This article is part of a series on what I have termed the 'atheist godless type' (AGT). This article's primary goal is to demonstrate that no matter which label is used to refer to an atheist godless type, any practical differences result from mere semantic legerdemain.

The introduction to the series of articles.

Other articles in this series:

If you happened to attend some sort of intimate gathering, say a dinner party, and as you navigated amongst the guests you overheard someone stating that life is bereft of morality, meaning, motive, and further, that there was no hope for anything beyond the here and now, understandable reactions would include sadness and pity for the person so entrapped, horror at the prospect of such a benighted view of the world and life, and hope that the people listening to such invective against reason and sense had enough sense to reject it out of hand and to do their best to help such a person out of the moral and intellectual mire in which they had ensnared themselves. You would further mark that person as 'off limits' regarding their opinions on any matter involving morality, the meaning or purpose of life, etc. You would further think to yourself that such a person is inherently dangerous, not only to themselves, but others, for how could someone who believes such words value their own lives or the lives of others1It is no mere coincidence that despite firearms having been easily accessible throughout this country's history, that the phenomenon of and rise in mass shootings and murders have started and accelerated as the godless tenets have been diffused throughout our civilization.? Such a person is obviously unhinged, and the best one can do is to bring them the Gospel of Grace, pray for them, and not let them have access to firearms.

If, at a later time in the evening, you were to hear the same person as before speaking about how motivated they are to living a long life overflowing with meaning and moral uprightness and that they had great hopes about the future, the understandable reaction would be that the person in question is unhinged twice over: even though that seems impossible, somehow such a person has achieved it. Or would it be better to refer to them as hypocritically unhinged? Or is it merely the case that when contending with such a person, the understanding should be that once someone is unhinged, there's very little reason to believe that one will find coherence, consistency, or cogency within their world view: all will be ad hoc. Yes, that's it.

Such is the situation in which we find ourselves with the godless that have ransacked our civilization and are now all but ubiquitous throughout our halls of power, businesses, and collapsing educational institutions. But who are these creatures in our midst who hold beliefs so inimical to all that is beautiful, good, and true?

Let us begin with their opposite, with what has been called the 'godly man.' Nothing complicated here, this is one who at minimum, affirms that the proposition 'God exists' is true, he believes it, and tries to live his life in accordance with his beliefs. Think of a man such as King David here, who God thinks of as being "a man after his own heart," or John the Baptist of whom Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist!"

A godless type then, is one who will not affirm the truth of the proposition "God exists." Whether he refuses to do so with his words, his actions, or both, is almost entirely irrelevant from the perspective of what he represents and his impact upon hastening the wrecking of civilization, but as will be seen henceforth, the godless types demonstrate their non-affirmation in a variety of ways. Bear in mind, we are not here speaking of those feckless inhabitants of civilization who are always with us, who, while contributing little to the health of the civilization via their active participation in fostering those principles and beliefs which made it, are at least not actively working to undermine it wholesale: as long as the thinnest of patinas lead them to believe things seem to be going 'ok,' they're not really thinking about such things at all. In a democratic republic such as we have in the United States, they are yet quite dangerous because they vote, slowly but surely going along with whatever the culture tells them. When reality breaks through the patina and they begin to panic, their votes will be just as unhinged and reactionary as can be imagined. They are just as godless as the subjects under discussion in this article, but in the main these are the type of people who, as long as they're not imperiled, will go along with just about anything, either good or bad. Hence, why it is so important to affirm and proclaim only the good.

The goal of the coming paragraphs is to make it clear that while a distinction can be made between the various godless types, whether they be true atheists or atheistic hangers-on, no matter what they are called or call themselves, there is no practical difference save one: whether they are consistent with their world view. When speaking of both the atheists and their hangers-on collectively, the acronym 'AGT' (Atheist Godless Type) will be used. When referring to a true atheist (always in the past tense) the word 'atheist' will be used. When referring to the hangers-on specifically, the acronym 'GT' (Godless Type) will be used. GTs are a particularly slippery bunch: once you think you've grabbed a hold of one by the scruff of the neck so you can really get down to the nitty gritty of what he believes, he disappears and another (the same?) pops up under a new identity. It's not unlike that frustrating children's game that we're all familiar with: Whac-A-Mole. The source of frustration (and in this case fun) in the game is that every time you bonk a mole on the head, a new one pops up to take its place. It never seems to end and as the game progresses, the moles appear with increasing frequency. Trying to keep up with all of the AGT variants is kind of like that, except there's no fun in it.

