More Questions For Atheists and This Time, They’re Gonna Hurt

I have officially found the absolute worst list of questions for atheists ever. Every question is loaded, every question is leading and the author of this list is unaware of how absolutely unclever he is, in spite of an evident puffed out chest of pride.

So let’s tear the fucker a new one, shall we? Grab a stress ball, some Jägermeister and a helmet and we’ll jump right the fuck in.

1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?

Breath in 2… 3… 4 and out 2… 3… 4.

First of all, Clever McNever, this question is as absurd as Mitt Romney’s magical man-panties. But let’s attempt to answer asinine queries with some logic anyway. Yes, I am just about as absolutely sure there is no god as I am of anything. Why? The age-old elephant analogy: yesterday evening, when I came back from the lake with my little boy, I was absolutely, 100% sure there had not been an elephant in my home while I was gone. I know this, like anyone would, because of the lack of fucking evidence. An elephant in my living room would have surely left behind some kind of mess, some sign he’d been there. The same applies for god. If he was around, there would be evidence beyond a bunch of mortal humans writing a book they claim was inspired by the word of god 2000 years ago. There is no evidence for god, like there is no evidence for leprechauns, like there is no evidence for there ever having been a decent Everclear song. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Therefore, G-dawg don’t exist.

The second question is now useless, since god is impossible. Moving on to the third, transparently sneaky question. One cannot ask “can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?” without first knowing that I don’t want to look at the evidence. If you had first asked if I wanted to look at the evidence, I would have said, quite eagerly, YES! But there is none, outside of a book written thousands of years ago by people who claim to be inspired by god. People can claim anything! Alien abductions, psychic powers, foot-long schlongs and more. It doesn’t make something the truth just because someone says so. Especially when that someone lived thousands of years ago, spoke a language you can’t understand and says the exact same shit as every fresh-smoked crackhead I’ve ever had the pleasure of conversing with.

2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?

Sure, I agree that intelligently designed things need an intelligent designer, and absolutely I would agree that evidence for intelligent design of the Universe would imply the Universe had a designer. Your problem here, my testimonious tool, is that there is no evidence that the Universe was intelligently designed. Complexity is not evidence.

3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?

No one has suggested that there was nothing prior to our Universe. Lead me, my sanctimonious schlemiel, to one who has uttered such nonsense. The point you’re missing here, is that we don’t know. It’s okay to not know. Not knowing does not automatically equal god.

4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?

You shall not fart.

Let’s face it, some farts are more detectable than others.

Of course – but for me to buy that something exists, I do need to be able to detect it in some way. There are many ways to detect things in existence without using your naked eye. If there weren’t, blind people would not be able to detect anything. You can detect things via reactions (gravity, magnetism, the wind: we can see the effects of these forces), using equipment (microscopes, telescopes), using other senses (farts) and more. God is not detectable. Until he is, I do not believe he exists.

5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?

Sure, if it was just limited to seeing it. However, if we cannot detect god in any way, in spite of many people searching for evidence over hundreds of years, and in that process finding evidence to the contrary, then yes, it means he does not exist.

6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?

Again, there’s that nothingness again. The very same nothingness that no one has ever asserted was the case pre-big bang. Someone didn’t do their science homework!

7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?

See 6, Santa pants.

8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)

Oh for fuck’s sake, would you listen to yourself. Like, just read the question back after you type it. The analogy is that the DNA contains as much information as a thousand encyclopedias, not that it contains a thousand actual encyclopedias. The information in the encyclopedia would still exist and be true without someone compiling it all into an encyclopedia. In fact, every fact outside of the man-made realm contained in encyclopedias would still exist without humans ever existing.

9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?

Ohhh, my fettered friar, put down your one book and pick up a few more. If you’re talking about the big bang, then you already know that the cause was greater than the effect. If you’re talking about before that, once again, slower this time… we.. do… not… know. And that, darling devoted, is okay. It does not, however, prove god.

10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?

Of course. We’ll start with you. You’re wrong. But aside from that, science has found plenty of evidence that shows a sense of morality present in animals other than humans. Morality is an innate survival mechanism that predated the bible. This is why people were able to refrain from wanton murder, rape and violence before Moses hit the rock and hallucinated himself a burning, talking bush.

11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?

Not all laws need lawgivers. That is an assumption based on zero evidence, and quite a bit to the contrary (law of gravity, etc).

12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?

I don’t even. I fucking don’t even.

What the actual fuck.

What the actual fuck.

13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?

I’m sorry, I must have skipped the class in which they taught that there was definitively no cause for the whole Universe.

