Denying the Undeniable?

Coming from an Islamic hub news site, as an atheist, I am hereby accused of denying the undeniable.

The article starts with a quote.

Life’s greatest tragedy is to lose God and not to miss him.”

–F.W. Norwood

This isn't true merely because someone said it. It has no credibility. Here's my take:

Life's greatest tragedy is to waste one's life on religious dogma and thought when there's an actual demonstrable reality to live.

- Me

The author continues,

Atheists might assert that they don’t acknowledge the existence of God, but the view of some Christians and all Muslims is that at some level even the confirmed Atheist affirms God’s presence.

Believe me, I am well familiar with this arrogance. We get it a lot.

It's like a person loving chocolate so much that he/she cannot believe that other people don't. So instead, this person concludes that the supposed non-chocolate-lovers are actually liars. "It's so obvious that chocolate is the best that deep down inside, they do love chocolate. They're just rebelling."

The innate but neglected awareness of God typically surfaces in Atheist consciousness only in times of severe stress, as exemplified by the World War II quote “There are no Atheists in a fox-hole.”

It's a narrative that theists love. Was this the thing that was supposed to be undeniable? Hell, I'll say that some people do that. I hate to break it to the author, but not all atheists are rational. I don't deny that.

Is this supposed to somehow demonstrate that 100% of all atheists actually believe in a god? Because, we do actually have plenty of "foxhole atheists".

It isn't all or nothing. It's not like all atheists are either suppressed theists, or all not.

Undeniably there are times — whether during the agonizing days of a lingering illness, the seemingly eternal moments of a violent and humiliating mugging, or the split second of anticipating the impact of an imminent car crash — when all mankind recognize the reality of human fragility and the lack of human control over destiny.

Was this what I'm supposed to deny? I would have granted this up front. Yes, humans are fragile. Yes, we lack control over destiny. I'm right there with you, author.

Who does a person beseech for help in such circumstances other than The Creator?

Couldn't it be friends, family or colleagues? Why does it even have to be a who? The author is just asserting things as truths without justification. Where is your research, author, that all atheists do this? If that's not your assertion, then you have no point. 

Such moments of desperation should remind every person, from the religious scholar to the professed Atheist, of the dependence of mankind upon a reality far greater than our own meager human selves. A reality far greater in knowledge, power, will, majesty and glory.

Maybe this is what I'm supposed to deny? Finally, I do. This is where I start to lose interest, because the theist is incapable of anything but one baseless unevidenced undemonstrated empty assertion after another.

The article goes on like this, restating the same basic premise. 

"Some guy said that everyone loves chocolate. Chocolate is undeniably good. I've heard of supposed chocolate haters who ate chocolate. They must all by lying. Therefore, everyone loves chocolate."

This article is vacuous.

Then, the article plunges into absurdities.

No doubt, the day of greatest affliction will be the Day of Judgement, and a person would be unfortunate to be in the position of acknowledging the existence of God for the first time on that day.

This is what we call "The Threat". Once their malformed attempts as justifying their claims fail, they regress into "believe or burn". 

If what you say is true, you should not have to resort to threatening me. In fact, it signals that you've got nothing, so you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

The rest of the article degrades into a bunch of Arguments from Authority, from Thomas Jefferson to Francis Bacon, none of who can justify what they're saying. I don't care who is making the claims. I care whether they can back those claims up.

Throw in some Arguments from Incredulity ("I can't believe this could happen, therefore it can't"):

Does anybody really believe that such an extraordinarily intricate creature evolved from primordial soup?

I do, kinda. It's a messy, vague description of some models of abiogenesis. It'd help if the author could actually grasp what our position is on the topic.

... this article is the usual soup of common logical fallacies. There's no meat here. 

And yet, mankind elevates itself to the heights of arrogance.

Is it more or less arrogant than "I love chocolate. I can't understand how anyone wouldn't. Therefore, everyone does."?

Look at a building and a person thinks of the architect, at a sculpture and a person instantly comprehends an artist.

The classic, "I can just tell something is designed. Therefore, it is."

This topic, of course, deserves an entire article to rebut. If we were to pick an unknown (to you) object X, and you were allowed to ask 20 questions about it, could you reliably determine that it was designed? What attributes are you using?

The reason why we know that buildings and paintings have intelligent designers is because we've been raised being told that. Our analysis is heavily biased by education. I'd really challenge this author to explain how it is a person can tell beyond "w-w-we just can tell... by looking... it's just apparent."

I look at nature, like trees and DNA. I do not see design. I disagree with you on that. Now, how do we figure out who is correct? Now we're just two people with two different opinions on whether a thing is designed or not... by looking at it.

But examine the elegant intricacies of creation, from the complexity and balance of nuclear particle physics to the uncharted vastness of space, and a person conceives of…nothing?

I do not grant that it's "creation". That's begging the question as to whether it's created. 

If you examine actual precedent in reality, complexity infers nature as a cause, not an intelligence. I don't know why the author thinks otherwise. The hallmark of design is simplicity not complexity. In fact, whenever humans have tried to tackle complexity, we're usually either abstracting/simplifying it (math) or creating unintelligent machines to handle the complexity for the intelligent beings.

You've got it entirely backwards.

Surrounded by a world of synchronous complexities, we as mankind cannot even assemble the wing of a gnat.

We can't create moons either. That doesn't mean that the moon was created by an intelligence. I don't understand this line of "reasoning". There's a lot of things we couldn't do in the past that we can do now.

Maybe one day we can "assemble the wing of a gnat". There was a time before we could fly. 

So what?

And yet the entire World and all the Universe exists in a state of perfect orchestration as a product of random accidents which molded cosmic chaos into balanced perfection?

Again, this is assuming the very thing the author needs to demonstrate. 

Last week I had to shovel 2 feet of snow. I'd rather that was not "orchestrated". Here we touch upon the Anthropic Principle (such as "Fine Tuning"), with this notion that - somehow - a planet that is largely inhospitable to humans without technology, barely existing in a thin layer of atmosphere, that barely protects us against a universe that is 99.99999999% instantly fatal to us... is somehow "perfection".

Part of the theistic narrative is to accuse us of embracing "accidents". It's disingenuous, if the theist actually listens to us.

It is neither intentional nor accidental that is snows in the northeast U.S. every year. Based on the rules of the universe, it's just to be expected. Likewise, it's neither accidental nor intentional for life to arise. As we increasingly learn about abiogenesis, we're discovering an inevitability, based on how the rules of the universe work. There's no "accident" there - which implies that it otherwise shouldn't happen.

Some vote chance, others, creation.

Some vote logic and evidence, others, presuming their preconceived notions without and against available evidence.


This is the the typical theistic thought process. It's bursting at the seams with logical fallacies. It's completely lacking in any evidentiary support. It makes arrogant claims, then projects arrogance unto those who simply disagree due to lack of evidence. 

In the end, the entire article is nonsensical. In what way, and at what point, was the existence of a god even remotely establishes as being "undeniable"?

Such articles can be irritating. The author is lying about me. The author is accusing me of being disingenuous for vacuous reasons. The author is calling me a liar, because I don't otherwise fit his narrative that God is obvious and "undeniable".

I will do the courtesy to accept that the theist actually believes what he/she says.