Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Are you hellbound? (note: I don't believe in hell counts as a yes.)
Yes 87%
No 12%

Votes: 126

 The Proselytizing Atheist

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Mar 22, 2002
After their vexing habit of raising daughters who believe they shouldn't have sex with me unless I buy them an engagement ring first, the single most obnoxious trait of devout Christians is their insistence on converting me to their system of belief. I do appreciate that they are trying to spare me an eternity of hellfire though, so I tend to be polite in my refusal to hear them out.

Recently, however, I have been exposed to the endless preaching of a young man who's missionary zeal is inspired not by the teachings of Jesus or Brigham Young, but by an atheistic dogma apparently inspired by UseNet postings inspired by Carl Sagan. As my young friend refuses to accept the existence of demons, much less the idea that he is sparing my bottom from the prongs of their infernal tridents, I can only assume that his motive is to annoy.


More stories about Religion
Is Catholicism to be tolerated?
Wicca - a scientific, Christian approach to the problem
Winning The Battle Against Pornography
Christianity isn't working in the USA; Is Islam the answer ?
The Scriptural Proof of Extraterrestrial Life
The Revival of the Ancient Ways
The Problem is You - Not Religion
We are all children of Adam and Eve
A Taliban Warlord answers YOUR questions.
Islam: What is it?
Kill Yr Idols: God
Have a Right Halloween!
Religion: The Appendix of Modern Society
The Evil of Harry Potter
Islam is not the enemy
Happy Birthday Christ!
Bloody Sunday, Bloody Right!
What shall we give up for Lent?
Reclaiming St. Patrick's Day
Let us pray for the priests and victims of sexual abuse
The Incontrovertible Existence of God
Tolkien, Star Wars and Jesus Christ
World Youth Day: An Alarming Report

More stories by
Peter Johnson

Solving Teen Pregnancy
The Law Fought The Law And Nobody Won
Winning The Battle Against Pornography
The Science of Poetry
A Time For Patriots
Victoria, BC: Potemkin Village of the Frozen North
Writing Satire For A Technical Audience
Boom City, USA
My first impulse was to dismiss this bold young disbeliever as an ass and an idiot - particularly after he claimed to be able to "logically disprove theism." Unfortunately my initial stream of profanity did little to dampen his spirits. In fact, it only encouraged him to demand that I consider his arguments on merit rather than resorting to ad-hominem attacks.

This is a frequent demand of half-wits who know full well that the boredom resulting from thumbing through their misspelling laden screeds will overwhelm all but the most determined foe. I was willing to concede the argument in exchange for his silence, but he showed no signs of letting up. I had no choice but to offer up a quick prayer to Cthulhu and plow right in.

I managed to wade through his collection of misstatements and fallacies (which can be found here) and am posting a review so that others can understand this bastard breed of Atheism. I do so in the hope that it will increase our understanding of this strange new brand of evangelical disbelief and allow us to develop a cure.

Our fundamentalist non-believer was good enough to put his real name at the top of the essay, so I will be able to refer to him as Mr. Zebrowitz rather than using his online handle "kitten." Unfortunately this is the high water mark of the essay and it goes down rapidly from there.

Mr. Zebrowitz has seen fit to title his essay "Whither Atheism" for reasons known only to himself and (presumably) Allah. With a title like this you would assume that he'd discuss the state of Atheism and the directions it might take in the future. You'd be wrong. The essay is actually an introduction to Atheism as defined by Mr. Zebrowitz. My hunch is that he's actually doing a bit of foreshadowing - giving out a hint that he will be using more words incorrectly later on.

The essay then begins with Mr. Zebrowitz informing us that not only has he purchased a copy of "Atheism: A Reader," but that the purchase of such "tomes" on "the subject of theological studies" (as opposed to mere theology) is not uncommon for him. Without giving us pause to recover from the awe these words engender he proceeds to inform us that he engages in discussions "with both laypersons and those schooled in Theology alike." The "alike" is presumably included just in case we missed his earlier use of "both."

Although he doesn't mention it anywhere in the essay, it seems likely that Mr. Zebrowitz is an American residing in either the South or the Midwest since he goes on to describe the negative reactions he receives when carrying a book on Atheism. This is reinforced by his reference to ignorant people who consider Atheists to be pagans or devil worshippers.