As is made plain in The Atheist's Journey and which is adumbrated below, AGTs who are consistent with the tenets of godlessness commit suicide, which means that the GTs who are left behind, are stating with either their words or actions that either they do in actuality believe that the proposition 'God exists' is true, or that they are lacking in all sense and consistency, or that they haven't bothered to think about it very much. For the vast majority of them, it just doesn't matter: as long as they can pursue their immoral proclivities, why bother with or think about it? Whatever the case, when it comes to the most important matters with which humans contend, they are all absolutely helpless and their inputs are less than worthless: any statements they utter about said matters should be ignored and shunned from decent society. As will also be made plain in the coming paragraphs, whatever they choose to call themselves or not call themselves, say or not say, from a practical perspective they are indistinguishable from one another, their contribution to the stability and morality of society is less than zero, and hence, the purpose of this article is to dispense with all of them in one fell whac.

Because of the pathological propensity for GTs to equivocate and dissemble at every turn in order to avoid accountability and responsibility, we have to work very hard to accomplish this, to hold their feet to the fire as it were2In the hopes that the burning sensation will awaken them to their eternal peril.. They are akin to a man who, in order to avoid some unpleasant or laborious task, falls back on Zeno's paradox and argues that movement is logically impossible and therefore, the task cannot be done.

A GT attempting to avoid reality via specious argumentation.

For those familiar with the movie The Matrix, we can envision the scene where the character Neo is firing two handguns simultaneously at an agent who is doing everything in his power to dodge the bullets. In this metaphor, the bullets are points of truth and reality with which the GT refuses to contend, and he will do everything in his power to avoid them.

A GT avoiding the slings and arrows of outrageous reality.

Finally, another metaphor I've utilized from time to time which I believe to be apt, involves a Vaseline-covered watermelon. One summer during my youth at some sort of summer camp, one of the games that was played involved two teams where each had the objective to get the watermelon from one side of a water arena to another. It was inordinately difficult, because the tighter one tried to grasp the watermelon in order to make forward progress, the greater the likelihood of it slipping from one's grasp. And so it is with the atheist godless type: just when you think you've zeroed in on something or another, some semantic trick or specious tactic will be employed to escape the implication of the atheistic/godless statement.

Psalm 14:1 - The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

It is telling that the Hebrew word translated as 'fool' in English Bibles does not simply indicate someone who rejects God's existence per se. Indeed, it seems that the Good Lord anticipated the caviling over picayune matters by GTs. According to A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, aka 'Brown-Driver-Biggs' (BDB), this word encompasses all of the following:

  • foolish, senseless, esp. of the man who has no perception of ethical and religious claims, and with collat. idea of ignoble, disgraceful
  • senseless, esp. of religious and moral insensibility

The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament tells us this about AGTs:

  • foolish (intellectually and morally)
  • someone who, within a particular sphere of influence, counts for nothing, has nothing to offer, gives no help, commands no respect, is nothing
  • futile, worthless (socially), godless

As to the Greek word translated as 'fool' in the Septuagint, it is 'ἄφρων' (afrōn). It is formed from the alpha privative 'α' (a) and 'φρήν' (frēn), the latter which, according to The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Kittel) glosses as "diaphragm" and is defined as being "...the seat of intellectual and spiritual activity. The diaphragm determines the nature and strength of the breath and hence also the human spirit and its emotions." In some sense then, we could consider 'fool' to be indicative of those whose seat of intellectual and spiritual activity has no proper leader. This neatly summarizes why the world view of the AGT is so chaotic and anemic. A selection of sources and their glosses follow:

