Monthly Archives: June 2016

angry atheist

Angry from County Atheism writes…

I received this comment from a guy – perhaps going by a fake name and email address – who took umbrage with my article ‘Can atheists be good without God?’ Which is grand. But since his objections were more of a rant-cum-screed than a comment, I will answer it this way. Underneath his vitriol and emotion, he actually raises some important questions so this may be of interest to anyone wrestling with the God question:

“You ridiculous, semi-literate, bog-trotting, moron.You think that one can only be ‘good’ because of an imaginary ‘man in the sky’? You absolute t*t! You believe in a so-called ‘God’, because your deficient ‘mammy and daddy’ told you to. NO OTHER REASON! They also told you about Santa, and the f*cking fairies. I’m not even going to waste my time with the ‘Big Bang Theory’, the fact that ‘Creationism’ MUST have ‘created’ parasitical wasps, the AIDS virus, and cancer. In addition, your imaginary ‘God’ ‘created’ the world, (not the universe surely?) around the time of The Agricultural Revolution.

Then there’s the Magdalene Laundries, paedophile priests, and of course, Nazi empathy. “GOOD”????? What separates human beings from animals, is intellect, NOT GOD FFS! And DON’T ‘DEBATE’ WITH THE LATE, GREAT HITCHENS VIA THIS MEDIUM, YOU SPINELESS TWAT! What I find laughable, is that you’re ‘grounding’ your morality in fairy tails, NOT facts! That’s after you’ve unnecessarily, and somewhat pompously ‘explained’ ‘ontology’. Of course ‘man’ is a byproduct! Our ‘Sun’ WILL eventually swallow the Earth, no doubt whatsoever! Did God ‘design’ that too?

Dawkins is correct. It’s as obvious as ‘night and day’! Unfortunately it’s not as romantic as wrapping it up in fairy tails, which is basically your argument.

I‘ve had enough of this nonsense! IF YOU ARE GOOD BECAUSE OF A FAIRY TAIL ‘GOD’, THEN YOU’RE NOT GOOD OF YOUR OWN VOLITION, HENCE YOU’RE NOT GOOD AT ALL! If it’s a ‘man in the sky’ that stops you murdering and raping etc, then you’re a f*cking psychopath! It wasn’t badly written, (although it’s VERY easy to tell that this was rewritten many times, and in the planning stage for weeks -lmfao!), but the substance is non-existent!”

I don’t know about anyone else, but people write things every day on the Internet that I disagree with. Not once, however, has it ever occurred to me to hurl abuse at them. We all have our hobbies, I suppose. Maybe this guy should take up disco dancing or something; this level of anger can’t be good for him.

Anyway, let’s look at some of his arguments:

– You ridiculous, semi-literate, bog-trotting, moron! You think that one can only be ‘good’ because of an imaginary ‘man in the sky’? You absolute t*t! You believe in a so-called ‘God’, because your deficient ‘mammy and daddy’ told you to. NO OTHER REASON!

When somebody starts off by calling you names, you can guarantee it’s because they’re not confident in their arguments. Remember that bully in school? The one that cut his tie really short and typed rude words into calculators? He never had anything substantive to say, so he called you names. That’s what we see here.

Firstly, my “mammy and daddy” had nothing to do with my belief in God. They’re both non-believers. Secondly, even if they had, that would not disprove the existence of God. C.S Lewis called this the ‘fallacy of Bulverism‘, whereby a person merely assumes a person’s belief is wrong, then tries to explain why they believe it: “You only believe in God because your parents are Christian!” Well, this argument cuts both ways: “You’re only an atheist because your parents are humanists!” See how silly this type of argument is? It’s a genetic fallacy, not to mention dodgy amateur psychology.

– I’m not even going to waste my time with the ‘Big Bang Theory’, the fact that ‘Creationism’ MUST have ‘created’ parasitical wasps, the AIDS virus, and cancer.

