Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries Atheism

Relating Science and Religion // Proofs and experiences

Atheistic absurdities
Dragons, pink elephants and the flying spaghetti monster

Knowing that they expose themselves whenever we tell them that to opine with certainty and without evidence on the nonexistence of God is a religion, atheists adopt other methods - clearly disorienting ones - in order to support their views.  They speak of pink elephants, dragons and Little Red Riding Hoods, or, in other cases, "Flying Spaghetti Monsters" !!


In our previous article on atheism we spoke of the atheists' arguments with regard to experiences. In this article we shall speak of their sophistry with "dragons" and... little red riding hood !

As soon as an atheist is cornered by the argument that he cannot dogmatize without proofs that God does not exist, he will ALMOST ALWAYS resort to the same method. He will first begin to play with words; for example, he will say something like:

"An atheist is the one who DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, or, he is someone who DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, and not the one who BELIEVES THAT THERE IS NO GOD. There is a fundamental difference here. Of course if you express it incorrectly, it is logical that it will seem like atheism presupposes a faith in the nonexistence of God."

However, whether you believe in God or don't believe, from the moment that you CHOOSE to not believe (if that is the expression you prefer), then you are doing so WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. You are taking a position without having any proof.  Otherwise, you could have simply stated "I don't know". You would NOT have said "I don't believe in a god".  Is it that hard, for you to state "I don't know" ?

To state "I don't believe in a god" in the sense of "I don't know if there is a god" is both consistent and logical. But if this statement is supposed to imply that "there IS NO GOD", then it is a DOGMATIC FORMULATION and as such, it must be supported by evidence.

And we must point out here that expressions such as "WE don't know if a God exists" are equally erroneous, because in this way, the speaker GENERALIZES HIS OWN IGNORANCE, to apply to everyone.  If one individual doesn't know that God exists, then it is totally different to EVERYONE not knowing.  Thus, generalizations of this kind are equally irrational.  It is more appropriate if that one person says "I don't know....", otherwise, he must justify HOW he knows that everyone else doesn't know.

The atheist's next step is to try to avoid presenting any proof, in which case, he will resort to saying:

"Well, there is a fundamental principle in logic, according to which, the one who makes a positive statement (for example, 'there IS a god' or 'I haven't eaten or drunk anything in 40 years') is the one who has to prove that statement, and not the opposite.  In other words, I am not obliged to prove why there is no god; the other is obliged to prove to me that god exists. The reason for the validity of this principle is obvious..."

In this case, he will attempt to avoid the presentation of evidence, by shifting the weight of proof onto the faithful. But certain important issues escape him. He is overlooking the historical/judicial method of proof..

In any courtroom, the testimony of even one eyewitness is taken into account. Thus, while the faithful place credence on the millions of testimonies by eyewitnesses who have become acquainted with God personally, the atheist denies those testimonies in an unscientific manner, and himself DOGMATIZES without any supporting evidence that all those testimonies are either false or imaginary.  Thus we see that it is NOT about the atheist not being given any evidence (because eyewitnesses constitute adequate testimony); it is about his REJECTING those testimonies.  And he rejects them without providing the slightest evidence against those eyewitnesses!  Thus, we can see that the burden of proof falls upon the atheist, because the faithful believe on the basis of historical witness - in other words, they have a witnessed reason to believe.  Whereas, on what basis does the atheist not believe?

And here we have the last atheist refuge in a discussion of this kind; this is where they begin to talk about dragons and little red riding hood, with... pink elephants!

So, we notice the atheist resorting to an argument along the following lines:

"Do you mean that anyone can just stubbornly maintain whichever proposal he likes, without giving any explanations? For example, claims such as: 'flying spaghetti monsters exist' or 'dragons exist' and of course 'god exists'.  Well, the only way we can avoid such a confusion is to ask the one who supports a proposal to present the proofs that support it... and not ask his interlocutor to prove why flying spaghetti monsters do NOT exist, or why god doesn't exist, etc..."

