Just another WordPress.com site

Brief Responses to Stupid Statements from Twitter Atheists

Twitter is a great place for social interaction and even some limited debate on the age old subject of theism vs atheism. However, it is limited to 140 characters per tweet so this page is to give brief responses to some of the stupid statements that are made on Twitter by various atheists.

“If you are created in your god’s image, why does your god have a chest with nipples on it?”

(This tweet confuses the incarnation of God the Son for how God exists in his essential nature and in which we are said to be in his image). 


“Did you know that every argument you can make for your god can be used for any other god too?”

(Counter-example 1: The resurrection of Jesus Christ is proof of the existence of God – How could a Jew or Muslim use that argument for god for their god?)

(Counter-example 2: The universe is proof of the existence of a non-interventionist god -How could this argument for a god be used for any interventionist god?)


“Was William Lane Craig right to defend genocide and child murder. Yes or NO?” 

(This question is a good example of the fallacy of complex question and the proper response to it is to bring out the hidden question within it that has been answered affirmatively, i.e. Is it the case that William Lane Craig has defended genocide and child murder?). William Lane Craig has addressed this question at least once that I know of and the answer is in the negative – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP9CwDTRoOE (beginning at 1:45:40)


“How can God be perfect? Everything He ever makes…dies”. ~George Carlin

(This statement not only makes a non sequitur leap from God being perfect to nothing dying but also demonstrates a very poor understanding of Christian theology in which life is eternal and possibly even also the universe when there will be a ‘new heavens and a new earth’. The Christian message is that death is defeated by Jesus Christ, that it has no sting and that everlasting life is what God provides).


“When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”—Sir Stephen H. Roberts

(This statement is fundamentally flawed as the reason Christian theists dismiss all other possible gods is because the God they believe exists informs them that he is the one true and living God hence the others false – made of wood, stones, worshiping the creature rather than the creator etc. This is a very different reason as to why atheists dismiss god(s) and indeed, if it was the same as that of the Christian theist then they wouldn’t be atheists at all because they’ d have belief in the one true and living God

To overcome the objection that the Bible teaches the existence of other gods as real, one can simply concede that arguendo and then point out that even on that the reason is still different, i.e. based upon God’s command to not worship them or have dealings with them (dismiss them) and not on the same reason as the atheist – some supposed lack of evidence for their existence). 


“What has your God done for you that you couldn’t have done for yourself”? 

(This question is really silly, not realising that on the Christian worldview, without the existence of God as Creator and Sustainer of the Universe, there would be no people to do anything for anyone, never mind for oneself’. Although the response is given from the Christian worldview, any theist, who views God as that Creator and Sustainer of the universe could give the same response). 


“The Brilliant Logic of Christianity”


(This is an excellent example of the misconceived view some atheists have on Christianity. It is, to any informed Christian reading it laughable, if not so seriously misguided. On the Christian worldview: 

God did not create man and woman with original sin nor, on every Christian theology,  did God ever necessarily have that in ‘mind’. 

God did not impregnate a woman with himself – this confuses and conflates the distinct persons involved in the Christian doctrine of the trinity. 

God did not kill himself as a sacrifice to himself – this also confuses and conflates the distinct persons involved in the Christian doctrine of the trinity. 

The sacrifice of Jesus was not, on every Christian theology, intended to save us from a fate God had already condemned us to but rather to save us from a situation created by man via the exercise of freewill. 

Note: In a Calvinist theology it might be said that God did have original sin in mind and did save the elect from a fate created by God). 

If atheists are going to make a serious attempt to use mockery of Christian doctrine to undermine it then it would be an fine example of brilliant atheist logic if they first understood and then fairly represented said doctrine). 


Which is it, is man one of God`s blunders or is God one of man`s? – Friedrich Nietzsche 

(This quote allegedly from Nietzche is a fine example of a stupid tweet because it most obviously commits either the logical fallacy of false dichotomy or of complex question or both!.

On the fallacy of false dichotomy the quote attempts to present us with an either/or situation when there are in fact other possibilities to the two presented:

a) Is man one of God’s blunders


b) is God one of man’s blunders


c) Man is as God intended and for the glory of God

On the fallacy of complex question it’s obvious that within the question is a hidden question that has been affirmatively answered

Q: Is man or God a blunder A: Yes. 

The proper response of this, is to question that loaded point and to request it be established, not simply discretely assumed. 

So A1 ‘Sorry, I don’t grant what your question assumes, i.e. that man or God is a blunder. So you need to establish that to my satisfaction first before your question has legitimacy’. 

Two fallacies in one quotation… not very clever. 


“Sorry proof and god do not go in the same sentence! You have never seen god & have no proof of him/her/it”

(The stupidity of this statement is rather amusing.. the guy writes a sentence containing the words ‘proof’ and ‘god’ in the same sentence but saying that ‘proof and god do not go in the same sentence!  Doh!)


“George W Bush said God told him to invade Iraq for the Weapons Of Mass Destruction. There wasn’t any. God lied. OOPS!”

The stupidity of this statement that has been re-tweeted by many persons on Twitter is rather obvious. It doesn’t follow that because Bush (allegedly) said God told him to invade Iraq for Weapons of Mass Destruction that God did in fact tell Bush to invade Iraq. Bush, could for example be using God for his own ends, or could be mistaken that it was God that lead him to that conviction.  This, not to mention the irony of an atheist, concluding that a God they lack belief in, or deny exists, ‘lied’!. The main point is though that the post displays non sequitur reasoning.


“Let’s be clear: if you are anti-abortion AND anti-contraception, you are not pro-life. You are anti-sex”.