I think he means here that the Big Bang somehow disproves God. This is false. If the universe has a single point of origin – as a big bang would imply – then what started it? How can something come from nothing? It can’t. A Big Bang needs a Big Banger.

In fact, the Big Bang theory – developed by Catholic priest Georges Lemaître – lends itself well to Christian theology, with several bible verses (Colossians 1:15-17, 1 Peter 1:20, Proverbs 8:22-31) proclaiming that the universe began in a single creation event. Evidence for a big bang is exactly what you would expect to find if God exists.

He does, however, raise a valid point regarding the existence of AIDS, cancer, and nasty insects. In other words, the existence of things he thinks are “evil”.

The first step to addressing evil is to ask: what exactly is “evil”? If God created everything, and evil is a thing, then God – as this guy implies – must have created evil. This is a fair assumption. If the premise is true (God created everything), then the conclusion would also be true (God created a thing called “evil”).

The problem here, though, is that evil is not a thing, in the same way that “cold” or “dark” are not things. Cold and dark are merely the absence of heat and light. Likewise, “evil” is the absence of “good”. When God created the universe, he created everything good, after which something happened that reduced the good in the world. That loss of good is called “evil”.

Of course, as Richard Dawkins proclaims, the universe is without “good” and “evil,” so an atheist doesn’t get to call anything “evil” – except when referring to personal dislikes.  To acknowledge “evil” is to acknowledge “good,” which is to acknowledge something transcendent.

– Then there’s the Magdalene Laundries, paedophile priests, and of course, Nazi empathy. “GOOD”?????

Nowhere in my article did I claim that Christians don’t do bad things. They do. Christians are sinners. The difference with Christians, however, is that they have an objective moral standard by which their behaviour can be judged. Any Christian who does something terrible does so in direct violation of Christ’s teachings. This is a wonderful thing.

But no such standard exists for atheists. In fact, the Nazis (since he brought them up) were just speeding up the evolutionary process in search of the perfect race. Is that wrong? Says who? The universe doesn’t care. In fact, the universe might even approve. (By the way, read up on Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Corrie ten Boom if you want to know how Christians responded to Nazism).

– What separates human beings from animals, is intellect, NOT GOD FFS! 

This is in response to my claim that, on atheism, human life is no more valuable than any other living creature (a mosquito was the example I used in the article). This is a logically sound position given that all humans, according to Richard Dawkins, are nothing but flesh-machines that propagate DNA. As such, on atheism, the human brain is hardwired for survival; it does not care for intellect (or truth or reason).

Therefore, elevating intellect to the status of a value-giving property is completely arbitrary. Well, I happen to think mosquitos are more valuable than humans because mosquitos can hover above the ground. Shove your intellect. Hovering is where it’s at.

Also, if human value is determined by intellect, does a person with an IQ of 140 have more value than a person with an IQ of 80? Are pigs more valuable than newborn humans? Atheist philosopher Peter Singer thinks so. Determining value on a sliding scale according to intellect is a dangerous idea. Only in the bearing of a Creator’s image can human beings have intrinsic value. If there’s no Creator, and therefore no ultimate purpose, then humans don’t have intrinsic value.


CAPS LOCK! He’s serious now. Never blaspheme against a high-priest of atheism or you will suffer the wrath of CAPS LOCK. Of course, the discerning reader will have noticed that I wasn’t debating Hitchens; I was merely responding to his challenge. If you want to see somebody debate Hitchens – and beat him soundly – check out this debate with William Lane Craig or this one with John Lennox.

– What I find laughable, is that you’re ‘grounding’ your morality in fairy tails (sic), NOT facts!

No. My morality is grounded in the fact that a moral law exists. Murdering babies for fun will always be wrong, even if society one day thinks it’s OK. This is a universal moral law. Everyone knows this. But a moral law can only exist if a moral lawgiver exists. This is not a fairy tale, this is a reasonable philosophical position. It could be wrong, but it’s reasonable.