This atheistic sophistry is a classic case of subterfuge for the purpose of creating impressions. The atheist chooses to use "dragons" and "flying spaghetti monsters" as an example; in other words, he chooses something that by definition does not exist, in order to predispose the other on the matter of God, for Whom there are millions of testimonies that He exists. This is evidence of a subconscious (albeit unwitting) use of subterfuge, on account of the atheist's inability to confront the eyewitness testimonies differently. This is exactly what applies, in the example with the dragon: the atheist chooses something by definition nonexistent in his attempt to justify something that is adequately testified.

We could use ... little red riding hood, a flying spaghetti monster - or something similarly witnessed as nonexistent - however, we might use the example of the dragon, which covers all of the above cases and has been taken from a Greek edition of a book by Carl Sagan, which contains the following sophistry:

«A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage».

«Show me», you say. I take you to my garage. You look inside and you see a ladder, some empty cans of paint, an old tricycle, but no dragon is to be seen.

«Where is the dragon?» you ask.

«Ah, but it is here», I reply, with a vague gesture. «I forgot to mention that this one is an invisible dragon».

So you suggest sprinkling some flour on the floor of the garage, in order to locate the dragon's footprints.  

«Good idea», I tell him, «but this dragon flies in the air».

Then we shall use a detector that can capture the invisible fire.

«Good idea», I tell him, «but invisible fire doesn't give off any heat».

Then you can spray the dragon with paint and he will become visible.

«Good idea, except that the dragon doesn't have a body and so the paint won't work».

And so it continues.... I refute all of the natural tests that you suggested, with a precise explanation as to the reason they won't work.

What is the difference between an invisible, bodiless, flying dragon that spits heatless flames and an altogether nonexistent dragon?

We shall analyze the above sophistry further along, in order to clearly expose the irrationality of its example, when we talk about God and not a dragon:

First of all, this unfortunate example uses a Dragon - something that by definition does not exist . However, if something else were used - which is not proven as nonexistant - then it wouldn't sound as strange.  If for example it had spoken of "an alien", no-one would have thought: "call a psychiatrist!" because no-one can rule out the possibility that aliens exist. But here, a dragon is purposely used, in order to negatively predispose the listener or the reader of this example, towards the faithful!  God is likewise NOT NONEXISTENT by definition, the way a dragon is; on the contrary, He is a Person Whom many people have met and have even suffered martyrdom for Him.

The "fire-breathing" description mentioned above plays the same role; contradictory elements are given on purpose, in order to negatively predispose the reader, given that - by definition - something that breathes does so in order to stay alive. This means we are referring to a creature with needs. But the flames are - by definition again - something that burns and destroys a creature. Therefore, how can a creature breathe fire and live?  Therefore, the atheist is cunningly giving opposite and contradictory meanings here in order to negatively predispose the faithful, and he is arbitrarily transposing them to the subject of "God" - as though God is a creature!

The very next argument in the example is equally cunning:  "it is here", and in fact "in the garage".  Here, the logical trap is in the fact that while the dragon is by definition finite, God is by definition infinite. Because, while the dragon as an endo-cosmic creature with needs is "somewhere", God is not "somewhere". He is omnipresent by definition. Therefore there should not be any comparison between a finite being (and one that is by definition mythical), with a Being that is by definition infinite and omnipresent.  Therefore, while it would be a problem for one to state that a breathing creature (like the foolish example of a dragon) is "somewhere" but cannot become perceptible, with God it would not be a problem, because in actual fact EVERYTHING that exists is a product of His existence.  He becomes manifest, BY EVERYTHING that is contained in His omnipresent existence. God is not "here" or "there"; He is EVERYWHERE.  And He is not made  manifest by one thing or another, but by everything that is in existence, inasmuch as He is the initial cause of their existence.