This is another fine example of non sequitur reasoning. It reduces itself to a bare assertion that exhibits reasoning that simply does not follow. Why can’t a person be anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive and pro-sex? The author makes no attempt to explain, nor elaborate and when questioned upon it chose not to respond. Until they, or another atheist explains the reasoning by which the statement logically and necessarily follows it can be dismissed as a fallacious assertion.


“It doesn’t matter what verse of the Bible you quote, the fact remains God is pretend, so Jesus was lying”! 

This is a very good example of both the arrogance of many atheists, their habit of making claims to positive knowledge that they cannot substantiate as they are obliged to upon request and their even more frequent habit of displaying their ignorance of logic (the science of correct reasoning.

The positive claim that this poster could not substantiate is of course when they assert, ‘the fact remains God is pretend..’ but even if we were to grant this arguendo would it logically and necessarily from that fact that ‘Jesus was lying’? The answer of course if no, it doesn’t logically and necessarily follow. It is a non sequitur as shown easily by considering other possibilities like Jesus was deluded or simply mistaken in his views. If either was true then he was not lying and the non sequitur is plain to see. Three statements made:

1. It doesnt’ matter what verse of the Bible you quote.

2. The fact remains God is pretend.

3.  So Jesus was lying

and not a single statement of the three justified, substantiated or true.



Comments on: "Brief Responses to Stupid Statements from Twitter Atheists" (6)

  1. ThaiBoxerUK said:

    Absolute hilarious replies! “This question is really silly, without the existence of God as Creator and Sustainer of the Universe, there would be no people to do anything for anyone,” <HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  2. The idea of the Holly Trinity is an attempt to bypass the one god limit from Bible 1.0. It makes no sense. Father and son cannot be the same person. The rules of logic say that if A=B then B=A. So if the father is the father of the son then the son is the father of the father. And this is nonsense.

    The idea of dying for our sins is to turn a failed prophet into a god. Jesus failed as a prophet, he was supposed to rule over prosperous Israel but he got himself killed like a common criminal for calling himself a king.

    There is a major with Jesus dying for our sins. People who came up with this idea were not very bright, they tried to sacrifice an immortal god. You can’t kill an immortal god. People say “Jesus died for our sins”. Is Jesus dead then? No? Then he didn’t die for our sins. End of story.

    There is a lot of nonsense in the Bible. These are just few examples.

  3. Greg,

    You have misunderstood both the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of the atonement and the doctrine of the incarnation….in that order.

    Christians do not claim that the Father and Son are the same person. This was very clearly and carefully articulated in the early creeds as well as the Gospels and epistles.

    Jesus did not fail. He did exactly what He came to do. Just because the Jews in that time thought that the messiah was to be a ruler in the sense you are saying, doesn’t mean that was God’s plan.

    Finally, the Son, having a Divine nature, took on a human nature. It was the human nature that was killed, not the Divine (as that would be impossible). That human nature was then resurrected into the type of human nature that all Christians will have after Christ comes again (by the way…the next time, He WILL be coming as the conqueror that you and the Jews thought was supposed to come long ago).

    This is an all-too-brief response as there are volumes that are being left out for the sake of extreme brevity. Suffice it to say, you have misrepresented Christian doctrine and I would recommend that before you attack straw men, you take the time to be honest and fair and find the answers to what Christianity REALLY is rather than believing what the media and the Dawkins disciples would try to tell you about what THEY think Christianity is.

    Grace, love and peace.

  4. Greg

    In the 11 years that I have been a Christian, I have never heard anyone teach the things you seem to object to. While there may be Christians who understand little about their own faith, I have never met any who are quite so far off target…though they are quite possibly out there.

    Your objections are straw men as they do not accurately represent Christian doctrine. The three that you have specifically mentioned are the Doctines of the Trinity, the Atonement and the Incarnation.

    None of them have been accurately represented. The early church fathers, for example, we’re not a bunch of backward, hillbilly, morons who didn’t understand the Law of Non-Contradiction…which is why the early creeds did not teach that the Father and the Son were the same person as you claim…in fact, Thomas Aquinas was quite a student of Aristotle’s writings, particularly with regards to logic.

    For the sake of intellectual honesty, I beseech you to ask questions of someone who can properly articulate what Christianity actually teaches so that, if you still have objections, you will not waste your time and energy knocking down straw men.

    Grace, love and peace.

  5. Hello. I just required to make a short sincere and authentic thank you for the latest article. A great deal of of the world wide web today is just loaded with garbage like jumbled, non-sensical blog article to several of the silliest comments at any time! Many thanks again, have a good night and hold up the nice do the job.

  6. Mr L Narwhal. said:

    Matt. Some things people say – especially on Twitter – are merely throwaway jokes. Twitter is not the Oxford Union, no matter how much you wish it were.

    I’ll just look at the tweet about Bush. Of course, whoever it was doesn’t think “God lied”. They don’t believe god exists. The point of that tweet – presumably – is to show how people use and abuse religious faith to justify tremendous acts of violence. Whoever wrote that tweet is using that vehicle of “god speaking directly to christians” to poke fun at what people claim to hear from “god”.

    You may not believe God spoke to Bush and told him to invade Iraq, but we can be fairly sure many did (at least claim to). You may not even claim god speaks to you directly, but we also know that many claim that, too. The problem, and it’s historical, is that acts of war are often justified on religious grounds. We’ve had this discussion, and I know you think the people making these claims cannot be “true christians”, but the fact is this is what they claim. This claim is what builds support and acts to soften the brutality to come.

    There is no doubt atheists say silly things so good on you for making a page, and hopefully updating it, about your take on silly things atheists say. It will be a lot more interesting if you can avoid literal disease too much, though.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: