Hang on; Klinghoffer is bad, but you haven’t read the clever reasonings of Nancy Greenwood of Red Deer, Alberta yet. She doesn’t like those atheists one bit — she’s got a list of 5 horrible facts about atheists (although it could be longer, if she hadn’t kindly left off the bits about baby-eating).

Being the hot topic of the day, any discussion of atheism, should include these ‘difficult to admit’ points:

Firstly, atheists claim that they themselves are god. They claim they have superior knowledge then the rest of us by trying to say that they have better knowledge because of their own thinking. They will not acknowledge anyone else to be above them.

Personally, I only rank myself as a lesser demon.

Secondly, atheists have been hurt somewhere in their lives, can’t understand suffering, and are mad at God — so it is easier to deny there is one.

I am so confused. They’ve been hurt, so the can’t understand suffering…wouldn’t it make more sense to say they have not been hurt, so they can’t understand suffering, or they have been hurt, so they can understand suffering?

Personally, I’ve suffered the usual losses throughout my life, but haven’t been inordinately afflicted — I’ve actually been fairly fortunate. Her premise fails.

Thirdly, atheists are looking for God for the same reason a thief would be looking for a police officer. They don’t want to be accountable to a higher being because of the wrong things they do.

Wait, what wrong things do we do? Isn’t it a bit much to assume all atheists are criminals?

Strangely, note that her first three items — atheists think they are god, they are mad at god, and they’re afraid of god — all assume the existence of a god. This is the one basic idea these cranks have to get in their heads: atheists don’t believe in gods, period. Plug that in and everything she has said so far is patent foolishness.

Fourthly, atheists forget that when a person goes to a museum and admires a painting, that there was a painter/designer of that art piece. The art piece is absolute evidence of a painter and not caused by random nothingness.

All of the world, stars, animals, plants, oceans, and mountains are absolute proof of a divine intelligent being (beyond our human ability and thinking) who made these things.

Can the atheist make a tree? It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics) and yet they do. It is impossible for our eyes to see and yet they do. What more proof does an atheist need than their own heart pumping in their chest without them commanding their heart to pump each beat in perfect timing each and every second necessary?

Ah, good old argument from invalid analogy. I have a black cat. I have a second black cat. Therefore, all cats are black. Nancy shows me a gray cat. I could say my hypothesis is false, or I could close my eyes and say it’s actually a black cat and stick by my hypothesis. Which makes more sense?

She’s doing the same thing. Here’s a painting, it has a designer. Here’s a sculpture, it has a designer. Therefore everything is designed. I show her a blade of grass…it evolved, and the individual blade grew from a seed, and no designer acted. But Nancy will simply close her eyes and declare that it was designed, anyway. Why is grass designed? Because paintings are!

And, uh, Nancy? Bees don’t fly by miracle. They obey the laws of physics, none are violated. Same for vision: we know quite a bit about the physics and chemistry and biology of eyes, and there’s no step where you can it’s physically impossible.

Fifthly, denial is a strong coping mechanism in crisis, but does not serve anyone in the long run. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, an atheist denies God not because God does not exist–but because the atheist doesn’t want God to exist and does not want to see the truth and evidence in front of their eyes.

I would rather believe in God and make sure my life is doing what is acceptable to this Superior Being than to not believe in God and find out I will be accountable to this God for everything I’ve done after I die. With 84% of the world’s population believing in the existence of God, I think the majority rules in this case.

A little Pascal’s wager to round out the list, followed by an argument from popularity. She’s one big fallacy!

Some cheerful atheist in Alberta has got to introduce themselves to Nancy, because clearly she’s never met one before. You might give her a primer in logic, too, because she hasn’t met that before, either.