Notice the repeated use of the word “good”, even though he later agrees (with Dawkins) that “good” and “evil” don’t exist. On one hand, he acknowledges the existence of “good,” then, on the other hand, dismisses it altogether. This is how quickly atheism becomes absurd.

But, yet again, as I explained in the initial article, this is a common misunderstanding of a basic theistic position. I have lost count of the number of times that atheists have got this confused. The issue is not about the motivations behind Christian behaviour; it’s about whether or not “good” and “evil” are objective features of reality (and they are; that’s why people react to them). If so, how? A moral lawgiver – God – is the most reasonable answer.

– It wasn’t badly written, (although it’s VERY easy to tell that this was rewritten many times, and in the planning stage for weeks -lmfao!), but the substance is non-existent!

Cheers! I’ll take the compliments wherever I can find them. Hopefully, this response provides you with more substance – LMFAO.

gay marriage

Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland: a bigot’s guide

With the Ashers case continuing to circle the media drain, it got me thinking about the nature of what has become the Western world’s fastest-growing dogma – same-sex marriage. In fact, it’s so fast-growing that the thought of two people of the same sex getting married has gone from bizarro world to infallible orthodoxy in about the same amount of time – roughly five to ten years – that it takes the DOE to fill a pothole.

And it boasts many impassioned and powerful proponents, too – from A-list celebrities and US presidents, to huge corporations like Apple, Starbucks, and Google – all backed by a tireless media-driven campaign that has successfully turned same-sex marriage into the biggest cause célèbre of our day, where those who accept it are righteous and holy, and those who oppose it are nasty homophobic scumbags akin to slave traders or Nazis, deserving of being dragged through the courts and hounded from their jobs.

As a homophobic scumbag watching all of this unfold, then, it has given me cause to provide my fellow bigots, and others who are interested, with some thoughtful answers and insights on the subject. So here they are. Careful where you share them.

Is it “same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage”?

It’s important, as Voltaire once said, to define our terms. Good idea. First, this is about same-sex marriage, not gay marriage. This might sound pedantic, but it’s actually an important distinction. The government does not care one iota about sexual preference; it only cares about gender.

Every person of age in Northern Ireland – gay or straight (or other) – can get married. A gay man could marry a lesbian tomorrow and not a single pastor, priest or politician would bat an eyelid. Calling it “gay marriage” incorrectly gives the impression that this is about sexual preference. It’s not. It’s about gender.

And the reason why it’s about gender is simple: opposite-sex unions serve a very specific and unique role in sustaining the human species, therefore the government is uniquely interested in them. The state has no obligation to give every human coupling (of which there are many) recognition.

For example, under current NI marriage law, if I, a heterosexual male, wanted to marry my equally heterosexual male best friend (like these two dudes) and express our love for each other by eating pizza and playing Call of Duty till death do us part, the state wouldn’t recognise that union either. Why? Because bro-unions™, although meaningful to the people involved, are not conducive to populating society. Marriage, as traditionally endorsed by the state, is about opposite-sex couples giving society the next generation of people; it is not a government registry of friendships.

Yes! I mean, no. Yes!... I've no idea. Words have no meaning anymore!

Yes! I mean, no! Yes! No! … Actually, I’ve no idea. Words have no meaning anymore.

Secondly, the battle for same-sex marriage is not about rights, it’s about recognition. No personal liberty is being denied to gay people. Same-sex couples within a civil partnership are already free to do everything – literally everything – that opposite-sex couples can do; buy a house, commit for life, express their sexuality, receive every applicable benefit, adopt, browse Netflix for an hour before giving up and going to bed, etc., etc. These rights and restrictions apply to all people, equally.

You may also not marry a close blood relative, a child, or someone who is already married – despite the disappointment this brings to the incest, pedophile, and polygamy communities. It’s not about discrimination, it’s about the nature of marriage.

What proponents of same-sex marriage really want, then, is an exception, not a right. They want full acknowledgement and validation of their particular lifestyle. Of course, they’re absolutely free to pursue these things, and, for the sake of argument, they could be correct, but validation is not a right, and opposing it or raising objections does not a homophobe make.

