Things that annoy me.

An atheist did write a post[I can’t vouch for the blog. I haven’t seen the original version or where it is claimed to have come. In the meantime I will consider it a case of Paulines lying for Paul] about his view of what his views of atheism is and how we shouldn’t sugarcoat stuff.  We will write about his post someday when we get the time to do so, but as of now, there is a portion of the apologist trope I need to deal with.

He/she writes

I see a lot of atheists these days thinking that they can help themselves to a robust notion of consciousness, to real libertarian free will, to objective moral values and duties, to objective human rights, and to objective meaning in life, without giving credit to theism.

Which is loaded with lies, innuendo and misinformation. As I have oft repeated, atheism answers only one question. It is kinda annoying if one has to be told time and again that beyond the existence of gods, all other topics, they will have different views. I have friends who think we have free will to some extent, not the libertarian type, and those like me whose view is that we are biological automatons.

I don’t know what adding the word objective to morals or human rights does to the rights or morals in question. The apologist, in parroting WLC, claims there must exist objective moral values without telling us which these are and also demonstrating that these values and duties couldn’t have been developed by man and are objective to the extent that they apply to most societies given that we share a common humanity with small cultural differences? Why must a god be responsible for our duties and obligations to one another?

I don’t know atheists who claim an objective meaning in life. I have asked why must life have meaning to be lived. Why is the theist not satisfied with living and wants transcendence to have a meaningful life. If life has to have any meaning, an individual has to find those things that make it so. It is meaningless and absurd for all of us. To the theist, his life has meaning in god, to the non believer, whatever his fancy. We are all however, at the same place with regard to meaning in life and that it is meaningless. It is therefore a display of ignorance and arrogance to claim that for atheist who asserts that her life is meaningful can only do so through theism!

I have been advised not to call theists stupid, but this utterence cannot be thought of in a different light other than sheer stupidity and arrogance. Why for all that is reasonable should a person write

 I think it’s particularly important not to let atheists utter a word of moral judgment on any topic, since they cannot ground an objective standard that allows them to make statements of morality.

Morals have no meaning to an individual living alone in an isolated planet doing whatever gods do. Atheists, being human can utter and do utter words of moral judgement. And why shouldn’t they? What do belief in gods got to do with our morals. Am tired of apologists repeating this trope. I would want to ask, as Socrates did ask millenia ago

Is something loved because it is pious or is it pious because it is loved?

And while the theist is making claims about objective moral values, I want him to give a list of such examples and to demonstrate how these differ from those that man have developed since they began to live as social animals.

It is therefore stupid to continue to write

Further, I think that they should have every immorality ever committed presented to them, and then they should be told “your worldview does not allow you to condemn this as wrong”.

There is nothing in atheism that warrants me to transgress against my neighbour. Atheism is not a worldview. It is a conclusion on a question that has existed in the community consciousness for a long time. In fact, I must add here that among the Romans, the Epicureans and Stoics had in their numbers many atheists and these group represent some of the most excellent men who have lived on the planet. On the contrary, the Spanish Inquisition was led by religious men, the Aztecs were driven extinct by religious groups, in which case it can be said there is nothing about religion that guarantees that a person will be humane and moral, whatever moral is.

And she should explain to us why

They can’t praise anything as right, either.

Unless of course he denies our humanity.

And am waiting for the day I will be shown the truth of the statement below.

but if the opportunity arises to point out how they are borrowing from theism in order to attack it, we should do that in addition to presenting good scientific and historical evidence.

It is easy to repeat trope one has heard WLC or other apologist say, it requires independent thought to see that they are full of BS. You don’t just go repeating stuff because you have heard it said. It doesn’t hurt anyone to do some thinking for self. In fact, in the words of William H. Clifford,

it is wrong always and everywhere to believe anything on insufficient evidence.

I need to add a small thing to this already long post. She writes in one of the comments

If was Christians who hid Jews during the Holocaust, and Christians who took in abandoned infants in Roman times, and Christians who are leading the fight for the unborn today.

While ignoring it was the same Paulines killing the Jews during the holocaust. And well, Paulinity is new on the landscape and when it took form, Rome collapsed. I don’t like to engage in the abortion debate, but I must inform this apologist that they have little concern for the living. Their main campaign is about birth and after that they will wait for you to be ready to join the army to go and die in a cause that you nor your grandmother before you can make head and tails of.

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

76 thoughts on “Things that annoy me.

  1. Mordanicus says:

    You are sharp, as usual.


  2. paarsurrey says:

    “biological automatons”

    What do you mean for that? Please


  3. Ignostic Atheist says:

    it is wrong always and everywhere to believe anything on insufficient evidence.

    And how do you know that? 😉

    I like to distinguish for theists the difference between objective and absolute morality. Objective morality is something that we can all agree on, while absolute morality exists unchanging. The idea that objective morality is God’s will results from the false dichotomy that morality is either God’s law or individuals making up whatever feels right at the moment. There are other options when it comes to making this soup.


