Bad Atheist Arguments

If you ever ask an atheist to prove their claim that God doesn’t exist, chances are you’ll hear some truly atrocious responses. Below you’ll find some of the worst atheist arguments.

You can’t prove a negative!

This may be the most common response. Somehow many atheists have come to the conclusion that it’s not possible to prove negative claims. That begs the question as to why they would frequently make them! At any rate, this claim is clearly false as any competent logician will tell you.

There is no flat Earth.

This is a negative claim that can be easily proven true. Also, any positive claim can be negated. e.g. Prove God doesn’t not exist.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim! You prove God exists!

This is just bizarre but it’s surprising how many times it is used. Somehow many atheists believe that the person claiming that God doesn’t exist is not making a claim. Also they are admonishing you for daring to request justification for that claim. To top it off they shift the burden of proof onto you.

Prove Zeus doesn’t exist!

This is another odd one. Instead of justifying their claim that God is imaginary, they try to shift the burden of proof onto you for a different claim.

That God doesn’t exist is the null hypothesis!

Atheists sometimes attempt to ague that because “God doesn’t exist” is the null hypothesis to the claim that “God exists” they do not have to prove their claim. The null hypothesis is the claim that there is no difference between groups or no relationship between variables. So for every claim you are trying to support, there will an alternate “opposite” claim that you must reject. If you find a relationship between your variables, you have disproven the null hypothesis.

If you claim that God exists, the null hypothesis is that God doesn’t exist. But if you claim God doesn’t exist, the null hypothesis is that God does exist. Simply because a claim has a null hypothesis does not mean that the null hypothesis claim by itself doesn’t require support. When you make any claim, you have a burden of proof to support that claim.

Which God?

When asked to prove an atheist’s claim that God doesn’t exist they might proclaim “which God?”. That’s like saying “which Supreme Being?”. A being can only be supreme is there is only one such being.

Atheism is about belief! Agnosticism is about Knowledge!

This claim is made when stating that a weak atheist is the same as an agnostic. It is false because knowledge is justified true belief, so both positions involve belief. Also, when Thomas Huxley coined the term agnosticism he specifically meant it to refer to a lack of belief and lack of knowledge of God.

Are you also agnostic about fairies!

Here the atheist is trying to argue that it’s rational to believe that things that cannot be justified do not exist. This however involves committing the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy. that is, fairies don’t exist because they have been proven to exist. The rational position on the existence of fairies is in fact one of agnosticism.

Shadow of the Dead God Critiques Our God Proof

Someone calling themselves Shadow of the Dead God has issued a critique of our proof for the existence of God. As per usual his “critique” is nothing but pompous pseudo-scientific drivel riddled with logical fallacies.

His first false claim is that we’re redefined God to be the universe. This is the second atheist criticism we deal with right in the proof in the section “Atheist Criticisms”. That he missed it or could not understand it does not bode well for his comprehension abilities.

We are not redefining anything. We are simply saying that the Universe is a being, the supreme being, God. Pantheism was the first conception of a supreme being. If anyone has redefined the concept of God it is every non pantheist.

The second false claim is that we’re “conflating” the terms God and Universe. We are not. We are equating them, saying that they are one and the same thing, not confusing two different things. There is no conflation whatsoever. He does not seem to understand what the concept of conflation refers to.

The third false claim made is that we err by assuming that there is not some physical stuff other than energy. He claims that to assert that one “would need to have a complete theory of quantum gravity, that unifies general and special relativity with quantum mechanics to assert that”. He provides no justification for this odd view presumably because there is none.

Next he falsely claims that “Laurence Krauss demonstrated that the total net energy of the universe equals zero.” Kraus did no such thing. His cancellation hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. A hypothesis with inconclusive experimental proof to support it. At any rate, these cancellation theories are not claiming that there is no energy, only that the effects of positive energy cancel out the effects of negative energy.

Next is a false claim that our proof commits an equivocation fallacy. He claims that we are equivocating “electrical and neurological synapsis that create (sic) brain activity” with “gravitational pull of black-holes”. We don’t do that at all. We’re simply saying that both such interactions ultimately involve field interactions. So he has misrepresented our argument and attacked that misrepresentation, i.e. he committed a straw man fallacy.

Next he claims that our “assertion that the universe is just one massive system of interacting energy, is patently wrong, and lacking of understanding.” He does not justify this claim and instead rambles on about how the universe does not work and nothing interacts with the universe which is something we’ve not said. He appears to be making the bizarre conflation that we’re claiming that the fact that the Universe is a system of interacting energy somehow means that we’re interacting with the Universe as a whole. It doesn’t though. This is just some nonsense he made up because he seems to have a pathological need to misinterpret what we write.

Next he make the false claim that heat death of the Universe is inevitable. It is not. Few physicists actually believe that and for those that do, their justification is merely theoretical, not an established fact. He then makes the false claim that the Universe had a beginning. The known universe possibly did but the Universe itself for all we know has always existed. A big problem here is his repeated faulty equivocation of theories with fact. This betrays a severe lack of understanding in basic science.

Here’s where it gets pretty absurd. He agreed with the following statement: “It’s important to understand that interacting energy wouldn’t cause a mental state to magically arise out of nowhere”. But he had a big problem with the following conclusion: “Energy itself must have the simplest possible default mental state”. If everything is interacting energy and the interactions do not cause mental state to arise from nowhere, the only alternative is that energy has a simple mental state that gets shaped by interaction. He proclaims that this is absurd without any justification.