Love is love! Isn’t that what marriage is all about?

Love doesn’t define marriage. If it did, then billions of people in the world today would not be married. In fact, most of the world’s marriages are arranged. They are still marriages. The term “loveless marriage” exists for a reason.

Consider this: when was the last time you filled in a benefits / mortgage / insurance form and had to tick a box that asked: “Do you love your spouse?” Never. The government doesn’t care. No proof of passion is ever required when filling in a joint Jobseeker’s application (mercifully). Love may motivate two individuals to get married – and that’s a good thing – but it’s not the reason why cultures sanction marriage. Cultures sanction marriage because opposite-sex sex makes babies. And cultures need babies.

Of course, it’s true that not all marriages – either by choice or circumstance – produce children. But this proves nothing. Pointing to exceptional cases doesn’t negate the general rule.

There you have it: your love for Jaffa Cakes is the same as your love for your mother, which is the same as the love you have for your wife... no wait, forget that. Cntrl+alt+del, CNTRL+ALT+DEL!!!

There you have it: the love you have for Jaffa Cakes is equal to the love you have for your mother, which is equal to the love you have for your wife … no, wait, I didn’t think that through! CNTRL+ALT+DEL!!!

“Gay couples can’t marry just like interracial couples once couldn’t marry.”

I’ve heard this a few times. It’s powerful and emotive rhetoric; if you don’t support same-sex marriage, you’re basically a racist. But it doesn’t withstand scrutiny. Two things are only comparable if the circumstances are the same. They aren’t. Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. Different skin colours are irrelevant to marriage, different genders are relevant to creating and raising the next generation of people.

And where does this objection go when proponents of marriage equality – and I’m talking here about proper, consistent marriage equality – start arguing for polygamous, polyamorous, polyandrous, or incestuous marriage? What racial struggles from history are these types of marriage analogous with?

Where does it go from here?

In the blink of an eye, largely in part to the media elites – like our very own BBC Radio Ulster presenters, who excel at imposing new narratives, – the idea of same-sex marriage has become normal. In the UK and America, it went from being the brainchild of a few activists to law in under a decade. So it’ll eventually come to NI, whether society wants it or not.

And when it does, anyone who continues to disagree with it, or attempts to make any sort of gender distinction as dictated by biology and reality, will fall foul of the law. As Ashers and others were quick to find out, the gay lobby is a litigation ninja; nobody has mastered the art of whispering in the ear of power to silence and punish opponents better than they. Gay agenda? What gay agenda?

Family and parenthood will be redefined, too. We already have third-party procreation, whereby a child’s natural right to a biological mother and a father is intentionally violated to satisfy the emotional desires of adults. (A process that differs radically from adoption, a virtuous enterprise that seeks to make good by replacing a broken heterosexual union with one that works. Conversely, third-party procreation brings a child into the world with the sole purpose of giving it away.)

It’s a big social experiment. And it’ll backfire, because – after decades of research – it just so happens that, quelle surprise, children do best with one mother and one father. Who would’ve thought that nature and reality could be so homophobic, eh?

You know, they say breastfeeding is excell... I'm terribly sorry. I didn't realise.

“You know, they say breastfeeding is excell… I’m terribly sorry. I didn’t realise.”

Finally, with the collapse of each remaining societal taboo, the definition of marriage will expand. This is happening already with certain liberal outlets campaigning for an even broader definition of marriage, and giving a sympathetic platform to paedophiles.  After all, if marriage can be redefined to mean one thing, why not redefine it to mean something else? Who says words have to have meaning anyway?

So perhaps society needs to spend more than five fabulous minutes thinking about this. The rapid approval of same-sex marriage, with literally everyone falling in line behind it, has nothing to do with tolerance, but rather the polar opposite: a radical form of intolerance dressed up in civil rights language that demands nothing less than complete submission and the icing of cakes – or else.