Most intrepid, hell-bound young men in Mr. Zebrowitz's position would likely move to the Pacific Northwest which boasts the lowest levels of church attendance in the nation and where my brother managed to read Nietzsche's "The Antichrist" during Mormon services without exciting comment. No doubt Mr. Zebrowitz considers this an inferior solution to writing an explanation of Atheism and posting it on a site that boasts "Violence, language, adult themes, sexual content. Parents strongly cautioned." (Where devout Christians are sure to find it.)

With this impressive introduction out of the way, Mr. Zebrowitz's proceeds to get down to the business of explaining exactly what he believes Atheism to be. As foreshadowed in the title, he defines Atheism as being a combination of the prefix "a-" meaning "without" and "theism" meaning "a belief in god or gods" concluding that "anybody who, for whatever reason, does not subscribe to a positive theistic belief, may be called an atheist."

It's a pity that while he was looking up "a-" and "theist" he didn't bother to look up "atheist" and see "one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of a god." For that matter, it's a pity he didn't bother to look up "a-" which my copy of the OED lists as meaning "opposite, away from" among its 15 entries. It's possible though that he did look it up but decided not to let the actual usage of a word stand in the way of a definition that claims agnostics as well as atheists and thus makes his position more moderate and easier to defend.

Actually it's more than possible that this is what he did as in the next paragraph he takes his brand spanking new definition of Atheist and attempts to lay waste to his opponents with it:

The distinction is an important one in understanding the burden of proof when it comes to theological discussions. Because the atheist is making no claims or assertions, he is not obligated to defend himself. Rather, it is the claimant - in this case, the theist - who is obliged to produce arguments and evidence supporting his claim. If he is unable to do so, reason sides solely with the atheist, who need not argue his own side, but only point out that the theist has failed to support his claim.

Many people - in fact, almost all theists - object to this, of course. When pressed, the theist will almost inevitably state that although he cannot prove the existence of his deity, the atheist cannot disprove it. While this may be correct (perhaps not), the theist is wrong for assuming that the existence of God is therefore an open question. The onus of proof is entirely on the theist to prove the existance of God; if arguments and evidence is not forthcoming, there is no reason to consider his claim to have any more merit than that of a man who claims the existance of unicorns or magic elves.

Poppycock. Even if we accept my beloved Mr. Zebrowitz's definition of an Atheist as anyone who does not actively believe in God rather than the standard definition of one who actively disbelieves, his argument simply does not hold water. It seems that Mr. Zebrowitz picked up just enough logic to join to junior varsity policy debate squad and now considers himself superior to the likes of David Hume and Immanuel Kant.

The core of his argument is that the Atheist makes "no claims or assertions." This simply is not the case. Mr. Zebrowitz starts by assuming that other conscious individuals exist and follows it up by asserting that Theists must present an ontological argument. Both these assertions are eminently debatable. Let us consider a hypothetical solipsist named "Rusty." Rusty does not believe in the existence of others. He considers the universe to be a product of his own imagination.

Now Mr. Zebrowitz and Rusty bump into each other. (Actually Rusty imagines that his imaginary body bumps into Mr. Zebrowitz.) Mr. Zebrowitz asks Rusty if he believes in God and Rusty says "yes." (Rusty of course believes he is God.) Now Mr. Zebrowitz demands proof. In retaliation, Rusty points out that Mr. Zebrowitz is a figment of his own imagination and demands proof of Mr. Zebrowitz's existence.

What's our dear little atheist to do? I believe that the rules of junior varsity debate require Mr. Zebrowitz to hang out with magic elves and unicorns if he cannot successfully argue the affirmative. But can he argue the affirmative? No more than he can logically prove the existence of space and time. The existence of other minds is something that we know intuitively and something that is backed by experience; it can no more be proven logically than the existence of God (or in my case the existence of the Black Goat With A Thousand Young).

So Mr. Zebrowitz is in six-fathom water and shoaling fast with his assertion that the burden of proof lies with the bible thumper when his own system contains similar unproven assertions, but is he right in assuming that the existence of the Olympians requires a rational (as opposed to empirical) proof?

Here the situation is even clearer. Those of us who have better things to do with our time than debate metaphysics with Southern Baptists while riding the bus have long since come down on the side of empiricism. If I wish to assert that my desk is dark cherry and someone demands proof, I simply drag him into my home office and show him the absence-of-God damned desk.

This winds up being considerably faster and less wanky than starting from a set of a priori assumptions and deducing both the existence and the inevitable dark cherry-ness of my desk. Tragically, if we adopt Mr. Zebrowitz's standards, my claim to have a dark cherry desk is no different from a claim to have a dark cherry desk at which a magic elf is writing a letter to a unicorn. I think this says more about Mr. Zebrowitz's so-called logic than it does about my desk.

This raises the question as to whether the existence of Horus, Ra and Isis is an "I have a dark cherry desk" claim or an "I have a magic elf sitting at my desk claim." Mr. Zebrowitz would no doubt argue that it is the latter, but it really isn't. Magic elves and unicorns live in the forest. To test for their existence, we need only to take a virgin into the forest and wait for her to be approached by a unicorn while keeping a sharp lookout for magic elves dancing around a toadstool patch.

If we compare the number or magic elf and unicorn sightings by sober individuals of good character to the number of hiking trips taken by such individuals it seems more than reasonable to conclude that there aren't any magic elves or unicorns.

So how do we test for God? One method is to die and see if we either appear before the throne of judgment or simply cease to exist. While I'm more than willing to shoot Mr. Zebrowitz, he wouldn't be able to report back his findings in either event.

The best method seems to be that advocated by the Theists themselves. Search, ponder and pray and see if you have an experience that convinces you of the existence of a true and living God. This method is quite popular and is attempted by people all over the globe on a daily basis. A great many of them have a religious experience of such power that they cannot logically reconcile it with the absence of a God or Gods.

Others feel nothing in particular and conclude that there is no good reason to suspect the existence of a God. Enough sober individuals of good character come down on one side or the other, so there is no reason to assign to burden of proof to either hypothesis. Whether or not there is a God seems to be something that can only be judged based on personal experience.

Well this review is already getting quite long and we're only on section II (out of VII) of Mr. Zebrowitz's essay. Fortunately he shot his wad early and the remainder of his essay does not require half as many words to debunk.

Section III begins with several paragraphs about the importance of defining God before debating his/her existence that must have taken Mr. Zebrowitz several minutes to copy out an carefully change the word "blark" to "zook" so that he didn't have to attribute it to a source. I think he deserves an A for effort, but the hint that he's about to define God in terms that favor his argument is a bit too obvious.

He then defines God in negative attributes and proceeds to argue that it's meaningless to use negative attributes to describe something. I tested this by walking down to the local 7-11 and buying a cigarette lighter that was "not blue." Not only was the clerk able to produce such a lighter, but he managed to put a price on it as well.

Mr. Zebrowitz goes on to criticize the common Christian concept of an infinite and unbounded God as unintelligible, a point that 11 million Mormons will happily back him on. Then he argues that this negates the existence of God, something those 11 million Mormons will no doubt find puzzling. Mr. Zebrowitz hedges his bet by assuring us that those Theists who believe in a finite and bounded God have their own special problems, but he doesn't bother explaining what those problems are.

Section IV explains that the presence of questions that cannot currently be answered without introducing the concept of God is not sufficient to prove the existence of God. Hume dealt with this topic at length, and it's one of the reasons he is considered the father of modern thought. This simply justifies Atheism as a logically valid system of disbelief rather than disproving the existence of God.

Section V contains the most half-assed treatment of Paley's watchmaker analogy that it has ever been my privilege to encounter. Mr. Zebrowitz falsely characterizes Paley's argument as an attempt to explain the apparent design of the universe rather than the organized complexity of organic life, a point Paley makes quite clear by using the human eye as his first example.

Mr. Zebrowitz then proceeds to argue that order is simply a natural consequence of existence. The main thrusts of Paley's argument are completely ignored and Mr. Zebrowitz seems to believe that the presence a watch in a rural meadow is simply a natural consequence of the existence of the universe that in no way implies the existence of a watchmaker to make the watch and a careless hiker to drop it. This is absurd.

If you care to read a counterpoint to Paley's "Natural Theology" that actually addresses his arguments, you would be well advised to pick up a copy Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker."

Section VII is Mr. Zebrowitz's summing up and contains a marvelous plea for tolerance. He expresses the hope that "the next time I am reading a book that may run contrary to popular theistic views, that I am not looked down upon."

I can assure Mr. Zebrowitz that his plea for tolerance has not gone unheard. On behalf of all readers I would like to assure him that his Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we look down on him.


hehe (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 04:44:00 PM PST
clever, but pointless.

Athiest Zealots are about as annoying as their catholic, jewish, bhuddist or islam counterparts.

It's basically a matter of "Would you please get your religious preference out of my freakin' face??"

I'm an athiest and I don't care if you ARE an athiest. The whole point of atheism is so you don't have to waste time or energy worshipping a deity that is not there. Just shut the hell up about it and stop trying to convert that nun, Mike!

i agree (none / 0) (#12)
by PotatoError on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 09:58:11 PM PST
im fed up asking for proof that god exists. In my opinion I no longer care what people think.

Don't give up on us yet, Mr Potatoes (none / 0) (#26)
by Ben Reid on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 02:47:36 AM PST
I am currently working day and night on a sound, irrefutable proof for the existance of God. It is nearly complete -- I just need a few more days to polish it off.

The proof is simple and elegant. In fact, once you see it, you (along with atheists worldwide) will rapidly convert to the faith.

Question is, just how has this proof managed to escape thus far?

Waiting with baited breath... (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 08:39:43 AM PST
My stopwatch is set. I can't wait to read your proof by the end of the week.

Bet this proof won't fit in the margin (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by because it isnt on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 09:07:51 AM PST
Oh and it's 'bated' breath, hth hand pls die tks. -- because it isn't

How adorable! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by RobotSlave on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 01:28:51 PM PST
I always think it's cute when one adequacy reader develops a crush on another. I'm sure you'll soon be nattering on about classical music and Kierkegaard and christian intellectualism.

It's very sweet, really. Ah, spring!

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

why won't you return my calls? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by nathan on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 07:23:42 AM PST
RobotSlave, honey, sweety, I'm not mad, really I'm not. But why don't you call me back? We have so much to talk about, and I miss you lots.

You can call me at home or at my cell number. Call anytime. Or if you want, we could get together for dinner at the usual place. Just call.


Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Hey, wait a minute! (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by hauntedattics on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 10:26:15 AM PST

You haven't been looking hard enough! (none / 0) (#33)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 10:45:43 PM PST
A scientific proof exists! Essentially, God is a curve in four dimensional psychometry space, in a similar sense to the way gravity is a curve in spacetime. I think. Really, you need a PhD in physics and separate Masters degrees in psychology and theology to understand the proof, according to its discoverer.

In any case, George Hammond's web page can usually be found here, but it seems to be unavailable right now. His extensive postings to various newsgroups on the subject should serve to provide a tantalizing hint of what his proof offers.

ok (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 05:13:43 PM PST
Yes, Peter, you're very erudite. But who gives a fuck about this kid?

That is to say that given the intellectual sterility of that piece you debunked, why did you think this was worth your time at all? If you're an empiricist, then it shouldn't matter to you if his logic is shitass--he can't back anything he says up, so the logic isn't even relevant. Sure, it was stupid, but I don't see why you got so indignant about it.

I agree (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 08:41:28 PM PST
I found this article pretty amusing, but I agree, about 2/3 of the way into it I kind of lost interest and wondered why the author hadn't lost interest as well.

A fun essay of the 'people shore can be dumb' variety.

Mr. Zebrowitz hits back (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by redalert on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 05:17:59 PM PST
'kitten' has posted a response here.

Unsurprisingly his tone is of gritted teeth.

Mr. Zebrowitz hits back (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 08:49:33 AM PST
after reading that, I am now a born again athiest! :)

thank you Peter, now I see the light!

Ha! (none / 0) (#36)
by nx01 on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 03:50:32 PM PST
Cute. I'd expect more than "Guyyyys, he's a trool! Don't listen to him! Guys! Guys!"

I'm rather rusty on my logic, but I believe this is known as an "ad homenim" attack.

Oh well. I guess not everybody can be a member of the intellectual elite.

"Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it."
-- James Gosling

Interesting (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 06:56:26 PM PST
Mr. "kitten" requested some additional information recently, on #kuro5hin:

  <kitten> Would someone care to define these acronyms for me?
  <kitten> YHBT. YHL. HAND. HTH

These strange terms may not have anything to do with the present debate; anyone with knowledge of their meaning should probably contact kitten via email.

hehe (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 12:14:47 PM PST
Looking for more flowery language to confuse the stupid with so as to sound more intelligent in his essays? ("I have acronyms, I know what I'm talking about")

Better idea (none / 0) (#8)
by em on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 06:56:58 PM PST
The best method seems to be that advocated by the Theists themselves. Search, ponder and pray and see if you have an experience that convinces you of the existence of a true and living God.

Or simply serve higher beings that do manifest themselves for their followers on a regular basis.
Associate Editor,

Or... (none / 0) (#9)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 07:34:33 PM PST
...use an instant deity.

Certain mushrooms (and some plants, and many more things) reportedly can offer pretty strong spiritual experience.

Small electrodes sending tiny electric currents to certain brain areas can offer such feeling as well.

Amen (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 08:59:43 PM PST
The only thing I've had bearing any resemblance to a religious experience involved mushrooms.

Somehow, I don't think seeing the 'mysterious lattice' that was hidden in the 'front yard' is the basis for a big money making religion like scientology, tho.

Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 05:05:47 AM PST
Salvia Divinorum (a kind of Mexican mint) and DiMethylTryptamine are well known for their spiritual effects.

One theory is that they allow one to view a forth dimension through the pineal gland (the all-seeing eye of mythology).

It is interesting to note that a three dimensional being viewing a two-dimensional world would have the capability of viewing the totality of that world, including seeing 'inside' any 2-dimensional beings. One theory is that the pineal gland is like an eye through which humans can perceive additional spatial dimensions which the normal eye, by virtue of its construction is unable to view.

I am not advocating that people go out and take DMT, as its effects can be startling to say the least. But people should not fall into the trap of thinking that what they see with their eyes is in any way representative of 'reality' (whatever that is).

The forth dimension warrents a much more in-depth treatment than I can give here.

Just watch out for the Annunki Lizards.

Cthulhu (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by DG on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 12:10:24 AM PST
wow i didn't know you liked hp lovecraft, shoeboy pretty cool he wrote some suprisingly thoughtful writing, dark stuff though, anyone else like CoC?
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

uh (none / 0) (#14)
by DG on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 12:12:35 AM PST
forgive me, rather broken writing i must say. i'm about to go to sleep, i've been sick and i took nyquil. it's about to take me out, thank you
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

That is not dead which eternal lie, (none / 0) (#18)
by Lord Ingues on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 12:29:28 AM PST
In stranger aeons even death my die.

Yeah who'd think you'd see a reference to Shub Niggurath in an story? This place amazes me for many reasons, this is just one more :P

Oh yes, for those wondering what the hell all this insane cult bable it about, check this out!

Finest horror stories written, bar none IMO.

I've got an idea! (none / 0) (#21)
by Ben Reid on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 05:42:26 AM PST
Perhaps we should set up similar parameters for an argument going the other way: That is, the skeptic must demonstrate that atheism is a true philosophy, but only while accepting as a working premise the supposition that the Bible is God's inspired word and any "evidence" to the contrary is an indication of atheist bias.

Or maybe a Darwinist should have to explain how life evolved by Natural Selection acting on random genetic mutations so quickly (in seven literal days).

Could we prove also that atheism is false for the mere fact that atheists clearly do not believe in God - and are therefore clearly "biased" in favor of atheism?

I understand though. I really do. It's hard when you're intellectually committed to atheism. See, Mr. Zebrowitz proves, as expected, that the typical atheist is a true believer - not merely LABIG (Lacking Any Belief In God) but BILOS (Believing In Lots of Other Stuff).

I deny that atheism has any genuine scientific merit. The burden of broof is on Mr. Zebrowitz. I haven't claimed anything extraordinary, I am simply LABIA (Lacking Any Belief In Atheism).

Religion Is The Downfall Of Man (none / 0) (#23)
by BurntAsh on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 01:47:32 PM PST
Religion is for the weak, the emotionally unstable. Some people may need to believe in a god to find meaning and happiness in their lives, but not me. Religion doesn't make the world a better place, look at all the different religions and how everyones beliefs collide and cause chaos. Religion is like communism, it only works to better the world if everybody follows the principles. We are human, and experience urge, believers have the urge that there is more to life than just life, whats wrong with being here just to live life, must there be an answer to our existence? ...only for the emotionally unstable who can't handle such a rant because it would destroy what holds them together.

