James the Preacher explains why atheists are atheists. We’re too stupid to know better.

Click to embiggen.

All these years I thought I was an atheist because I just didn’t see any evidence in support of the concept of God(s). After much critical thought and application of reason it seemed pretty logical that God, at least as described by the major religions of the world, is the result of wishful thinking and lack of understanding of the natural world.

But according to James the Preacher, it’s not possible that I used reason and logic because I’m just too stupid to do so. Also, I love sin too much to let it go:

In case you don’t want to watch the video it all boils down to the Bible says we’re fools for not believing in God (Psalm 14) and an old edition of Webster’s Dictionary defines a fool as “one destitute of reason, or of the common powers of understanding; an idiot”. Put the two together and, voila, atheists are too stupid to understand the concept that a Creation requires a Creator.

The problem with that argument is that it assumes the Universe is a creation as opposed to the results of a natural process. Certainly the dictionary James the Preacher is using would suggest that is the case as it sites “specifically, the act of bringing the universe or this world into existence” as one of the definitions of Creation, but the dictionary is not a scientific authority on the issue. Nor, for that matter, is the Bible. Still, the argument commonly used is that you can’t get something from nothing so there has to be a creator to have brought the Universe into existence and that creator is God.

We don’t know the full story of how the Big Bang happened yet, but we’re getting closer to it all the time and there’s evidence that it was a natural outcome that may not even be unique. Additionally, physics has shown us that something can spring from nothing and happens all the time in what would otherwise be considered empty space. If you have an hour to spare you can learn a lot about how the Universe could come from nothing in this talk by Lawrence Krauss on that very topic:

He has since written a book with the same title that goes further in-depth on how this is possible: A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. If you spend any amount of time watching Krauss’ talk or reading his book you’ll note that he doesn’t come across as being particularly stupid yet, according to James the Preacher’s simplistic argument, he’s just this side of a drooling moron because he doesn’t believe in God.

The point being, there’s been a lot of effort and thought put into the mystery of how the Universe could come to exist via totally natural processes. On one side we have all of this research and experimentation that provides evidence that you can get something from nothing and the Universe may be a naturally occurring thing with no supernatural causes behind it. On the other hand we have a book largely written by bronze-age goat herders that says an invisible, all-powerful, all-knowing being decided one day, for no particular reason, to create the “heavens and the earth” and then created light (prior to any light sources) and then the sky and then put all the water in one spot so there would be land and then he created plants, and then stars, the sun and moon, animals of the sea and land, and finally man and it all took about a week. There’s no evidence to support that account of how the Universe came to be. None. Zero. Nada. It makes logical sense to accept the explanation that has at least some evidence backing it up, but James the Preacher says no, that makes you a fool and an idiot.

OK, I guess I’m an idiot then. At least by the definition that James the Preacher is using. I’m not going to bother with the second half of his argument — that atheists love sin — because it’s even stupider than his first argument and I’ve wasted more time on him than he deserves already. I just wanted to point out his mistaken assumption that Creation is the only possible explanation for the Universe. Not is it not the only possibility, it’s not even as well supported by the evidence than many of the other possibilities.

15 thoughts on “James the Preacher explains why atheists are atheists. We’re too stupid to know better.

  1. Les,

    Picture that you and I go hiking, and come across a beautiful pool in a lush green valley beside a mountain.

    We both say “Wow!” because this is a spectacular “bigger than me” image.

    I think “What beauty. How wonderful that God with his infinite love and wisdom chose to create such beauty. It warms my heart to know that there are such places in the universe.”

    You think “What beauty. We really are just lucky to be here. It warms my heart to know that there are such places in the universe.”

    My version of “wow” is right; yours is wrong. You are too stupid to understand this.

    Repent.

    ps. If you choose to disagree, don’t forget that logic is on my side. “My philosophy is right, because this book about my philosophy says my philosophy is right.” Again, if you didn’t follow, it’s because you are too stupid to understand.

    -end troll-

  2. Stephen Hawking explained his views on an episode of Discovery Channel’s Curiosity series last summer. The episode was entitled Did God Create the Universe and is probably similar to Lawrence Krauss? I’m guessing since I don’t have an hour to spare at the moment to view the link.

  3. OK! So they say, “WELL IF THERE’S NO GOD, THEN WHERE DID IT COME FROM!?” “WE SIMPLY DIDN’T COME FROM NOWHERE!” – So since nobody can prove exactly where material came from, why do these fucking monkeys insist that there was a mind behind the materials appearing? Instead of asking questions, they assume, and then they think they have the right to preach the assumption as truth to children, who become soldiers, who kill.. Some people are too stupid to understand that this shit was designed to be a weapon, and don’t see that they are fucking tools.

  4. @ JethricOne:

    What about the derelict village that is in that lush green valley and the bones of the former inhabitants who all died from some disease they caught from some missionary who was just spreading the word of the creator … all part of the plan?

    Ah right, they were “sinners” so they deserved to die.

    Shit happens then you die, holds true for those who believe just like everyone else.

  5. The James (Lyman) the Preacher video you share is pretty lame in comparison to the other stuff on the web relating to him.

  6. Of course even if a Supreme Being created the Universe it doesn’t mean it was the Christian version. Or for that matter if it was the God of Genesis that he’s still interested in us and wants us to be Christians. Given how he’s described in the Old Testament it’s just as likely he’s abandoned this universe in a fit of pique and gone off to create another one.

  7. Annette… I didn’t see that show, but Hawking’s latest book is similar to Krauss’. I won’t pretend that I remember all of their points, but they cover much of the same ground. Aside from reviewing the history of science and speculating about the multiverse, they in different ways make roughly the same argument that God is not needed to explain the existence of the universe.

    As for the main topic: Of course many Christians never fail to miss the point of the scriptures they seek to defend. They forget that Jesus in the Gospels says very specifically that to call someone a fool is a sin and will lead to eternal damnation. I suppose “James the Preacher” will be joining us foolish atheists in hell.

  8. @ Positive:
    Pfft. Don’t you know that if Christians are going to hell because of the things they do to preach at atheists, it’s all our fault for leading them into sin. It’s like all of those Catholic priests: It’s not that they’re evil, it’s that the devil sent them so many sweet, sweet boy bottoms to molest.

  9. @ Mistermook:
    Well the sex abuse scandal is also the fault of the liberal media, it is important not to forget that. On that note, the Catholic League is now after Jon Stewart, and claim that the media is engaging in a “cover up” to protect him. Because if there is one thing the Catholic League won’t stand for, its an organized cover up at the highest levels..

  10. I don’t know if I should be happy or sad that I don’t believe in supernatural creation as prescribed by traditional religion. On the one hand, not having to worry about damnation is nice. On the other hand, I like the idea of black eyed peas/virgins, lots of light and clouds, pinball machines, chocolate hot tubs, or whatever awaits devotees, although I’m terrified that I won’t be able to keep up (in fact, I’m so stressed about it that instead of dreaming about showing up at the university testing center in my underwear, I dream that I show up at the pearly gates in a mankini). Given how weak and wretched I am, I have to hope that nothingness is the final reward. Amen. 👿

  11. @ EyesOnly(UK):

    What you fail to understand or mention is that the bones are those who were “taken up”, and what you call a derelict village is a monument to salvation.

  12. There is a large percentage of atheist/ agnostic scientists. These scientists are not solely found in astrophysics. If they are all morons I challenge ” James the Preacher” to not use any medications or technologies developed by them. It would be for his own safety.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.