Are theists just retarded? Or dishonest? Or what?

While using the “Tag Surfer” feature of WordPress, I came across a blog entry which (pathetically) linked to a blog entry of Mike Ratliff’s. This blog entry linked with a single, approving sentence, as though it contained some sort of wisdom. I followed the link. Mike Ratliff’s blog quoted the article of another person, Fred Klett, as if it were some sort of wisdom: The Absurdity of Atheism.

A pukefest ensued.

Here are the minutes of said pukefest:


Posted on January 30, 2008 by Mike Ratliff

by Fred Klett

First of all, who is tht author, Mike Ratliff, or Fred Klett? Oh, it’s Fred Klett. Mike Ratliff is just cutting and pasting Fred Klatt’s writing into his blog without commentary. just, what, “passing it along?” Thanks Mike, but why didn’t you just put a link, instead of cutting and pasting? And where is the link to Fred’s writing, anyway?

Already, we’re off to a typically bad start.

So you’re an atheist. Mazel Tov, at least you aren’t wishy washy. As a former atheist myself, I won’t condemn you. How could I? Some atheists think they’ve taken a heroic stand, but could it be that they really don’t want to face up to the possibility that God is indeed there? I hope you’ll be intellectually honest enough to consider what I have to say and see if it makes sense

Can you smell the condescension? Well hang on to your olfactory system, I’m about to have a condescending emission of my own.

No one who has prejudged an issue can be convinced of anything contrary to what he wants to believe.

Is this a warning to those who might attempt to convince
Mike Ratliff, er, I mean, Fred Klett, that he’s wrong?

There are still those who insist the earth is flat and no
one can convince them otherwise, no matter what the evidence.

Are we to suppose you’re one of those?

There are always
folks, no matter if religious or atheistic, who stubbornly believe what they
prefer, no matter if reason and fact show otherwise. Someone like this has the unspoken philosophy: Don’t confuse me with the facts. My mind is already made up. Ask yourself: Am I open-minded or narrow minded? Am I willing to change my mind if I can be shown atheism doesn’t make sense?

Sure. Give it your best shot.

You might say, If God is there, let him prove it to me. I don’t want to take an irrational leap of faith. Fine. In Isaiah 2:18 God says: come let us reason together. He wants us to reason and He certainly wants us to be be rational, but He will not submit himself to human scrutiny; to do so he would need to stop being God! He will not bow to our perverse judgements [sic]. Ask yourself, Would I ever be willing to believe God is there, however strong the evidence? You see, your problem may not be in your head as much as in your heart. Perhaps you’ve already taken a leap of faith. To assert God cannot exist, despite the impossibility of proving that statement, is the ultimate irrational leap!1

Here he assumes “atheism” is the same thing as “strong atheism,” as opposed to “weak atheism”. There is a common confusion (not helped by American Atheists) that “atheism” is, and only is, the belief that there are no deities. It is also the lack of belief in any deities. To be fair, the Klett (or Ratliff, hard to tell) acknowledges this difference at the end of the blog entry, but, either he was apparently unaware of this distinction before writing the blog entry, or ignored it in an attempt to bulldoze his point home.

While I’m at it, let me clarify (yet again) the distinction between agnosticism and atheism. Agnosticism has to do with what is knowable, or not knowable. Atheism has to do with whether one believes in any deities. The two are not mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheist — one who thinks it is not knowable whether any gods exist, while at the same time lacking any belief in any gods. One can be an agnostic theist (strange to my mind, but they claim to exist) in which one thinks that it is unknowable whether any gods exist, yet believes in some deity or deities anyway. With that bit of exposition out of the way, let us continue.


Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. One cannot disprove God exists. To dogmatically assert something unprovable is hardly rational! You might reply: But I can t disprove a giant purple frog on Mars controls the universe, either. Granted, one can never disprove any given thing

See my preemptive rebuttal above, and author’s pathetic surrender, (way) below.

but the existence of God is not only logically possible, it is philosophically essential. (We’ll get to that later.)

I look forward to it. If you do actually get to it, you’ll have done what no one, in the history of the universe, has ever managed to do.