The next phrase of the atheist's example is even more cunning: "I forgot to mention that this one is an invisible dragon". The phrase: "I forgot to mention" clearly denotes that the dragon supporter is a con man, because he is pulling over-simplified excuses out of his brain, in order to reinforce his argument. Therefore, this also cannot be respected as an example, because contrary to the inconsistent dragon, Christians have clearly formulated dogmas regarding God, so that no-one can accuse them of merely spouting excuses.

Nor does the expression "invisible dragon" have any meaning, because it too is a contradiction in terms. This is because dragons are "by definition" visible, inasmuch as they have been depicted in innumerable legendary images, while on the contrary, God is by definition invisible to us, because He is a BEYOND-THE-UNIVERSE BEING and is not comprised of any Time-Space elements the way that creatures are.

Similarly, the phrase: "invisible fire, which doesn't give off any heat" is equally contradictory in itself and meaningless, because fire - by definition - is visible, and it does give off heat. Otherwise, it would not be fire, but something else.  And furthermore, an endo-cosmic creature like the "dragon" of this infantile example, which also apparently "breathes", cannot possibly NOT interact with any other elements in our cosmos, therefore there is always a way of discovering traces of its existence.  On the contrary, God is not just a beyond-the-universe Entity; His Holy Light, which appears in Jerusalem and DOES NOT BURN during the first moments of its appearance when it sets candles alight, is actually visible.  We Christians, therefore, do not speak of things "invisible", "contradictory" and "vague", in the manner of the contradiction-riddled example of the dragon, but of things that have clearly been formulated logically and are visible. When Christians state that: In Jerusalem, one can SEE the Holy Light of the invisible God, we can actually demonstrate this. We are very specific and consistent in the statements that we make.

Even the last phrase: "the dragon doesn't have a body" is likewise contradictory. Because, if it breathes, and it is somewhere (inside the garage), then by definition this implies that it does possess a body. On the contrary, we Christians of course state that God by definition does not have a body Himself, because being a beyond-the-universe entity, He is not confined by Space and Time. On the contrary, we say that EVERYTHING is inside Him, inasmuch as He permeates everything.

From the above, we can clearly see the leaps of logic that the atheists resort to, in order to compare something that is by definition nonexistent and contradictory, to something that is by definition logical and witnessed. The same applies to every example that they can possibly come up with - including pink flying elephants, fairy-tale characters like little red riding hood, and green donkeys that can fly. These are all purposely chosen, contradictory inventions that are intended to predispose their discussants.

However, atheists do not provide us with the slightest indication as to WHY they do not accept the TESTIMONIES of millions of eyewitnesses, who have testified throughout History that they have had a personal "encounter" with God.  On what logical grounds do they reject with such certainty that a primary cause does exist behind this wonderful creation of the entire Cosmos? Can they perhaps show us - with evidence - another equally complex object as the human brain, within the confines of Time and Space, which has come into being from nil?  Logic suggests the existence of a primary cause. Atheists deny it, the way they deny the testimonies of eyewitnesses, and then they want to speak of logic!

However, atheists might tell us that:

"You don't believe solely in God; you also believe in a host of angels and demons which you regard as creatures. Creatures that aren't omnipresent, and are invisible, right under your noses but you can't see them. Isn't that the same as stating that you have a dragon in your garage?"

Given that we are not talking about dragons (which are by definition nonexistent), but of creatures that belong to other dimensions, we shall let science speak for us.  We shall quote herebelow an excerpt from an article by Savvas Demopoulos, professor at Stanford University in the USA, with the title "In Search of the Hidden Dimensions":

"Our universe may simply be a membrane that was the result of an expansion of the three known dimensions. We could imagine certain other beings as coexisting next to us in every millimeter of the space that we occupy, and yet we are unable to meet them. That is because they are in a universe that is comprised of other dimensions, which are unknown to us." (Greek "FOCUS" science magazine, issue No.53, July 2004, pages 23, 24)

The possibility of such beings existing could not be doubted, even by Sagan; how much more so, when we have so many other testimonies of their existence!





Translation:  K.N.

Article published in English on: 31-5-2010.

Last update: 31-5-2010.