14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?

The observable Universe is currently finite. We do not know that the Universe is finite.

15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?

No, no, absolutely not. Not without evidence.

I honestly can’t believe I made it through that. I’m gonna go get drunk.

If you enjoy my blog and videos, consider becoming my Patron. All Patron donations go towards hosting, domain names, and more time creating. Click here.
  • Dawndee Nicole

    Holy motherfucking god!!! What the absolute fuck? This person also needs to become familiar wth the contraction, “wouldn’t”. Quit thinking the term ” would it not” makes you sound smart. Would it not make more sense if you took your brain out and played with it?

    I must’ve read #13 twenty times… If they dropped their stupid presuppositions the may see how absolutely ignorant they sound.

    One step in the right direction is for us to drop acid in order to understand what ole Abe and Moses saw.

    • honestly, i felt like i was high writing this. no more extra speshul kinda stupid questions for me…

  • Horace McNutbucket

    I hate to be a dissenter because I love my Godless Mom, but I have to respectfully disagree with one and only one point.

    I can make my peace with your response to #1 if it makes clear that you’re refuting bible God (with an uppercase G). In all fairness, the question does reference the god the bible, but it also refers to “a” god. My problem here is that it’s easy to impeach the god of the bible, but I’d really avoid any declaration that no god is possible, or that any god is impossible. No one can know this to a certainty.

    In my humble opinion, this is the wrong way to go from a debate standpoint. (That is, you can believe it, but I’d never offer it up as a response to this very fair question.) There’s no harm in conceding that we could be wrong. It demonstrates the kind of open-mindedness and fairness that theists are loath to tender. I would have reversed the question and asked them the same. This leaves them with nowhere to run. If we set aside the arrogance it takes to claim absolute knowledge of a vast and largely unknown universe and declare that there is no god (lowercase), there never has been “a” god, and there never will be “a” god, then they have little choice (if they want you to take them seriously) to concede that THEY could be wrong as well. Your position is vulnerable to impeachment if they postulate an impersonal god, not the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent god of the bible. It’s easy to impeach bible God, Jesus, Allah, etc., because of all the doctrinal contradictions, the problem of evil, etc. But if they argue a deistic god, one who created the universe and left us all to our own devices (i.e. no judging, no rewarding, no punishing, no heaven, no hell, no involvement in our lives), then they’ll label your argument [re: elephant in the house] as a silly comparison because a deistic god necessarily leaves no doctrine to impeach, no evil to reconcile, and no evidence to scrutinize.

    I’ve found that minor concessions take the wind out their sails for often then not. Just my two cents.

    No need to publish this. xo

    • my only issue with this, is that you can apply it to anything at all: unicorns, dragons, fairies. of course there is a minute possibility that one day a unicorn could show up, but i’m not going to sit around saying that i don’t know if there are unicorns or not. i’m pretty gosh-darned sure.

      i don’t believe there is a god, i think it’s absolutely preposterous. i have often toyed with the idea that perhaps we’re in some super-giant school kid’s petri dish for his science experiment. we are just bacteria to them? when we look back to the big bang, it’s just a fucking enormous bunsen burner firing up.

      that’s just as possible. in fact, it’s more so, because if we are just some giant’s science experiment, it would explain his total lack of interest in us on an individual level (and maybe even alien abductions – taking samples to study under the microscope?) but i don’t believe it’s true. just like i don’t believe the even more absurd idea of a god.

      i can’t change my mind for the sake of debate.

      and i love you back, for always even when you disagree because questioning shit, even shit godless mom says, is healthy 🙂

  • Horace McNutbucket

    Oops. I mistyped a line.

    If we set aside the arrogance it takes to claim absolute knowledge of a vast and largely unknown universe (i.e. There is no god, there never has been “a” god, and there never will be “a” god…), then they’ll have little choice (if they want to be taken seriously) to concede that THEY could be wrong as well.

    • Marty holden

      OK…There is no evidence of god, has never been ANY evidence of A god, will very likely never be ANY evidence of A god. 😉


  • Gary

    Point 3 shows an absolute ignorance of current and past science. According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence. This was proven by actual observation in the 50’s! A Nobel prize for this quantum theory was awarded in 1965.

    So elementary particles are always popping into and out of existence, and universes can do the same thing.

  • Andy Hobson

    No 9. An effect cannot be greater than its cause? Really? Tell that to the people of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl and Bhopal. Causes all fairly small. Effects FUCKING HUGE!