The atheistic position,

Or a strawman representation of it, perhaps?

on the other hand, is logically impossible. Why do I say that? In order to prove the assertion No God exists,

Yes, a strawman representation, I see. Carry on, you dishonest fucktard.

one would need to comprehensively know all of reality. Comprehensive knowledge of reality is called omniscience. One would need to be omniscient in order to prove there is no God, but if one were omniscient one would, by definition, already be God! So, logically, the only one capable of disproving the existence of God would be God himself! Atheism is inherently self-contradictory. The evidence for the existence of God is there for all to see, only we refuse to see it. King David wrote: The fool says in his heart there is no God. (Psalm 14:1) In other words, Atheism is irrational. Apart from God there is no basis for truth or ethics. For the sake of brevity, let’s simply consider ethics.

Note how, in the last sentence of the above paragraph, he shifts gears from showing how a strawmen caricature is irrational to an unrelated topic of ethics. Yes, that’s right unrelated.


Beyond dispute there are moral atheists. I’ve known atheists who are more ethical than some people claiming to believe in a god. This is not the issue.
The question is, why be ethical? Can an adequate basis for morality be found given atheistic premises? Think about it. Unless God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right and wrong. If God did not give the Ten Commandments to Moses at Sinai, thereby establishing a moral standard above human creation, we are merely left with humanly devised scruples. If humanity is left to create its own ethical standards, we are left with only three options to base ethics upon: 1) collective tradition, 2) human survival, or 3) personal preference.


Those who argue that morality is properly based upon what society as a whole deems moral have a big problem. What one society says is moral another says is immoral.

And, have you noticed that, hey, in the real world, this is indeed the case? Have you say, read the Bible? This absolute ethics you seem to be on the verge of positing is, if anything, utterly repudiated by the words of the Bible. Not to mention, by the history of the world. So, just how ignorant are you?

Nazi Germany held that it was morally good and beneficial to exterminate the Jewish people. The Allies saw the Nazis as evil and fought against them. Who was right? If one believes God gave the law You shall not murder, the answer is obvious. Any society that advocates murder is evil. How can an atheist respond? Most would admit the Nazis were evil, but according to what standard?

According to the standard of what we, as humans, think. Nothing more, nothing less. You use the word “evil”, in a way which makes me suspect you think there is more to it than just being stuff you really really dislike. There isn’t.

Were the Nazis evil just because the Allies said they were evil or were they in fact evil?

The former.

One can try to argue that it isn’t just what a few societies say that matters, but what the majority of human societies agree upon. This does provide a better basis, since God has given us a conscience,

You utterly fail to have established that God has given us a conscience.

but it has been corrupted by rebellion. At one time most human societies placed less value on female offspring than on males. In many societies female infants were left to die. In some places this exists today. This is morally wrong, no matter if the whole of human society were to say otherwise! Basing morality on human society does not provide an adequate answer.

In whose judgement? In your — get this — human judgement? So, you somehow elevate yourself above humanity, and place yourself, despite being a human, in a position to judge whether morality based on human society is “good enough”, and since you, a human, find that it isn’t, posit that a supernatural standard of morality is not only required, but extant? One word for you:



What of an evolutionary model for morality? Why not posit that whatever benefits human survival is moral? To some this may be appealing, but first ask some questions. Why, based upon atheistic assumptions, should we logically value human survival? What difference does it all make? Why is life valuable? Isn’t belief in human survival itself a moral assumption, a value judgement that has no basis in an atheistic world view? Furthermore, consider what an ethic based solely on survival could lead to: the elimination of those perceived to have less survival value. The Nazi movement, based upon an evolutionary eugenic ideal of developing a super race, destroyed those deemed by them inferior or unsuitable. Reproduction was to be limited to those deemed most fit. Mankind, when left to its own devices to develop its moral basis, commits systemized [sic] murder and oppression. Consider the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the horrible situations we have witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia. Both atheists and religious people so easily justify murder. Just because we have also seen horrors committed by those claiming to believe in some sort of god doesn’t disprove my point. I’m not advocating just any old god! It is still true that when any society abandons the God-given law, You shall not murder, horror results.

