves often.

“I came from a very poor neighborhood. My dad was a laborer, my mum was a housewife.”

Whoa. Isn’t this called ‘Pathos’?

Pathos - one of three ways to utilize the art of rhetoric - is an emotional argument.

Oh Ricky, please do tell me about your tough childhood, and how you struggled in life. I want to hear your emotional story and sympathize with you. And I will completely forget that you are using language [and rhetoric] to manipulate me.

“I’m not Christian, and I live my life in a good way. And people ask me, ‘well how do you know what good is?’ and I say, ‘Well, do you know what? I do.’ I’m good to people because I know it is the way I want to be treated. There are [around] 270 Gods, and if you happen to be Christian, you believe in only one of them.”

Okay, Ricky. You are one of seven billion people, and what you say is good is not the same as what someone else says is good. How the hell would people be in control then? There are multiple Gods with multiple beliefs, in exactly the same way as there are multiple people with multiple beliefs. Who is right and who is wrong?

Let’s look at his own beliefs. He does good, because he knows that doing good to others will bring good to him - exactly one of the principles Christianity teaches (don’t forget that he was conditioned by Christian beliefs). If he never had that upbringing, he would brush off anyone that brushed him off. The odds that every single person [he has interacted with] has been good to him is simply too low. Actually, it is zero. There is always one capitalist in the modern capitalistic world, and there he speaks as if he is a communist. Would a communist continue to help a capitalist, if the capitalist were to compromise the communist’s needs and gain for himself?

But why then, does he keep going on, and keep doing good even if it was proved to him that doing good may not always bring good to him?

Let’s look at atheists as a whole, after I have proved that the words of Ricky Gervais are as pathetic as his comedy. Well, actually, by speaking about his beliefs, he did make me laugh. Impressive! You have the possibility of being a hyper intelligent being that writes comedy for a niche, and are quite a good actor too. But we will never know.

I have proved that the words of one of the world’s most open and accepting atheists are fallacious. Now it’s time to prove it for the rest of, as all atheists really want is proof. I will do it after I leisurely take a sip of my latte.

Atheists argue purely with logic and reasoning. They have proved their incredible cognitive and intellectual capabilities.

If they had half a wit, then they would see how quickly their own arguments crumble.

Atheists say that a person who believes in God is someone that is believing a lie. There is no God, and science explains everything. Now let’s try considering a human (any human).

A smart man starts a bonfire believing purely in science and logic. This fire just so happens to quickly get out of hand, and soon he has a forest fire. He knows that there is no chance of rainfall. Keep in mind that emotion can bend the boundaries of logical and cognitive thinking - which is why an alcoholic cannot stop drinking, even though logic tells him one drink a week is good enough. The forest man - what are his options then?

He either walks into the fire, to speed up the process. Or he waits for it to come to him. Death is inevitable for him, in much the same way that death is inevitable for everyone. All he has left is time. That’s it. Nothing more.

If this man of great intellect were to choose wisely, he would ideally want to extend his last moments as far as possible - just to gather his thoughts, and face death and accept it.

The thought of death is taken for granted, given how real it is.

If any person were to fully understand the gravity of death, they would be terrified of it. No, seriously, read Edgar Allan Poe, or listen to works by Phil Elverum.

The man chooses not to walk in, and instead starts to think about things for his last moments. His thoughts might also be those of lunacy, but we don’t know that. If we ask him, he could just lie, so let’s leave that as ‘undefined’. He faces death and accepts what is inevitable.

Any great person who thinks he has found an error in my argument will say that he is ‘over-thinking’ things. He should keep it simple. This very same great person, who also believes in science and logic, has forgotten that the brain always keeps thinking, whether they realize it or not, unconsciously. Who’s over-thinking now? Is it the man who faces his thoughts, or the man that allows them to rack up over time?

The forest fire man chooses to spend his last moments some way, which is to dwell on hope - hope that his miserable life can be saved. Wouldn’t anyone want to escape such a situation that quickly gets out of hand? Regardless of the outcome, he will be at peace knowing he is not a coward, who ran away from possibility of hope. He gets on his hands and knees and pleads and begs for rain. He prays for rain.

This atheist made a turn to believe that something greater than him can give help that he can’t get himself. Who gives that help? God. And so in his mind, a sense of peace is instilled.

Is it logical for an atheist to say that a priest speaks words of fallacious nature, or is it that the atheist himself is simply being ignorant?

The atheist argues that preaching about a big man in the sky is purely just ‘loony tunes’.

But does the atheist ever consider that it is indeed the man that is ‘loony tunes’ and not his words?

Let’s leave the words he speaks out for a few seconds, because they can be manipulative. Let’s analyze the man.