  • Laura Ann Tas

    Oh I am SO thrilled that I stumbled upon your website!! I was laughing out loud (honestly and truly) while reading the list of questions and your wonderful answers. I just met you and I love you already. xoxoxo

    • You have no idea what your encouragement means to me. Thanks for reading and I love you right back!

  • Bob Villarreal

    I’m going to have to write down these questions and answer them. Then share on FB at a later date.

  • Gary E

    “11. If every law needs a lawgiver”

    Experimental phycologists have been devising morality test for over a century. Every atheist should be familiar with the following two examples:

    1) You are standing by a switch on some railroad tracks. A runaway train is coming down those tracks and will kill 5 people further up the tracks. You can not warn them or do anything except throw the switch- which will kill a single person further up the other track. Do you throw the switch?

    2) Five people are waiting in the hospital in need of transplants. All will die today without a transplant. A healthy person walks in the hospital door- do you kill him and use his organs to save the other 5 people?

    These 2 tests have been given to tens of thousands of people in every culture and religion imaginable. The answers are near universal. Example 1 is a yes for over 95% of the world, and example 2 is a no for over 95% of the world.

    If you look at the logic involved in the two questions, they are fundamentally identical. Kill 1 to save 5. Yet humans see a big difference between the two questions. Why is that? The answer seems to be instinct. Question 1 seems to be written into our genes so we instinctively give a specific answer. Ask a Christian why the answer yes for one and no for the other. There is no lawgiver- just our genes.

  • #3

    According to the Bible, isn’t that how God created the Universe? Something from nothing? What about God? If everything has a cause, then what is the cause of God? Wouldn’t this be a cause beyond God?


    No one knows what came before the big bang, so we don’t know if it was nothingness or not. in fact, the only thing we can be certain of is that right before the big bang occurred, all of the matter of the universe now… was there.


    Message in DNA argument. Well, if DNA is an encyclopedia of information, then what does it say? Can you transcribe it?


    The Moral Lawgiver..? Is that the same guy who condoned slavery, killing children, forcing women to marry their rapists, and destroyed all life on Earth because he was unhappy with it?

  • MatsB

    The people making lists like that or posing questions like that knows their position is weak and they can not present a shread of evidence, only blind faith. That is why you see them standing there with clip-boards so they know exactly what way to ask a question to make in difficult to refute them. The best responder to that (without a cheat sheet) I have seen is AronRa.

  • Doug

    I get to claim a foot-long schlong? Why am I always the last one to find out these things?

  • Gary E

    “15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception),”

    This guy needs to read the definition of “Anthropic principle”. It means exactly the opposite of what he thinks. In other words the Anthropic principle says we couldn’t be here thinking about the universe unless it was suitable for intelligent life. Hence the Anthropic principle can never be used as an argument for a designer.

  • Question 1. I’m 99.99999% positive that there is no God. Why isn’t it 100%? Because always expect the unexpected. Gotta leave a little room for that. (like winning the lottery)
    Let’s assume God does exist. And he lives on the 4th planet in Alpha Centauri (or somewhere out there). Why would I think he is the creator? The be all to end all? You gotta prove to me that someone light years away can have an impact on the design of our planet, before I even think of him being omnipotent.
    Yeah, I’d like to know if he exists. That would put an end to all this stupidity called religion when ppl realize that God is just a impotent old fart who lives far away and doesn’t care about your problems.

    • Right, how many infinite manifestations could god take on? He could be a pimply teenager in some celestial science class who’s accidentally made us in a petri dish he doesn’t give a fuck about, right?

      • Or she could be a Canadian mother who is trying to tell us that she’s not real and not to believe in her. LOL

  • Durinn McFurren

    That’s not the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is that: we find ourselves in a universe tuned to allow life, because otherwise we would not exist. It’s sort of a tautology: ‘Intelligent life such as ourselves will always exist in universes where intelligent life can exist.’ The point here is usually that this requires fine tuning, blah blah blah, how did abiogenesis happen, etc. And the answer is: there are many possibilities, including multiverses with potentially different laws of physics, etc.

  • Durinn McFurren

    Something cannot come from nothing? Proof? Just because in our portion of reality, we find that certain conservation laws hold, this does not mean they hold everywhere!

    In fact, conservation laws are a consequence of symmetries. See Noether’s theorem. If a universe has laws of physics that have symmetries, they will also have conserved quantities. It’s mathematics, bitches! The ‘no something from nothing’ comes from the symmetry of our universe under changes to the ‘origin’ of time (i.e whether we say this is CE 2017 or use the Japanese calendar, etc.) But before the big bang, this might not apply!