Simple math – I love this meme


Says it all really, doesn’t it?

For me, this highlights just how absurd it is to accept religion after one grows up. To accept whatever flavour of god you were taught and assume that particular one is the one true god is absolute fucking madness. So this god planted the seeds, then waited around a few billion years, then announced himself to ancient man and never showed up again?

Funny, it seems more like this planet has been around billions of years, then when mankind had evolved to a point where we were smart enough to question our existence, we started inventing gods.

Haven’t we moved on since then? While we can’t disprove the crazy shit that people wrote thousands of years ago, surely we should realize how nonsensical it is?

21 thoughts on “Simple math – I love this meme

    1. That’s a fine example of a false equivalence fallacy.

      We evolved societies with rules of conduct and laws, and morals, along with religion as a leftover artifact of primitive man explaining the world using magic. (And we impose our cultural morals on religion.) Religion came with civilization, but is not equivalent to civilization.

      To expand on this, we need rules and laws to be able to function because chaos isn’t very good for survival. Let’s look at one example of rules being enforced and followed that clearly has nothing to do with religion: Rules of the road. They are similar in every country, because to drive around without rules would be disastrous. Every civilization has had similar rules of some type, and there have always been people who enforce those rules. We create such rules because that is human nature, as is our nature to imagine that there is some force for good, some sort of god, who makes rules on some higher plane. But there is no evidence for any such being. We invented him, and every religion, every god, has been created by man. Every holy book has been written by man.


      1. Jerome,

        What everyone else sees as obvious, the atheist sees as false equivalency.

        Religion is an indispensable component of civilization.

        It is natural for the atheist to think that civilization happened all by itself, since he thinks that everything happened all by itself, which is the central dogma of atheism.

        Since it is obvious that everything has a cause, atheism is basically the denial of the obvious.


        1. Your “central dogma of atheism” is a straw man.

          Atheism makes no assumptions about where or how anything happened. Atheism is the disbelief in any theistic god. Science explains a lot, but not everything. Some things are unknown, but we do not have to explain them with magic.

          Theism on the other hand, creates a magical being that is somehow capable of creating everything with a wave of his hand. So not only does theism assume everything was created from nothing (as your straw man of atheism does), it also explains everything by assuming that some magical being always existed.


          1. Jerome,

            The definition of God is First Cause.

            The atheist does not believe in God, therefore he believes that everything just happened all by itself.

            Your efforts at assigning logical fallacies to the obvious and to the meaning of words demonstrates how far afield atheism is from rational thought.


            1. As explained in the other reply, atheism doesn’t say “everything happened by itself”. It does not believe in a god. But theism does say that, by assuming that a god always exists, and making no explanation for how that god came about. It’s circular logic and is irrational.

              God is only obvious to you because you have been indoctrinated into believing that. In other words you are brainwashed, and start with the assumption that god exists, despite no evidence for this assertion. That’s as far from rational thought as one can get.


              1. Jerome,

                As I have already stated, since God, by definition is the First Cause, then not believing in God necessarily means believing that everything just happened all by itself.


                1. And as I pointed out, this is a circular argument. The argument states that everything must have a cause, and that god is first cause. But it exempts god from having to have a cause. In this way it is an example of “special pleading”. It defines a single rule: Everything must have a cause. Then it breaks that rule for god.

                  You go one step further and state that by not believing in god, you believe that everything just happened by itself. But this is bullshit because god doesn’t have to have a cause. You just shifted the burden of proof. If everything has to have a cause, then what is the cause of god?


                    1. So when you can’t answer, resort to ad hominem?

                      Another objection to the first cause argument:
                      Assuming that everything in the universe has a cause, and that there is a first cause (which I do not believe is true, but let’s assume it anyway), how does one come to the conclusion that this first cause is god? And how does one come to the conclusion that this first cause is a particular god?