Wow. Just wow. First of all, lets just get this out of the way. The author of the above paragraph is a total fucking idiot. Now, here’s why:

First of all, any species which did not value its own kind, and went about indiscriminately murdering its own kind, wouldn’t last long. Secondly, this is all an appeal to consequences. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument, that our theistic idiot is correct, and that, without the say-so of a deity, there’s no reason not to go around murdering, etc. This amounts to an argument of the form, “I don’t like X. Therefore X cannot be true.” As in, “I don’t like the idea that people could go around murdering without consequence, and I cannot imagine that people without a moral system based on supernatural decree could see any reason why not to murder, or to impose consequences on those who do murder, therefore, the idea that my theistic based morality is incorrect cannot be true.”

Third of all, he’s tried to imply that the reason that Pol Pot, Stalin, and, for fuck’s sake, the Christian named Hitler did the things that they did because they were atheists. Hitler of course, was not an atheist. Pol Pot and Stalin were, but, they did not do the things they did because they were atheists.. They did not say to themselves, “ah, because I think that there is no God, I shall kill zillions of people. They killed zillions of people because they were nutcases who came to power. Religious people are not demonstrably more immune to such things, and what’s more, religious people who do kill, often do so, unlike atheists, precisely and directly because of their religion.

He’s shifted gears on us folks, and is now appealing to what I would say is our sense of morality which we’ve inherited via evolution (in the form of instincts) and culturally — culture not being immune to the forces of evolution — and trying to bend these things to indirectly support his argument. He’s saying: “Unless you believe X, then Y might happen. Y is horrible. You better believe X.) In other words, he’s making an utterly flawed, ridiculous argument. Try harder, buddy.


What of basing morality on one’s personal preferences? What of just saying you can know what is wrong by following your heart? What a dippy idea this is! Jeffrey Dahmer’s heart led him to murder and cannibalize his fellow humans! Basing morality on feelings is the ultimate in irrationality. This puts moral judgement on the level of personal taste. Dahmer might have thought you suitable to his taste!

Cherry picking, or rather, turd-picking examples, are we? Dahmer? Really? Shall we bring up the Inquisition? Shall we bring up Andrea Yates? Shall we bring up Deanna Laney? Shall we bring up fucking Abraham and Isaac? Shall we bring up God the Father and Jesus the Son? Eh? If anyone is, it’s you Christians who are the psycho offspring murderers (I mean, “sacrificers”,) elevating it to the status of the very heart of your religion. You fucking worship the idea of sacrificing the child for the sake of the father. It is both at the very origin (Abraham/Isaac) and at the very core (God/Jesus) of your religion. You haven’t a leg to stand on, nor even an arm to swing your sword lying yonder in the dirt, Sir Black Knight, or, as hereafter ye shall be known, “Torso.”

I’ve met many atheists who are judgmental of religious people who have
committed great atrocities, but upon what basis? Does this make any sense?
Atheistic assumptions irresistibly lead to the conclusion that morality is
nothing more than a matter of personal or societal preference. Based upon an atheistic philosophy, the very appropriate disdain for the despicable murderers of humanity makes about as much sense as a dog lover’s disdain of those who prefer cats! How silly. Unless there is a moral standard beyond individual or societal preference, there is no logical basis for condemning atrocity. I challenge any atheist to give me a basis for ethics beyond mere personal preference, social custom, or survival. They simply cannot do it. Post-modern philosophers have come to the conclusion that there is no hope of finding morality or meaning based on materialistic presuppositions. They are quite right. It is a good thing that many atheists are too decent and too inconsistent to live out the irresistible moral conclusions of their philosophy!

Ok, Torso, are you arguing against atheism, or, are you making an appeal to consequences, which I remind you, is a logical fallacy. You have this weird idea that people can’t just make up morality. But they do, all the time. Guess what — your religion, the source of your morality (supposedly, but, having read the Bible, I have my doubts — you are far to moral to have derived your morality from there) bears all the hallmarks of having been made up! Suppose I’m wrong about that, and your religion really is correct. In that case, guess what? Your decision to embrace that religion is a human decision, as fraught with peril as the next human decision, and you have no more basis to claim your absolute morality as those claiming to have made up their own minds in a vacuum. Your absolute, by virtue of having traversed your synapses, has become relative.

