Atheism is redundant: Amputees Guy Striks again (exposing the site "God is Imaginary--50 simple proofs")

I don't know if this is done by the same guy or not but it must be. The simple minded mentality and cheap tricks behind the amputees site stands behind the site "God is Imaginary."


This site features "50 simple proofs" (50 simple minded lies) that God is not real. Of course they get most of those by repeating the same ones.

Proof #11 - Notice that there is no scientific evidence

There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:

• God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
• None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either. (see this page)
• God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.
• The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone. (see this page)
• The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God. (see this page)
• When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers." (see this page)
• Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.
• And so on…

Let's agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists. If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's "God", nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists. In addition we know that:

1. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
2. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.
3. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions.

The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary.

Notice three things:


(1) This is not proof there's not scientific proof. it's only "proof" if even that, that the things pointed out are not scientific proofs.


(2) He's just asserting "we all know that" without providing any actual evidence. If We all know it why do we need a website about it?


(3) Lack of scientific evidence is not a disproof.

• God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth. 

 the earth and the tomb and the parts of the brain that contain  the concept of God are all physical proof.

• None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either. (see this page) 

 the empty tomb bozo. Jesus miracles were 2000 years ago you really expect those guys to still be hanging around waiting for the press?

• God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone. 

 Science hasn't done that either. why is that "scientific" evdience? He might as well say "God has not pulled off a big publicity stunt recently. That's all he's arguing.

• The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone. (see this page) 

 Of course that is nothing more an stupid assertion based upon facts in not in evidence. What he really means is "I don't bleieve Jesus did this." He's trying to couch it in terms that make i seem real and true and trust worthy when it's nothing more than his refusal to believe. This is a good example of what I have called "the atheist argument from incredulity." I refuse to believe that's all there is to it, that proves it. It only proves that you are stupid.This the kind of illogical drivel that atheism has come to mean on the internet.

The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God. (see this page)

 That's a simplistic generalization. He must show that what he is referring to as "untrue" is truly a claim made by the bible and not a straw man, and then in which sense it's not true.

• When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers." (see this page) 

Bull. there are at least 14 good studies that prayers are answered. not we need such studies. in addition to that there's a ton of good empirical evidence of miracles.  This is a bait and switch because even without answered prayer and miracle that in itself does not disprove the existence of God.

Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God

 More assertion without evidence. How does he know there was no response from God? There was no great publicity stunt, that doesn't prove no response. Perhaps the allies winning the war and the foundation of Israel were responses.

• And so on… 

O and so on! wow why didn't you say now. that really conveniences me! what does he mean by "and so on?" What he means is "let me teach you how to be an thinking knee jerk reactionary who hates God.
Now you see the pattern you got the hand of it, make up your lying bs, and so on!

Let's agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists.

 why should we agree on that? I have a vast array of empirical evidence that demonstrates rational reasons to believe in God. half of my 42 arguments are empirically oriented.

If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's "God", nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists. In addition we know that: 

 Unless of course you think about it intelligently and in an educated manner and recall that God is beyond our understanding and is not given in sense data. There actually no reason to construe lack of scientific with non existence. After all many physicists take string theory seriously and there is no proof of string theory. Moreover, since God is not given in sense data that means we must use other means, such as philosophy and religious experience rather than direct scientific evidence. But then that's actually a lie since the 200 empirical studies of religious experience are scientific evidence for God. Its not direct evidence like a finger print, but it's powerful ind erect evidence.


This points up another problem with this guys hateful paladin. He never gives a criterion for evidence. He doesn't' establish what kind of evidence we should look for. this veg "scientific evidence' doesn't cut it, and he doesn't tell us what to search for or why we should accept his criteria if he has any.

1. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God". 

 We do talk about that genius, it's called "theology" (the word means "the systematic study of God"). "Ology" does not mean "useless haphazard study. Internet atheist illiteracy strikes agai

If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological o

If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions.

It is. It's called "textual criticism" its' a science.

The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary.

Of course it might also be because you are illiterate and you don't understand epistemology. This is such a horribly idiotic, based an uninformed pack of lies one shudders at the prospect of even dealing with it. The illiteracy level this pitch is aimed at is scary. Now let's look some of those links he sticks in to back his unfounded assertions.


He shows his true stupidity in linking to a page for Jesus miracles didn't leave any physical evidence, and this page is nothing more than recursion of the kind of ignorant unthinking bigotry he exhibits in the original page of lies.

If someone were to come to you today and say, "I am God!", what would you do? Yes, you would immediately ask for proof. Of course you would. And you would not want goofy proof.You would want real, solid, tangible proof.
No normal person, and I mean no one, would accept anything less than rock solid proof from a person who claims to be God.

But to "disprove" the "rock solid" ntture of Jesus miracles me makes two idiotic assertiosn:


(1) people back then would think about faith healers the way we do today.

1. Everyone has seen all sorts of "faith healers" who can "heal" the sick. And we all know that this sort of "healing" is quackery. If it were true, then we would not need doctors, hospitals or prescription medicines.
2. Turning water into wine... Doesn't that sound like something that a B-grade David-Copperfield-wannabe magician would do in a nightclub act? There are a dozen ways that you could stage things to make it look like water is turning into wine. There is no reason why a normal person would accept a magic trick as proof that someone is God.
3. Neither of these miracles can be scientifically tested today. Not one of Jesus' miracles left any tangible evidence for scientists to study.

this was 2000 years ago! where's is he going to get a scientific lab to test the wine back then? Why assume that the lack presence of the miracle today is proof they didn't happen 2000 years ago?
This is absurdly stupid. Without offering any sort of proof that Jesus miracles didn't happen, he assumes that his empty headed argument from incredulity is some kind of proof for today. But he never actually gives any evidence that the miracles didn't happen, the people 2000 yars ago would have seen the people they knew were lame and blind running around healed they would have seen Jesus having died o the cross walking through the town and they wouldn't believed, so have historical evidence we can't measure it's truth content by atheist incredulity.


All of his backing nonsense is the same kind of garbage. This site is a perfect proof for my arguments about atheism. We feel the hate, we know it's organized hate group palaver, it's stupid, it's clearly designed to incite emotions rather than analysis and it's clearly aiming at working up unthinking anger. This is proof of my theory that Dawkins is paying intern crowd for suckers and trying to build an army of angry illiterate atheist fundies because he thinks that's the success of Christianity.


No movement has ever succeeded for long by basing is support on the stupidest level of society. No hate group has succeeded over a long period of time either. Some day thanks to guys like this the phrase "stupid as an internet atheist" will be common place.