Another Atheist *FACEPALM* Moment

I had the most amazing interaction with a Village Atheist in an internet forum.

This person was going on about how the New Testament documents were written so long after the events they described, and therefore it was all made up.

I mentioned the recent discovery of a fragment of Mark's Gospel that has been dated to the 1st century. The Village Atheist kept arguing and telling me the earliest document was from AD 150, so I posted a link to prove him wrong. In fact, this fragment is confidently dated to the mid-1st Century, and that proves Mark's Gospel is an early document that rivals 1st Corinthians. I offered that the fragment is from a copy, meaning the original is much earlier.

The atheist kept arguing that it was still written 50-75 years after Jesus' death and he was getting pretty snarky about it. I kept asking him how he came to that conclusion, and then it dawned on me: this atheist thought AD meant "after death". I started laughing, because I couldn't imagine that in today's information age, anybody wouldn't know that AD stood for Anno Domini, the Year of Our Lord. This guy was calling me an idiot over this.

It gets even better. After I established that AD 50 was only 17-20 years after the Resurrection, this guy tried to tell me that this Gospel only proved that none of them were written until at least 75 years after Jesus' death. To make a long story short, this brilliant atheist thought the fragment was from the ORIGINAL, in fact, he thought all the surviving NT papyri were the autographs. Unbelievable.

I pointed out this guy's errors, and predictably he went ballistic and tobogganed straight into a tirade of 4-letter words and high school insults. No matter how many times I linked things and showed him that there were no surviving original NT autographs, he would hear none of it and he just kept up with the sputtering. Finally, he just stopped posting.

I still can't believe that, as smart as atheists think they are, that there was one who didn't know what AD meant and that there are no NT autographs (usually that alone is a foundational atheist argument: "Well, since there are no originals, how can we know that the New Testament is even accurate?")

The Moral of the Story here is: never assume your opponent is smarter than he really is.

There's a reason I call these people "Village Atheists".

'Nuff said.

Lame Argument: "Everyone is born an Atheist"

This is one of the silliest memes spouted by the Village Atheist Left. It's banter like this that makes me believe they are the Jehovah's Witnesses of godlessness, as if there were some kind of 90 day training school that all budding Atheists attend, to learn the basics as well as the bumper sticker slogans that they regurgitate all over the internet.

Babies aren't born atheists, they're born ignorant. They know next to nothing. At best, a baby is AGNOSTIC (as an agnosis, "lacking knowledge or understanding"). Atheism is a conscious decision, a rejection of belief.

However, if Village Atheists want to call themselves ignorant babies, I won't stand in their way.

Atheists, get some new material, puleeeeze.....

If Atheists Want To Improve the World...

Why don't they take the money they spend on silly lawsuits to tear down crosses in public places, and donate that money to the poor, instead of some well-paid attorney?

I mean, come on guys, if you're so much better than us wacko believers, then prove it and feed some hungry kids.

Tearing down religious symbols that are acceptable to 99% of the population (including some nonbelievers) is a such a waste of time and resources.

The economy is lousy right now, atheists. It's time to prove yourselves and ante up for the less fortunate.