The priest speaks like a lunatic and does actions of a lunatic. Okay, let’s agree with the atheist (for once), and say that only lunatic men do such things. Let’s look at this lunatic priest.

So that means, there must (according to the logic and probability atheists love), at one point, have been a time in his life where the perfectly normal logical man was driven to the same point of realization that the forest fire man was in. Some kind of heartbreak, pathetic childhood, drug or alcohol problems (yes, problems, not abuse), divorce or separation, mental and physical health issues, loss of lives and loved ones… the list goes on.

The priest, who is a lunatic, has experienced at least one of these, which thus drove him to insanity. He has also, very possibly, experienced two or more of these, which drove him to lunacy. Insanity is the saddest thing that can ever happen to a person, if you really are to think about it. He made a turn to hope that his life can have some hope or salvation - that he can be saved from the malevolence he faced on Earth.

This has two possible outcomes only. One is that he has been saved, or has seen signs of it. The other is that he hasn’t. But we can never know, because the atheist would not want to trust the words of anyone religious.

Let’s come back to the logic that atheists use and love so much.

Would this man not have been capable of making the simple logical decision that if he hasn’t seen signs, that means there is no God - he should stop praising him, and stop preaching?

If God didn’t work for him, why would he spend his time preaching a fallacious word, while living in a resource scarce world, where science teaches everyone about the survival of the fittest?

Is it not probable that most atheists are just being inconsiderate, as they have never once thought about all the pain and suffering that man could have faced?

It is because the priest has found happiness in his life, and has found that the color has been restored to his face. He walks happily and confidently. He is ready to help anyone suffering, however little or lot, and allow them to join him on this immaculate path of righteousness and salvation.

But, the atheist says that the man does not know true pain (only because he sees the man happy), and that the atheist would rather believe in science and logic.

Is true pain avoidable for everyone? Is it really?

The atheist presumes it is, and he hasn’t made a turn to God, because he hasn’t experienced true pain or because he hasn’t wanted or wished for salvation. So, why wouldn’t parents condition their kids, and ensure they aren’t in a place where they experience true pain without hope or help? Hence, his ignorance to the suffering of the priest is enough to confirm that any argument he makes is fallacious.

So now, according to the logic set forth by atheists, let’s review the facts, logically.

A priest has faced pain and difficulty, driving him to insanity, but he speaks of miracles and how lives can be restored, and particularly testifies about his own. He has faced every difficulty since, and he has conquered them all.

An atheist believes that the priest is a liar, and that he speaks words that are fallacious and misleading.

We do not know which of these is true. But there is one more fact that has proved to be true.

The ignorance of the atheist, and the inconsiderateness, is more than that of the priest.

This alone is enough for any human, unbiased or biased, to logically understand that the words of the atheist are more fallacious than the words of the priest.

Hence, any argument any atheist makes is fallacious.

If you have a hard time understanding God as a concept, please use John Lennon’s quote for perspective.

“God is a way we measure our own pain.”

God is the way David Sheff measured his son’s pain. God is the way Nic Sheff measured his own pain, and illogical and uncontrollable desire to drink and use drugs. Nic testifies that it is a problem he has, of which drugs and alcohol are a symptom.

I have used logic, something atheists thrive with, to show how their own arguments crumble. For all atheists out there, I ask you one question.

“Would you blame Nic Sheff, for not having a logical mind to tell him when to stop using drugs?”

Thank you, and good night.

Note from the writer:

Why am I doing this? You may ask. Let me have another sip of my coffee, before I answer.

I am a punk.

But before you get any preconceptions, I would like to emphasize one tiny detail. It’s not that punks don’t believe in anything, it is just that we strongly believe in defying something that doesn’t make us feel right. I am not just a punk, but I am a bored punk. There are no new bands telling me what to do, and so I tried finding my own things to do. It’s just that I’ve defied everything there ever was already, including religion, just as any and every punk has already done before. And then, I decided to call myself one of the cool ones - that defy and hate religion, thus being an atheist.

But everyone else became an atheist because they think it’s cool too.

And so, I decided to defy atheists and really try to understand atheism for myself. I guess you can say that I was finding some truth of my own to believe in.

That’s what punks really do.

Note to all the punks around the world:

The punk lifestyle is something I admire as it has shaped the person I am, and I am happy with myself. If my presumption of what a punk is (someone who believes in finding a truth of their own) is wrong and I am not a punk, then I guess I am defying what you have all preached, hence making me a punk.

I admire the community, and to every punk out there - you have inspired my (as well as millions of others) life, values, beliefs, and morals. Punk taught me more about life than any scientist, philosopher, doctor, or author ever could.

You all just do what you believe and it inspires others. Plus, you kick ass while doing it.