With the following statement:  “It would be wrong to assume that only energy packet interaction results in mental states. Any sort of energy interaction should also produce mental states” he conflates mental states with minds and then rejects the statement with an appeal to incredulity fallacy. Because he can’t imagine that energy interactions result in changed mental states, the notion is simply proclaimed to be nonsense.

In responding to the argument summary he proclaims that while energy interactions in the brain produce mental states, no other interactions do. That shows that he is engaging in special pleading. Somehow energy interactions in the brain are special in that they alone magically bestow mentality.

He dismisses our observation that treating mentality as a special case from physicality involves special pleading by simply proclaiming that mentality supernaturally arises from the physical. No explanation is given, we are just meant to take this dogmatic statement on blind faith.

He dismisses our objection to the supernatural concept of strong emergence of mentality by simply proclaiming that mental states require a brain. Again, no justification is given, we must simply believe this on blind faith.

He dismisses our conclusion that energy has simple mentality by simply proclaiming that it is an “unfounded, unsupported and absurd assertion” and “absurd, incoherent and illogical nonsense” without finding any holes in the argument’s logic.

His rebuttal is nothing but an incoherent mishmash of pseudoscience and logical fallacies. His many unjustified proclamations amount to bare assertion logical fallacies. This is the very kind of tripe you’d encounter with young Earth creationists who are trying in vain to show that your science based arguments are wrong.

The Atheist Delusion

Is atheism irrational? It definitely is. No matter which flavor of atheism you look at, you’ll find it’s based on fundamentally flawed beliefs. For the sake of simplicity we’ll look at atheism as split into two camps: soft and hard (AKA negative and positive). Also we’ll be dealing with lay definitions. In philosophy, atheism generally refers to hard atheism.

Hard (positive) atheism is the purely faith-based belief that there is no God. Believing something doesn’t exist without having proven its nonexistence is completely irrational. A rational person is convinced in the truth (or falsity) of something commensurately based on the evidence available to support its truth (or falsity). A rational person knows something is false only if it has been logically proven false. This includes falsification by the scientific method.

Soft (negative) atheism is the lack of belief in God because of a belief that there is no evidence (knowledge) to support any God’s existence. In other words, soft atheism is simply agnosticism. Why would soft atheism exist when we already have the concept of agnosticism? Further, rational people also do not align themselves with very irrational people when they don’t have to unless some other motive is afoot.

Now why would soft atheists align themselves with atheism despite being associated with the glaringly obvious irrationality of hard atheism? If they truly were rational, why wouldn’t they distance themselves from the hard atheists? Why don’t they criticize the irrationality of hard atheists instead of welcoming them with open arms? Why also would they not simply call themselves agnostics since that is supposedly what they really are? Maybe it’s because they’re not really agnostics at all. The only plausible explanation is that soft atheists are simply hard atheists masquerading as soft atheists because they are unable to explain away the irrationality of their faith based position of hard atheism. By fraudulently posing as agnostics they can still publicly call themselves atheists without having to answer hard questions about their irrational faith.

Imagine someone who strongly believes in science. She’s looking for a group to join that shares these views. She finds two groups “Friends of Science” and “Science Friends”. “Friends of Science” is picky and very strictly allows only highly science oriented people to join. “Science Friends” however is astonishingly open and counts among its members flat earthers, astrologers and channellers. None of these three areas are valid areas of science at all. Someone who values science would always choose “Friends of Science” and never want to join such a group such as “Science Friends”. Someone who values science would criticize the “Science Friends” for allowing such irrational members. Anyone who claimed to value science but rejected “Friends of Science” and joined “Science Friends” willingly and without criticism could only be a fraud.

Some “weak” atheists try to sidestep the issue by claiming that the existence of God is of low probability. But probabilities can only be computed when there is data and no data is ever produced. Claiming to have computed probabilities when such a thing is impossible is incredibly irrational.

Argument Summary
Positive Atheism

P. Irrational people believe in unprovable claims.
P. X believes that there is no God but cannot prove it.
C. X is irrational.


P. Rational people withhold belief in something when there is no evidence for that thing.
P. Z is unconvinced of the existence or nonexistence of any god due to lack of evidence.
C. Z is rational.

Negative Atheism

P. Rational people do not belong to groups of irrational people if they have an rational alternative.
P. Y claims to hold the same position as Z but instead choses to belong to a group with X as a member.
C. Y is irrational.

P. Rational people understand that probabilities cannot be computed when there is no data.
P. Y claims that any god is improbable but cannot produce any data.
C. Y is irrational.

Atheist Criticisms

This argument has elicited several weak atheist “criticisms”.

  1. “Atheism is about belief while agnosticism is about knowledge. “
    Knowledge is justified true belief, so both agnosticism and atheism are about belief.
  2. “You don’t get to choose what the definition of atheism is!”
    We’re not in any way changing definitions. We’re showing, using sound logic, what atheists believe despite their lies to the contrary.
  3. “Your argument is childish, is full of fallacies and proves nothing at all!”
    When believers cannot refute criticism that threatens their blind ideological faith, they lash out with emotional pronouncements. This happens with cult members, religious fundamentalists and atheists.

As we can see, whichever way you look at atheism, it is a belief system that is fundamentally irrational. Couple this with the undeniable reality that the God of pantheism is a logically established fact. Rational people accept established facts, they don’t ignore them or belittle them. If a purported fact is not actually established, rational people will explain why rather than simply issue empty pronouncements of faith.