In other words, YOU SUCK AT THIS GAME.

Another thought: we even transgress the scruples we ourselves invent. Is this logical? No, but this is consistent with the Biblical view of mankind, which says we are by our nature law-breakers and rebels who don’t want to believe in the true God. Thank God there is an amnesty program for rebels and atheists! (More on that later.)

Is this some sort of an argument? There doesn’t seem to be a point in there. If the author is incorrect in his assumptions about the divine origin of the conscience, and the scruples we invent are just that, and nothing more, invented scruples, then it’s hardly a surprise that sometimes people fail to abide by them, and hardly a triumph that the Bible authors noticed that people don’t always, say, live up to their promises. Yay! The Bible authors failed to be dumber then the most ordinary of human beings, and noticed some of the most obvious things around them! What a triumph!


A wise rabbi, the Apostle Paul, wrote:

Oh, Paul… you know this is going to nothing but the purest of logical thought… *rolls eyes*.

The anger of God is being revealed from heaven against all the Godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise they became fools2…

God’s existence is clearly seen in what He has made. The intricate brilliance of the created order reveals the mind of an infinitely intelligent Designer just as surely as a great work of architecture or a complex piece of technology reveals the mind of its designer. Furthermore, our own consciences and sense of justice, though corrupted by our rebellion, still tell us there is right and wrong and a God who has a perfect moral standard. The truth is, if you are an atheist, it is not because it makes sense, it is because you don’t want to face up to the fact that there is a God out there to whom you are accountable. You don’t like God and are trying to hide from Him. You need not feel this way. God has provided a way back for you.

Ah, the assertion the “everybody knows God exists! Those who say they don’t believe are simply lying!”

Here’s the point where I call you, Fred Klett, a dishonest fucking disgrace to humanity. You’re a true piece of shit. You too Mike Ratliff. The both of you peas in a pod at the bottom of a pile of manure. You can’t defend your ideas, so you claim that those who disagree with you really do agree with you, but they are just lying about it. I assure you, I really truly do think your ideas are fucking insane, and not one molecule of me agrees with you. What you believe is fucking retarded, and you’re fucking retarded for believing it. That fact that you can point to a fucking retarded verse the the retarded Bible that says, more or less, “Oh, those who mock you have been deceived by God.” (e.g. Thessalonians 2:11) doesn’t make it true — it makes you a gullible fool.

How do we know God exists? Unless we begin with the assumption that he does, we can’t know anything else exists! Unless we presuppose that God created us with the ability to know things through sensory experience and reason, we have no philosophical basis for trusting either. Philosophically speaking, unless we know a wise God gave us our senses, how can we know everything isn’t an illusion?

What are you, a freshman philosophy student?

Did you not read Thessalonians 2:11? Even as a theist — especially as a theist — you cannot know that everything is not an illusion. Reality is defined to be that which we can sense by experience. There isn’t anything which we can know “exists” except by way of sense experience. Even if it is all an “illusion”, and there is some “higher” reality behind it, given the tools we have (our senses) what it means for something to “exist” is defined by those senses. This is how we distinguish that which is merely posited, or imaginary, from that which is “real.” “Real” things can be sensed by multiple people, independently (possibly with the aid of instruments like telescopes or mass spectrometers), but independently.

If God gave us our senses, he can deceive us any time he wants to, (and according to the Bible, in case you’re a Christian, has promised to do as much in Thessalonians 2:11). It is the Christian theist, not the atheist who’s got a problem with the reliability of the senses. To the atheist, the senses are not reliable, they are authoritative, in that they are the only thing we have. There isn’t anything else. Even your reading of the Bible depends on your senses to work, else, why do Braille Bibles even exist?

As for reason, we can’t prove the validity of reason without using reason! We must assume what we are trying to prove in order to prove it.