  • A Greek - English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition
    • pertaining to lack of prudence or good judgment, foolish, ignorant
  • Strong's Greek Dictionary of the New Testament
    • properly, mindless, i.e., stupid
    • (by implication) ignorant
    • (specially) egotistic
    • (practically) rash
    • (morally) unbelieving
    • fool(-ish), unwise
  • A Greek - English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Second Edition
    • crazy, foolish
    • sinful
    • foolishness, rebellion against God
  • Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains
    • pertaining to not employing one's understanding, particularly in practical matters — 'foolish, senseless, unwise.'
  • A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, Revised Edition
    • foolish, senseless
    • ignorant, unlearned
  • New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
    • senseless, foolish
    • essentially defined by a lack or a negation, i.e., lack of insight and reason
    • awkward, useless
    • behaving as brutish or stupid
    • not wise
    • lacking in heart, i.e., without sense
    • insolent (in religion), stupid (in practical affairs)
  • Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
    • properly, without reason
    • senseless, foolish, stupid
    • without reflection or intelligence, acting rashly
  • A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (UBS Lexicon)
    • fool
    • foolish, senseless
    • ignorant, unlearned

The Bible sure doesn't mince words when it comes to the attributes of those who embrace the tenets of godlessness: they represent only the absence of morality, of insight, heart, temperance, and wisdom, replacing those virtues with pride, foolishness, rebellion, intemperance, and brutality. In essence, they are akin to moral black holes, vacuuming up light and truth wheresoever they go. To those of sober mind, the words of Scripture about these moral horrors operating in our midst alone suffices, but we must press on because the atheist godless type foolishly rejects the Word of God.

Let us now proceed to demarcating the primary antagonists within the AGT spectrum. But before we commence with that, it must be stated that with the sole exception of the true atheist, no matter what label is used to refer to a GT, whether they appear in the following list of definitions or not, they are all examples of 'semantic legerdemain' which serve to obscure the inherent darkness and horror of the godless world view. The four types cover all potential AGT variants: from the very rare yet sincere atheist, all the way down to the ever more common and detestable apatheist. Irrespective of whether new AGT variants arise, they will all fall within the boundaries of the atheist and apatheist. At bottom, all AGT variants behave as though there is no moral accountability to the Creator.


According to the definitions found within the OED and Webster's dictionaries, an agnostic is someone who in general believes that the existence of anything beyond or behind material phenomena is unknown and unknowable, and particularly maintains doubt about the existence or knowability of a god or any ultimate.

The agnostic states that the proposition 'God exists' can be neither affirmed nor denied. From a position where propositions are stated but none are affirmed, it is a non sequitur to speak of meaning, purpose, hope, or motive flowing from the non-affirmation. Hence, in the world might-or-might-not-exist view of the agnostic, life in general can have no morality, no meaning, no motive, and no hope, i.e., no reason to live3As all of the pieces on morality, meaning, motive, and hope make abundantly clear, the only 'reason to live' that could be proffered would be ad hoc and pathologically circular, one enunciated in a manner that amounts to "My reason to live is that I have reason to live and that's a reason worth living for!". In order for the agnostic to speak to any of these topics, the threefold problem of the godless must have been solved.

The agnostic picks and chooses what he wants, when he wants it, a little simatheism here, a little 'religion' there, committing to nothing. Whatever it is that leaves him with the least moral responsibility along with the greatest potential of appearing 'intellectual,' all suffused with the rank air of pretended metropolitan sophistication.


Someone who is (or feigns to be) impassive, apathetic, indifferent, or torpid about the existence of gods, or God and His ways. Definition, pronunciation, etymology.

The apatheist makes no statement whatsoever about the proposition 'God exists.' From a position where propositions are neither stated nor affirmed, it is a non sequitur to speak of meaning, purpose, hope, or motive flowing from the non-affirmation of non-statements. Hence, in the world non-view of the apatheist, life in general can have no morality, no meaning, no motive, and no hope, i.e., no reason to live4As all of the pieces on morality, meaning, motive, and hope make abundantly clear, the only 'reason to live' that could be proffered would be ad hoc and pathologically circular, one enunciated in a manner that amounts to "My reason to live is that I have reason to live and that's a reason worth living for!". In order for the apatheist to speak to any of these topics, the threefold problem of the godless must have been solved.

In the final analysis then, the apatheist is not unlike the ultimate conniver: they can't be held to any statement whatsoever. They make no assertions, but rather make statements akin to: "Whether God or gods exist is neither important or relevant." Is a man who lives as though marriage doesn't matter or doesn't exist any better than the man who inveighs against marriage? They both go around fathering children out of wedlock, they both behave in the same immoral way, they both are leeches on the society created by the builders of our civilization: it doesn't matter what name they give themselves. Both encourage the destruction of marriage by how they live their lives. The apatheist is the most contemptible and cowardly of all, for at least the simatheists, and to a lesser extent, the agnostics, try to put on a front for what they purport to believe.