    • Ron says:

      I agree that defining the terms from the outset helps keep everyone on the same page. For instance, WLC defines “objective moral values” like this:

      “To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so.” [source]

      IOW, his definition of “objective” describes an evidence-based reality that exists outside the mind–i.e., not a set of standards based on human consensus.

      And what evidence does he bring to the table in support of his proposition?

      Well, he just knows it.


      • Ignostic Atheist says:

        He assumes there is no other reasonable way for us to have moral thoughts, other than god.

        I guess he’s examined all other possible options and shown them to be false, which also puts the extent of his knowledge on par with a god. Yes, this is a parody of the apologist’s mocking response to the claim that there is no god. Suck it, WLC.

        One of my personal projects right now is attempting to combine Sam Harris’ moral code of well-being and Jonathan Haidt’s evolutionary moral paradigm. Harris leaves a lot to interpretation, so it may even be possible.


    • makagutu says:

      I just know it :-P.

      You make a clear distinction here on this matter.


  4. paarsurrey says:

    “Why must a god be responsible for our duties and obligations to one another?”

    I agree with you; that we are ourselves responsible for our deeds; not the One-True-God.

    We are not to judge Him; He will judge us for our deeds; good or bad.


    • Ignostic Atheist says:

      I believe what he meant was, why must a god be the source of our duties and obligations to one another?


      • paarsurrey says:

        ” why must a god be the source of our duties and obligations to one another?”

        Why should not the One-True-God be the source of our duties and obligation to one another? Please


        • Ignostic Atheist says:

          Why should not the One-True-God be the source of our duties and obligation to one another? Please

          Why must not a god not be the source of our duties and obligations to one another?


          • paarsurrey says:

            The One-True-God originated the Universe/s and then created life into it; so He is perfectly entitled to fix the norms for how ethically, morally and spiritually we deal with the other living beings and the fellow humans:

            [18:8] Verily, We have made all that is on the earth as an ornament for it, that We may try them as to which of them is best in conduct.
            [18:9] And We shall make all that is thereon a barren soil.



            • Ignostic Atheist says:

              Of course, you’re assuming a god in your response. Turning around and saying that a god must set moral norms because he’s a god, says that you define your god as a moral setter. What it does not do is answer the question of why a god is necessarily the source of duties and obligations to one another, because you’ve not demonstrated that your god even exists, merely that you define him to fulfill the requirement. Since you define your god to be a setter of morality, and exclude the option of morality existing aside from him, then you must give evidence that your god exists as defined by you in order to show that he does set morality.

              I, on the other hand, believe that moral values arise out of social consensus, and can vary over time as society varies, as is shown by slavery, over time, changing from a religion-backed occupation to being vehemently opposed by society.


              • paarsurrey says:

                “Of course, you’re assuming a god in your response. Turning around and saying that a god must set moral norms because he’s a god, says that you define your god as a moral setter.”

                Please don’t mind; you are assuming in this discussion as do other atheists agnostics skeptics that there exists no God; and on the other hand you ask evidences for His existence.
                If for natural concepts the atheists ask others for evidences and proofs; and their askance is valid; then why they feel shy for providing evidences and proofs themselves for their un-natural concepts?
                I believe in the One-True-God very naturally like I believe in my existence and the existence of my father and mother.
                Hence His(the One-True-God Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) being an ethical, moral and spiritual setter is very natural and reasonable.


                • Ignostic Atheist says:

                  I’ve told you a simple reason why I consider morality to be a cultural phenomenon. On the other hand, you have told me that your god is defined as a giver of morals, and now you’ve told me that you know he exists because you believe in him “naturally”, and therefore he is a setter of morality because you define him as such.

                  Likewise, I believe I have gremlins in my underpants, because I feel them. But a natural feel, in my heart – I can’t physically feel them because they’re magical, don’t be silly. These gremlins always make sure my balls are out of the way when I sit down, and I know they do this because I’ve never sat on my balls.

                  I’m going to spell this out really simple for you: that weak ass argument for testicle saviors provided more evidence than your argument for a morality setting god.

                  Also, since you’re saying that I’m shy about providing evidence, I only typed one damn sentence in its own little paragraph detailing the most simple reason for my belief I could think of. How could you have missed that?


                • makagutu says:

                  No no, you don’t get it.
                  We don’t start with the assumptions that gods don’t exist. No, we say that the claimants have not provided sufficient evidence for their case. Now show us your god is and we will have a discussion.


            • makagutu says:

              The Koran makes a claim that god exist and that this god did something. That my friend is not evidence. It is a circular argument.


        • Ron says:

          “On the other hand; neither a text book of science claims that One-True-God does not exist nor gives any reason for that? Is it true?”