That’s rich, coming from a theist. Are you about to posit faith, as a superior alternative to reason, Torso? Here’s the thing. Science works, bitches. The world around us impacts us. Our senses give our brains information about the world around us. Our brains process it, make predictions, act on those predictions. Of those organisms with senses, which do you suppose would fare better, those organisms whose senses gave their brains accurate information about the world around them, or those which had sense which gave their brains less accurate information? Which organisms would have the advantage, those with senses which were more accurate, or those with senses that were less accurate? Evolution perfectly explains our pretty good, but not perfect senses. The history of the world, filled with the discoveries of science, every one based 100% on the senses, backs me up. That computer you’re reading this on, was it prayed into existence by priests? Or was it built by engineers, using the principles discovered by sciense, relying 100% on our senses? The latter. (I’ll not permit the cravenly dishonest priests the opportunity of answering a rhetorical question.) The philosophical objection that, “who’s to say our senses aren’t all an illusion” as an objection to atheism in favor of theism isn’t even sophmoric. It’s the musings of middle school, the musings of a 13 year old child. Think man! Your brain surely has more horsepower than that! Doesn’t it, Torso?

All human reasoning is circular, but when we leave God out of the circle we are left like a dog chasing its tail without any hope of catching it! Without beginning with the philosophical presupposition that a God who has spoken to mankind exists, we are doomed to reason in circles with no way of knowing how to discern truth.

Hey circle-dog, inserting a chew-toy named “God” into your circle doesn’t make you any less of a circling dog. Fuck, you’re dumb.

As for positive proof, there is the communication of God to mankind. Moses received the Law at Sinai. This was attested by great miracles witnessed by millions. The Hebrew prophets foretold the rise and fall of nations and spoke of the coming of a Messiah. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Jewish Bible.3 His resurrection is historically documented, having been witnessed by the early Messianic Jewish believers who recorded their testimonies and were willing to die for what they knew to be true.

ha ha ha ha ha! Holy fucking shit, you expect me to take that seriously? Moses!?!?! You are twelve kinds of ignorant if you think the Old Testament stories are the least bit convincing, or that they line up with actual historical evidence worth a damn. Tell me, how to 2 million people (what the Bible claims, and half the population of the Houston Tx, the 4th largest city in the U.S.) wander around the desert for 40 years without leaving so much as a coprolite? The entire store of Exodus is a fabrication.

Many have asked: Does life have meaning? Why do I exist? There is abundant meaning to life when we know the Living God. Frankly, atheism is boring, but knowing, enjoying, and serving God gives life purpose and excitement. On what basis does human life have value? Each of us was created in God’s image and therefore each individual is of great value.

Another fucking idiotic appeal to consequences. Oh, boo hoo! If atheism is true, then life has no meaning, and woe is me! And worse than that, atheism is boring. I don’t like things that are boring. So, if I don’t like it because it’s boring, and it implies life has no meaning apart from what I can make of it myself, then, well, I hate that so much that it just can’t be true.

Fuck, are you really that fucking stupid? Are you really so desperate for meaning, so desperate to be entertained that you can’t think straight. Fuck you’re dumb.


Good news! There is hope for atheists! After the Vietnam War there were many expatriate Americans living in Canada and other places. An amnesty program was established to welcome these people home. The message was: Come back home. All is forgiven. You will be received back with open arms. God also has an amnesty program. The true God is both just and loving. His justice demands that our rebellion be punished. His love provided a means to fulfill this justice and restore us to a right relationship with him. This is where the Messiah comes in. Out of love for us, God took on a human nature and visited earth to take upon himself the punishment we deserve for our lawbreaking. Jesus died as a substitute for rebels to pay the penalty of those who deserve it, whether religious or atheistic. There is a judgement [sic] day coming, and God has proven this to us by raising Jesus from the dead. You have this choice: let the Messiah take your punishment or take it yourself. The choice seems obvious to me! Why turn down a free gift? What a great amnesty program! God wants each of us to admit we are wrong, receive the payment He has provided, and come in with our hands up letting Him rule over our lives. He promises to renew us, to enable us to live a new life in His service, and to let us experience His presence forever. God calls atheists to come back home, spiritually speaking. All can be forgiven, even atheism. God calls atheists to turn from their rebellion and to trust the Living God through his Messiah, Jesus.