                      It’s a non sequitur. That is, it does not follow There is nothing in the argument from first causes that attributes anything specific to what the first cause must be. It could very well be the big bang.

                      The is no rational connection between the argument’s premise and its conclusion. To get to the conclusion required a leap of faith, to a concept that you already believe in and have an emotional attachment to.


                    2. Jerome,

                      The atheist wouldn’t know logic if it slapped him the face.

                      The argument for First Cause is “a posteriori” not “a priori” as you would have it.

                      silenceofmind… Bullshit. Posteriori based on what evidence or observations? You’re the one playing with words and their meanings. You can’t explain the cause of God, so you simply state that god, by definition, exists. Nonsense. There is nothing logical about your argument.

                      That argument is the antithesis of the scientific method, and thus of logic or reason. With no evidence for god, you state that he by definition exists. You create an unfalsifiable god that exists outside the bounds of all logic or reason despite no evidence supporting this assertion, then accuse atheists of being illogical? I’m sorry but this doesn’t make sense. Please go away and have your circular arguments with someone else.


  1. Do I really need to explain the joke?

    All religions claim that their particular god created the world. But that can’t be true, because at the time the world formed, none of those gods existed. Man only started creating those gods over four billion years later.


    1. Jerome,

      One of the attributes of religion is that it teaches virtue (the pursuit of excellence) and cooperation, both necessary components of civil society.

      That religion isn’t styled to atheist specifications is no surprise since atheism doesn’t permit the intellectual development necessary to understand that everything just doesn’t happen all by itself.


      1. Religion teaches the virtue that its cultures imposed on it. We put our morals and virtues into religion. The idea that it is the other way around is a fallacy.

        If morals and virtues came from religion, and more importantly if they came from a god, all denominations of a particular religion – say for example Christianity, would be the same and have identical morals. But that is not the case.


        1. Jerome,

          Again, you demonstrate that your problem with religion is that it doesn’t adhere to the specifications you have for it.

          Your personal opinion about something is not what makes that something, a particular something.

          That is, everything has its own intrinsic nature regardless of your personal opinion.

          The fact remains that civilization is not possible without religion.

          Atheists have proven that whenever they became powerful enough to commandeer a civilization.


          1. My specifications for it? Look no further than the Christian bible, which contains some very poor morals indeed. It’s OK to rape a woman, as long as you pay her father to marry her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If you marry a woman and find she is not a virgin, she must be stoned to death. Incest is also OK, according to the bible.

            The fact is, our modern morals are very different to what is “specified” in the bible. Only by cherry-picking verses that suit our modern morals can we try to fit the morals there to our morals, which come from our culture. Morals have changed radically throughout history, even though those in the holy books have remained static. This is clear evidence that our morals do not come from any holy book, but that instead we impose them on our religions.

            Those are the facts. Your argument is utter bullshit.


            1. Jerome,

              In your comment you lead off with your personal opinion of the Bible.

              The Bible is, in fact, a collection of some of the best literature produced by man and the ethics it presents are normative for all of mankind.


              1. The bible contains many contradictions, and it’s morals are appalling. So it’s OK to rape then? And incest is cool too? That was not personal opinion – it’s all in that bible. Believing it is a source of morals requires ignoring all the passages that don’t fit with your morals – which did not come from the bible. Instead you have to cherry-pick those that do fit.

                And when anyone points this out, it becomes allegory, or literature. That way you don’t have to deal with the truth.


  2. My next post will have to be about this absurd argument from first cause.

    I won’t spoil it too much here, but I find the statement that it is a posteriori argument highly amusing, along with the statement that “an atheist wouldn’t know logic if it slapped him in the face”.

    It’s essentially a philosophical argument, and as stated it assumes that god is the first cause, and that this is by definition true because of evidence and observation, without presenting any. (Stating that something is true does not make it so.)

    So it begins with an assumption that defies all logic and then states that anyone who doesn’t accept this is not being logical. Bullshit baffles brains, but not this one.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s