According to the definitions of atheism and atheist to be found within the OED and Webster's dictionaries, an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God or any other deity and equivalently, one who practically denies His existence by the disregard of moral duty to Him. For the latter, we are given the synonyms 'wicked' and 'impious.'

The atheist states that the proposition 'God exists' is false and he believes it. Hence, in the world view of the atheist, life in general can have no morality, no meaning, no motive, and no hope, i.e., no reason to live5As all of the pieces on morality, meaning, motive, and hope make abundantly clear, the only 'reason to live' that could be proffered would be ad hoc and pathologically circular, one enunciated in a manner that amounts to "My reason to live is that I have reason to live and that's a reason worth living for!". He is consistent with all that is entailed by the godless world view, and so he tragically commits suicide. In order for the atheist to speak to any of these topics, the threefold problem of the godless must have been solved.

It is important to recognize that in essence, within the taxonomy of the 'godless,' all are subtypes of the 'atheist' according to the definition having indicated 'practical denial' as part and parcel of being an atheist. Nonetheless, I do distinguish amongst the various labels used to identify AGTs, because the atheist has primacy of place due to at least having the courage of his convictions.


One who only pretends to believe the tenets of godlessness. Definition, pronunciation, etymology.

Like the atheist, the simatheist states that the proposition 'God exists' is false, but believes otherwise. In the stated world view of the simatheist, life in general can have no morality, no meaning, no motive, and no hope, i.e., no reason to live6As all of the pieces on morality, meaning, motive, and hope make abundantly clear, the only 'reason to live' that could be proffered would be ad hoc and pathologically circular, one enunciated in a manner that amounts to "My reason to live is that I have reason to live and that's a reason worth living for!". This is why the simatheist inwardly rejects what he purports to believe. In order for the simatheist to speak to any of these topics, the threefold problem of the godless must have been solved.

When I read or hear the carping of the godless types about their objections to Scripture, it reminds me of a friend who once deadlifted 735 pounds for two reps telling me about the 98-pound weaklings who would come into the gym and nitpick the techniques of those who were immensely stronger than them. Listening to and reading the AGT cavils about Christianity, when one surveys the masterpiece that is Christendom (Western Civilization) built by Christians and then compares it with the absolute zero that represents the civilizations created by AGTs, it merely underscores how abjectly foolish and childish they are in their understanding. Some years ago, he even drew a cartoon to illustrate what a pathetic farce it is:

A GT offering his insight and wisdom to the Christian.

The ontological, metaphysical, and epistemological vantage from which Christians operate in relation to the AGTs in terms of the raw power of a cogent and life-affirming moral vision suffused with meaning as compared with the scrawny, emaciated, corpse-like world views7To the AGTs who here protest that they don't have a 'view' of the world I would agree in this sense: no AGT variant presents a world view that is worthy of the name. However, even those who equivocate and attempt to speciously aver that they don't have a world view, yet live in and exist in the world, and so by definition have a view of it, even if they are too cowardly and dishonest to state what it is. ensconced in a coffin as presented by the AGTs, is almost perfectly represented by the cartoon. For a Christian to engage in any debate that has to do with the eternal matters of morality and meaning with an atheist godless type, is akin to the strong man debating with the scrawny, skin and bone weakling as to which of the two follows the proper diet and workout routine.

One is here reminded of the words of Teddy Roosevelt where he referred to the AGTs who posture themselves as cynics and skeptics, incapable of distinguishing between good and evil as having given in to a "queer and cheap temptation." He further stated that there are no people more unhealthy, none less worthy of respect, no souls more cold and timid, than those who hold an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty. He finishes with:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

To a sober mind, Matthew 7:6 underscores and lends eternal weight to the previous because it commands Christians to avoid precisely what has been illustrated: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." When it comes to morality, hope, meaning, and motive, Christians have been granted veritable ontological, metaphysical, and epistemological pearls. To then take those pearls and believe that we can present them to those whose world view, on first principles, denies the existence of morality, hope, meaning, and motive, is the height of folly. As Scripture tells us, the AGTs will yank the pearls from our grasp and trample them into the dirt, for to them, the worth of a pearl as compared to dirt cannot be distinguished in any meaningful sense: just different collections of molecules that are the product of mindless, purposeless, meaningless processes. All other distinguishing characteristics which the Christian might try to share with them are, to the AGT, merely emanations of the burbling cauldron of electrochemical impulses taking place within the cranial vault. Attempting to 'debate' with the AGTs on matters of such importance is as close as can be imagined to being a literal example of what Matthew 7:6 instructs us to avoid.

