On: How to argue with logical atheists

I am winsome.

You will know how. It is a promise.

Agnostics are a confused lot. They are like the runny-nosed kid with slipping trousers who has been suddenly asked to stand-up in class to answer a question he did not hear. Leave an agnostic in the company of anyone else who is not an agnostic, and the results are despairingly similar. They are always caught with their pants down. Being caught with ones pants down, in the broadest of terms might be a slightly bad idea but it is nowhere near as bad as being caught with your pants down only to declare to the world that you have nothing inspiring to hide within them. This precisely is what happens to agnostics before they are sneered out of the collective consciousness of both atheists and theists even as they resume their war of Godliness and godlessness.

Having made enemies of the two of the most vocal groups on the planet by wielding only one belief, they fade into the background with sulking glumness. Surprisingly, agnostics must be credited with the discovery of a belief, while being singular is stunningly Janus-faced.

Atheists are a bunch of smart-and-snooty asses. They capitalize on the one fact that no one has ever seen god to disprove of the entity’s existence. It is probably because of this bullheadedness that atheists are often kicked in the balls before being asked if they can ‘see’ pain. Being the logical beings they are, they are forced to answer in the negative. The theists with smug alacrity painsgivingly explain that saying God does not exist is like saying kicked in the balls doesn’t hurt because you can’t see pain.

Their argument is painfully simple. What you cannot see can still hurt you – or something or that sort.

Woefully for the theists, the golden days of making a point by entombing boots and knees into clusters are all but gone. Now, owing to what is bumbling-ly called civilization, one has to go through mid-day meetings and PowerPoints, just to prove that a palm on a hot plate hurts like a girl-friend. Even so, this has to be backed-up by a live demonstration where a woman wearing a low-cut blouse bottommed off with a skirt that looks like a belt on a diet, goes through the motions of placing her palm on – what we are led to believe is – a hot plate distorting her face with a suitable rictus.

This leaves the theists with the only resort left – logic. (On a side note, why only humans employ such things is still an anthropological mystery)

For hundreds of years, humans have lived more or less amicably by sorting out issues with a clobber here and a kick there. But the advent of elite schools put paid to all that. Now we have laws and regulations on place for any such undertaking. The situation is now like this:

Law: Ohh! Has he killed your wife? No. You cannot kill him. We will do it for you.

Only, this will take about 50 years, after the forms are filled and reports verified.

The bereaved guy is miffed because they are taking 50 years to do what he could have done between having finished his dinner and deciding what to have for dessert. The guy who killed the woman is miffed because he knows he is going to die and he cannot have a go at the other bastard. The law is miffed because if it is being made to work. What with the entire hullabaloo about human rights, and being made to do someone else’s dirty work while keeping its own hands clean.

In the name of law-and-order, what we have is procrastination and general discontent of everyone involved.

This whole Law thing doesn’t make much sense and anyone arguing in favour of it must be shot. Since that would again require general haranguing of the Law to get it done and a good 50 years, we might bloody well get on without needing it.

So, all aside, logically, what use is of god then?

God, if you are well travelled, is clearly responsible for saving forests and by association, saving the world. At all places on the planet, mountains are flattened and forests are razed to the ground to make place for ‘civilization’. Especially in India where a foot of space commands a higher price than the lives of a few dozed homeless, it is only God who can claim vast tracts of land for himself and yet be unmolested. And to keep the land that you have acquired in its pristine state without succumbing to the lures of commerce is something that is even more godly than JC.

Who else would be able to do that? That too with unstinting support from the public?

God, of course!

Make a law to protect a rare bird, and the next day you will find it merrily being stoned and casseroled. Say God resides in the bird and all of a sudden you have unmanageable colonies of the bird, which was only a few weeks ago perched on the razors edge of extinction.

This is the logical way to beat the atheists.

The smarter of the theist might then ask why god cannot make theists of atheists. Without sounding escapist, you may say, ‘what do you think god created theists for then?’.

At this, the theist would jump up and down with all the glee of a three year old with a lollipop and say, ‘You need us to exist, don’t you? Huh? Huh? Huh?’

What would you say? You stopped them arguing about the existence of god. Didn’t you?

You lose some.

(See, I said you would know.)

Edit: – 4th Feb, 2011

I wanted to write about spiritualists, but in the melee of thoughts, they seemed to sneak past and escape. But thanks to my lovely friend’s keen eye, they were stopped at the gates and collared back in submission.

Spiritualists are people that even the agnostics look down upon.  While agnostics are not sure they understand anything about this god thing – they are at least upfront about it. They are the people, who though do not make enemies of god like the atheists do, are at the very least brave enough to make enemies of both friends and enemies of god.  Spiritualists on the other hand are closet theists who want to be atheists but wimp out half way through.

To cover this wimping out, they try and convince people that while they do not believe in god, they do however believe in the existence of a ‘higher power’. A power that is greater than their selves. But no, it is not god really. It is like saying, ‘I love to be able to talk to people I love whenever I want, wherever I am, need not necessarily be in person. It is enough if I could hear their voices. I just want to be able to reach them. But I do not believe in cell phones.’

(Thanks to April Gurl for reminding me about the spiritualists)