Wow, you really are tough (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Ben Reid on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 02:27:41 AM PST
I like you. You're brazen, strikingly original and that "I don't need no stinkin religion" attitude is o' so refreshing.

Just to think eh, scientists, mathematicians and philosophers all over the world have explored the meaning of life for thousands of years. Some of the more weak minded, emotionally unstable communists among them found meaning in religion. What were they thinking!? I just don't understand. What were they thinking?

In reality, "religion" consists of thousands of tiny, petty, theologically and philosophically irreconcilable, constantly bickering factions.

These are all completely at odds with one another in every conceivable way. And this fact proves the philosophical bankruptcy of religion.

All the crimes and horrors of history are due to a single unified cause, "religion": a murderous, greedy, hypocritical monolith that bleeds the life out of the poor, the downtrodden, and atheists (except Stalin).

Religion, I am made to understand, is actually one big, happy, evil ecumenical family, in which Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Jesse Jackson peacefully coexist as its chief spokesmen.

Yes, you and I have it figured out my friend. But shuuusssh. Don't tell anyone k?

It's all downhill (none / 0) (#29)
by Fon2d2 on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 01:17:20 PM PST
My favorite part is in section VI where Mr. Zebrowitz doesn't challenge the existence of good and evil but instead uses it to further his argument against the existence of God despite the fact that in section II se stated that "Atheism, in and of itself, does not make any assertions". Never mind the fact, as shoeboy pointed out, that that's the definition for agnostic and not atheist and never mind the fact that if he truly is agnostic then it's counter to his nature to refute the existence of God as he has already stated that his belief "does not make any assertions".

So does Mr. Zebrowitz attempt to take light of this discussion and address the flaws in his argument? Unfortunately the answer is no. In a testament to the contradictory nature exposed in his essay, Mr. Zebrowitz changes his stance from that of the philosopher to that of the "troll" he so forcibly debunks. This is because his argument never held merit to begin with. His essay was just a pathetic grab for attention.

What Mr. Zebrowitz refuses to acknowledge is that any accepted system of knowledge must, at least in part, rest on some unproven metaphysical beliefs. That's why "a=a" is called an axiom. It cannot be further proven or disproven. The fact that Mr. Zebrowitz attempts to debunk God by saying that he cannot be defined purely in the negative suggests that Mr. Zebrowitz subscribes to this metaphysical belief. Too bad Mr. Zebrowitz failed to recognize this most important point. The best thing for Mr. Zebrowitz at this point would be to drop his pretentions and recognize why it's important to believe in a system of morals beyond the self.

idea (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 02:24:16 PM PST
Find God, Find life.

Find yourself. (none / 0) (#31)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 07:53:59 PM PST
Find yourself.

don't look now... (none / 0) (#32)
by nathan on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 07:56:12 PM PST
(It's right there in your hand.)

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Life has been found (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 07:55:30 AM PST
I have found myself, and I have found Christ. Say what you want, but one day he will find you.

Hmmm (none / 0) (#39)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 05:00:53 PM PST
Say what you want, but one day he will find you.

Can I get a restraining order on him? I don't feel comfortable being stalked.

if jesus ever finds me (none / 0) (#40)
by thepriest on Fri Mar 29th, 2002 at 05:23:46 PM PST
if jesus ever finds me im going to kick him in the nuts!

Wow. (none / 0) (#41)
by tkatchev on Sat Mar 30th, 2002 at 02:11:03 AM PST
You have absolutely no idea how incredibly original you are.

Peace and much love...

ok cartman! (none / 0) (#43)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 10:59:01 AM PST

Jesus found me, and I told him to get lost (none / 0) (#42)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 30th, 2002 at 12:04:38 PM PST
I was raised Catholic and used to be very religious for a kid. But over time, I found the Christian theology (Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water , rose from dead, etc) more and more difficult to believe. I also became repelled by it's emphasis on sin, guilt, and sexual repression. Eventually I rejected Christianity altogether. Jesus was overall a nice guy who dispensed some good advice (similar to Buddha before him), but the Son of God? I don't think so.

Although I don't subscribe to any particular creed, I guess I identify with Taoism more than with any other. And I'm much happier and more spiritually fulfilled without Jesus than I ever was with him. If Jesus works for you, great. But don't assume he'll work for everyone.


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to