          True. But neither does my toaster manual. And (to my knowledge) no science text argues against the existence of fairies, goblins, werewolves, leprechauns, gnomes, chupacabra, pixies or invisible pink unicorns, either.


          • paarsurrey says:

            Neither does my toaster manual. And no science text argues against the existence of fairies; so I think Atheists who hasten to hide behind science should believe in them.


            • Ignostic Atheist says:

              That there is no scientific text arguing against something is your argument for the existence of that something. Therefore, you should be the one believing in fairies and unicorns and gods.

              Don’t try to dump your illogic off on us.


          • Ron says:

            The burden of proof always rests with the person making the positive claim — not the person who rejects it. And in this instance, the person making the positive claim for “One-True-God” is you.

            Empirical Evidence:

            “Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.”


    • makagutu says:

      We don’t agree in interpretation. You think a god will judge you, I have no such beliefs.


  5. paarsurrey says:

    “I have asked why must life have meaning to be lived.”
    Why should life not have any meaning? Please


  6. paarsurrey says:

    “I would want to ask, as Socrates did ask millennium ago”

    And Socrates was a messenger prophet of the One-True-God:



  7. paarsurrey says:

    “it can be said there is nothing about religion that guarantees that a person will be humane and moral, whatever moral is.”

    I agree with you here.


  8. fojap says:

    I haven’t finished your writing yet because I’ve been trying to find the original. I think this may be a hoax. Following your links, I’ve come up with the following:

    J. Warner Wallace on Cold Case Christianity says they it came in the comments to a blog posted “some weeks ago.” He gives a link to a website “”, but it’s just the home page, not a link to the post where this comment is supposed to have been made.

    I’ve put some quotes in a search engine to see if I can find an earlier instance of this. So far I have this:

    I’m going to see if I can find the original. Until we see it we should assume it doesn’t exist.


  9. fojap says:

    Good post, Mak.

    The atheist commenter, if there ever was one, seems to be confused about how this whole “survival of the fittest” thing actually works. I think some people hear that phrase and imagine “survival of the most buff caveman” rather than “survival of the organism best adapted for a particular niche.” They have the wrong meaning of the word “fit.” We are social animals. We live in complex societies and depend on one another to survive. That’s actually even more evident in smaller tribal societies where being pushed out of the group was tantamount to a death sentence. Having codes of behavior is essential to our survival. The commenter says,

    So be nice if you want. Be involved, have polite conversations, be a model citizen. Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one. You’re just a little bit less evolved, that’s all. When you are ready to join me, let me know, I’ll be reproducing with your wife.

    I won’t even go into the bizarre imaginings of male/female sexual behavior this seems to imply and the fact that this seems to be a conversation only among males. (Maybe the wife has an opinion.) However, I think someone exhibiting this behavior would find himself being thrown out of the tribe, or at least his life would be very difficult. If everyone pursued this extreme libertarian behavior, then there would be no one to raise the children who would be the products of that reproduction and the society would collapse. As you’ve rightly pointed out, there are many views among atheists. Now, there are libertarian atheists, and even more bizarrely Randian Christians, so this could be the point of view of a real person, however, it is a tremendous mistake to think that this is even a commonplace view among atheists.

    Other atheists aren’t “sugarcoating” their views. They simply have come to a different conclusion. Even if the whole thing is on the up and up and there really was an atheist commenter on a thread who wrote exactly this, then the Christians are pulling out as an example of an atheist someone who, by his own admission, holds an uncommon viewpoint.


  10. john zande says:

    Weesh, that’s a whole salad of utter nonsense!


  11. Which Stoic are thinking of as an atheist?


  12. I am of the opinion that there is no free will. There is certainly none in the holy bibbly. I think there is a fair approximation of it since we cannot know all of the influences that act upon us, being finite beings with no magical superpowers.

    I can offer moral judgements with no problem at all; mind are based on empathy. Theists have no objective standard, considering how they can’t agree on whose god is real and what it “really” means.


  13. Ron says:

    Ha! On a different thread Wintery Knight told Ark:

    “On your atheistic view, things like rape, slavery, infanticide, genocide, etc. are all permissible if the majority of people in a particular place and time accept it. There is no objective right and wrong, and there are no objective human rights.”

    To which I responded:

    “The Old Testament informs us that the Israelites accepted and obeyed Yahweh’s commands to do all of those things to their Canaanite neighbors.

    So if God’s okay with that, what’s the basis for your objection?”

    My comment went into moderation and was subsequently deleted.

    I’ll take that to mean he doesn’t have a basis for raising an objection. It’s all good when the god he believes in commands others to do those things. 🙂


  14. paarsurrey says:


    Why should a believer bother for your or any other atheist agnostic skeptic’s annoyance?

    Do you or any other atheist agnostic skeptic bother for the annoyance of the believers?

    Why should it be a one-sided moral?

    Anybody please


We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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