A point of clarification is in order here: while it is certainly the case that when one considers the absolutely squalid and hopeless perspective from which they operate, it is absolutely pointless to debate with AGTs on any matter of import, it is imperative that we inform them as to why we will not debate with them and then share the Gospel of Grace with them. If they flee from the challenge and reject the Message, and instead try to grab the pearls of wisdom from our hands in order to cast them down into the muck and trample upon them, then we must simply move on.

As has been previously mentioned in these pages, metaphors are invaluable aids in illustrating points and making comparisons. In evaluating the gamut of AGTs with which we have to contend, let us consider an analogy with labor:

  • The atheist says that work is wholly illusory and illegitimate and therefore exerts no effort of any kind and dies.
  • Like the atheist, the simatheist says that work is illegitimate, but in his heart he doesn't believe it, so he does exert effort in acquiring various forms of welfare, living off of the labor of others while proclaiming their work efforts to be wholly illusory, yet, obsessively criticizes the manner in which they perform the ostensibly illusory tasks by which they support him.
  • The agnostic says that work might be legitimate, or it might not be legitimate, but like the simatheists, is content to live off of the labor of others, wisely telling those off of whom he is living that no one can 'really be sure' about the epistemological status of labor, yet, obsessively criticizes the manner in which they perform the ostensibly epistemologically dubious tasks by which they support him.
  • The apatheist makes no statement of any kind about labor, pretending to be 'above' such banal, pedestrian, and worthless topics, yet like the simatheist and agnostic, he is content to live off of the labor of others, all the while obsessively criticizing the manner in which they perform the ostensibly worthless tasks by which they support him.

Let us now move on to summarizing the various attributes of the AGTs compactly and succinctly to make all of the aforementioned points abundantly obvious to anyone with eyes to see. The following table begins by assigning a row to each AGT, then follows with some columns that specify their defining characteristics, and finally, summarizes the implications which irrefragably follow from said characteristics.

Apart from the identifying label in the first column, there are eleven additional columns:

  1. God Exists

    The stance taken as to the veridical status of the proposition "God exists."

  2. Doxastic Attitude

    The doxastic attitude as regards the "God exists" proposition. Classically, there are three options: belief, disbelief, and suspension of judgment (epoché). Epoché is said to lead to ataraxia, i.e., 'imperturbability.' It is easy to be 'imperturbable' about the essential matters of civilization when one is relaxing practically carefree atop the civilization built by Christians8Certainly, with each passing year, more and more of us are less and less carefree thanks almost entirely to the influence of the AGTs.. Despite the hifalutin sound and appearance of the words epoché and ataraxia, when it comes to moral matters (and really any matters of true import) they are absolutely contemptible and cowardly attitudes to adopt, which underscores the data contained in the 'outcome' column...

  3. Nomenclature

    True atheist or an atheistic hanger on (GT)?

  4. God Is

    Who it is that rules the heart and mind of each. For 'self,' this doesn't imply that there is never any reference to external entities or standards. What it does imply is that the highest authority in the heart of an AGT is the self. A fact made all too clear in the other articles in this series.

  5. Morality

    The source of the AGT's morality. 'ad hoc' indicates that the moral guideposts are hastily and flimsily constructed and the paths to which they lead can be changed at any time and for any reason, and is therefore not 'morality' at all. As an example of this consider the murder of the unborn from the perspective of the simatheist Richard Dawkins.

  6. Meaning

    The source of the AGT's meaning in life. 'ad hoc' indicates that whatever pretense of meaning proffered by a particular AGT variant, it will be a one off and therefore less than worthless.

  7. Motive

    The source of the AGT's motive in life. 'ad hoc' indicates that whatever pretense of motive proffered by a particular AGT variant, it will be a one off and therefore less than worthless.