Oh, for fucks fucking sake. Pascal’s worm fucked wager. We’re not rebelling, you moron. We don’t believe your entire fucking story. We don’t believe there’s anything to be forgiven for, we don’t believe in life after death, we don’t believe there’s any eternal punishment or any eternal reward. Are you fucking retarded? You, Torso, are either utterly dishonest, with no regard for the truth whatsoever, or you are shockingly ignorant, so ignorant that you must have lived in a land deprived of the internet lo these many years, and must be utterly new to the entire concept of the internet. So, which is it Torso? Are you a lying sack of shit? Or are you an internet virgin? Those are the only plausible choices you have, Torso.


What do you mean, “STILL”? You write as though you imagine you’ve presented some sort of argument. You have not. Neither compelling nor otherwise. You’ve presented mainly, a bunch of blathering idiocy. Why do you imagine anybody would be either convinced, or “STILL NOT CONVINCED”, when you have presented absolutely nothing that makes any sense at all? You’re a moron. *rolls eyes*

If you persist in your atheism, one day you will stand before God and you will have no doubt in your mind concerning His existence. His awesome reality will be undeniable to you, even though you won’t want to believe it! Are you still open-minded enough for more information? Maybe you’d like to get together with someone for a friendly and relaxed talk about these things. Maybe you are intrigued, but wish some more in-depth reading. We are happy to help.

Ah, feel the warmth of that “Christian Love” ™. More Pascal’s Wager bullshit. Wow, maybe you really are retarded. I would feel bad, having picked on you, if you actually were mentally deficient, rather than being mentally competent, but brainwashed by your parents, but not quite smart enough, or brave enough to figure it out and get out of it.


1. By the way, I do understand there are so called “Hard Atheists” and
“Soft Atheists.” It has been pointed out to me that while Hard Atheists say
:”There is no God;” Soft Atheists say: “We simply do not believe in any God.” Part of what I am saying only speaks to Hard Atheism, but much also speaks to so-called “Soft”Atheism.” Atheist friends, if you don’t like the popular understanding of atheism, perhaps you need to get the best known atheist organization first to change their definition! I found this statement by Madalyn Murray O’Hair on the American Atheists web page: “Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any.” (Emphasis mine.) Quoted from: 2. Rom. 1:18-22
3. Isaiah 53, Micah 5:1, Jeremiah 31:31-34
4. For more on this ask for the pamphlet called The Easter Bunny Is Not Jewish.

Please feel free to call or write: Fred Klett (a former atheist)

c/o CHAIM, Box 133, Glenside, PA 19038, (215) 576-7325


Interesting how Torso claims to have once been an atheist, yet seems utterly ignorant of the most basic, easy rebuttals to what he supposed to be arguments against atheism, despite that they are so bad they do not even constitute actual arguments so much as a collection of logical fallacies.

~ by scaryreasoner on August 25, 2008.

4 Responses to “Are theists just retarded? Or dishonest? Or what?”

  1. I’ve seen that before (on a mothering site, no less…led to quite a riot, er, debate) and I kept thinking the same thing–this guy says he was once an atheist. Well, he was a crappy atheist. He was probably one of those atheists he talks about that says they don’t believe when they really do…he was probably rebelling.
    What a dumbass.
    Anyway, great rebuttal and major points for using the word, “fucktard.”

  2. “major points for using the word, ‘fucktard.'”

    It’s a good word, a strong word. I rather liked my use of “Torso” as well.

  3. I pretty much save my energy when it comes to the rantings of miilitant religious people. Why not simply live and let live? What are religious people so afraid of? True, I don’t believe in any Gods or Goddesses….And what? I used to be a serious Christian, but I learned better. Sad to say I used to be ALOT like that person.

  4. “Why not simply live and let live?”

    Because religion is not harmless.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: