I hadn’t intended to write any more because of the inactivity of the site, but a Youtube video sucked me in for another round.
A troll who calls himself shockofgod lives on Youtube. He has some neurological disorder that causes him to repeat himself ad nauseum and ride a motorcycle. When someone tries to talk to him, he interrupts to repeat himself yet again. He claims to have been an atheist, yet he has no clue what an atheist is. Fortunately, he accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior, and one might think that would be the last we had to put up with him. Silly us. Now he makes a nuisance of himself by showing up on other people’s sites and trying to show how stupid atheists are — still repeating himself endlessly. The best I can do is to let him speak for himself.
Notice that Shock of God doesn’t allow you to rate his videos or make a comment. His question has been answered numerous times by dozens of people — for instance:
His mind-blowing, atheist-defeating question that is impossible to answer is “What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct?”. Let me start with an equally insightful question: “What proof and evidence do I have that nature is accurate and correct?”. First, we have to guess what on earth the question means. Accurate? Correct? What can it possibly mean? Oh, now I see. We know that nature can’t be accurate, because it disagrees with the Bible, the gold-standard of accuracy. And things that appear in nature are obviously not correct because by trying to interpret nature, we can’t possibly meet the standards set by centuries of bronze age oral traditions later written in manuscripts and copied from one manuscript to the next thousands of times, and eventually translated from one language to another several times. There is no possibility of meeting the Bible’s level of correctness, politically or otherwise.
Finally, we know how to approach Shock of God’s profound question that strikes at the very defects of atheistic thinking. First, he demonstrates his astute understanding of law as practiced in Alabama by paraphrasing Judge Hand’s 1987 Ruling. Shock of God tells us that an atheist is a person who believes in the religion of Humanism. There is no questioning his statement of that fact — if you live in Alabama. He had me stumped; then I realized that I don’t live in Alabama, so I quickly borrowed the definition of a type 4 atheist from my FAQs. The radio guys weren’t quite so fortunate, since Shock of God began interrupting incessantly from the moment he realized that atheists are a slippery bunch who try to change well-established definitions just to confuse him.
The prevailing definition seems to be that of a type 2 atheist, or one who doesn’t believe gods exist, probably because there is no evidence for their existence. So Shock of God is asking for proof and evidence either of lack of belief in a god or that there is no evidence that a god exists if the lack of belief can be proven.
First, we have to realize that there are no atheists in foxholes. Presumably, they’re too big to fit. That leaves millions of people, including me, who think that they don’t believe in a god, apparently clearing the first step for evidence. However, it has been pointed out that everyone is born believing in God (not just any old god, but the Biblical one). Furthermore, according to this indisputable source, no one is capable of completely ridding himself of that belief, no matter how they deceive themselves. So much for clearing the first step.
The second step is no less tricky. Just because we can’t find any evidence for a god doesn’t mean that unarguable evidence won’t suddenly appear the day after tomorrow. What if a 900 foot statue of Jesus suddenly appears at the site of the World Trade Center, and He’s holding His heart punctured by a cross in His hand and He’s weeping blood (or at least something that’s red)? Or what if tooth fairies are suddenly discovered at Cornwall, along with all the teeth they’ve collected? Then there would certainly be no way to deny God, and any proof of atheism vanishes. We’re boxed in by events that just might happen!
Fortunately, type 4 atheists think outside Shock of God’s box, and for them, it is impossible to prove the existence of anything supernatural (much less a god). Even invisibility doesn’t prove its existence. Therefore, since I wasn’t born believing in a god and I still don’t, we clear steps 1 and 2 in a single bound, and we have both proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct. Note that this makes atheism superior to nature, since nature must bow to fairy tales.
If Shock of God thinks he can outdo my sophistry, I welcome his attempt. Interrupting me incessantly, shouting, and repeating himself isn’t the same as beating my argument, nor does it mean I haven’t answered his challenge.
This leaves a few loose ends, since Shock of God introduced things other than his challenge. He says that “Science and fact prove that atheism is wrong”. I’m impressed with his clever double entendre. Since atheism is actually based on science and fact, it’s obvious that he must mean atheism is morally wrong. Yep, he PWNed us; atheism breaks several of the Bible’s 613 laws that go unobserved by Christians.
He also points out that “If there were no God, there would be no atheists”. Damned if he doesn’t have us again! There is no god, so I don’t exist. He thinks of everything. This guy is a genius!
This is followed by “Atheism is a crutch for those who can’t bear the reality of God”. Not only can I not bear the reality of God, I can’t bear His burden in any way, shape, or form. A burden like that requires a crutch, and Shock of God has found another weakness.
I can’t go on. I’ve been demolished by a superior mind. Before I go, I would like to pay tribute to an idol of mine — Bill O’Reilly. I want to leave with a challenge to Shock of God. “Tide goes in and stain comes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that!”