  8. Hope

    The source of the AGT's hope in life. 'ad hoc' indicates that whatever pretense of hope proffered by a particular AGT variant, it will be a one off and therefore less than worthless.

  9. Civilizing

    Compelling evidence exists that the world view or non-view in question has ever promulgated and built a civilization in all of recorded human history.

  10. Entails

    What the world view or non-view entails of the practitioner who is consistent.

  11. Outcome

    How the practitioner contends with his world view's or non-view's entailment. 'Cowardice' denotes that the motivation for the practitioner's hypocrisy is fear of what their metaphysical position entails, i.e., death. 'Hypocrisy' denotes that the practitioner has chosen to live in opposition to the tenets of godlessness and what their view of the world entails.

As to the ordering of the table, each AGT appears in order of increasing contemptibility. The atheist is the sole AGT who bothers to enunciate a proposition, believes what he says, and then lives (dies) in accordance with it. His beliefs are contemptible, his end is pitiable, but his commitment to what he believes is unassailable. Next is the simatheist, who sounds and tries to behave just like the atheist, but he does not believe what he's saying. He is less contemptible than the agnostic, for the agnostic can't even be bothered to take a stance, but at least he makes a feeble attempt here and there to put on a pretense of an intellectual framework. Finally, the most contemptible is the apatheist. His gutlessness is so overpowering that he is afraid to even make a statement about the 'God exists' proposition and instead expends all of his energies speaking with his immoral actions as to his stance, along with nitpicking what others hold to be true. As the table makes clear, the difference between the agnostic and the apatheist is primarily a semantic one: they both put on an air of cosmopolitan philosophical sophistication about the whole affair.

Degrees of a Feather

LabelGod ExistsDoxastic AttitudeNomenclatureGod IsMoralityMeaningMotiveHopeCivilizingEntailsOutcome
atheistfalsebeliefatheistselfad hocad hocad hocad hocfalsesuicidesuicide
simatheistfalsedisbeliefGTselfad hocad hocad hocad hocfalsesuicidecowardice/hypocrisy
agnosticunknown & unknowableepochéGTselfad hocad hocad hocad hocfalsesuicidecowardice/hypocrisy
apatheistapathyepoché (ataraxia)GTselfad hocad hocad hocad hocfalsesuicidecowardice/hypocrisy

The table makes it abundantly clear that however the AGT variants choose to label themselves (or cravenly not call themselves), avow, disavow, or non-avow, when it comes to the practical matters of presenting a moral vision, a vision of how one is to live a meaningful life, and whether any of the representative world views have had an essential role in establishing any civilization whatsoever, they're identical: they bring at most less than nothing. Godless types, by definition, live lives of ad hoc morality, i.e., immoral lives. When such as these then spend their lives attacking others' belief in God or moral frameworks, they are akin to jilted lovers proclaiming that they are 'over' a relationship and have 'sworn off' romantic entanglements, but who then endeavor for the rest of their days in writing bitter poems and songs about not only their own relationship, but other people's relationships, and in fact, the very idea of relationships. There is little that is more pathetic and futile than that. They spend their lives talking, writing, and joking about god, Gods, or moral frameworks, all while denying the existence of such either explicitly or practically. They then have the gall to tout themselves as being of a 'scientific' mien, or 'ruled by reason.' Anyone familiar with the history of mathematics and science knows that the pantheons thereof are not filled with those who dedicated their lives to the denial of something, but rather to affirming, discovering, and building. These AGT 'scientists' and 'reasoners' obsessed with negation who offer nothing positive are not unlike unhinged people going about saying, writing and behaving as though the integer '1' does not exist who further harp to one and all that any implications of '1' are also rejected, but spend their lives obsessively making reference to 1 in a variety of ways:

  • You say what I wrote is 1? Balderdash, I wrote integral equaling 1!
  • You say what I wrote is 1? You're totally wrong: I wrote (4-3)3!
  • You say what I wrote is 1? That's impossible because I don't believe that the existence of '1' can be confirmed or denied.
  • Sure, what I wrote looks like a 1, and I use it just as everyone else uses 1 in their day-to-day lives, but I could care less about 1.

All of the above should serve to make manifest the realities of the ramifications of the world views of the atheist godless types along with the manifold delusions they have about reality. No matter how the AGT twists, turns, and equivocates, it's all the same outworking of the same squalid world view.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *