To the more hateful commenters on this blog

There’s been an uptick in the drive-by “insult JT personally” brand of believers lately.  Whether it’s making fun of me for my mental illness or hypothesizing about the size of my genitalia, there are a couple things you true believers should bear in mind.

1.  Note our differences.

You may not like it that I’m angry, but note how I make arguments in the process of being angry?  You could do that too and bring some of us wayward atheists to Christ with your visit – that is, if you prioritized the message of your god over the size of my penis (which I wouldn’t, but then again I don’t have much esteem for the message of your god).

Of course, if your arguments for god’s existence sucked, then it would just give me blog fodder.

2.  Christians read this blog.

They do.  They email me.  A lot.  I love the war of ideas, and I’m openly trying to convince believers of certain things, like that religion does not have a positive affect on morality.

Many of them seem to not mind my anger because it is always accompanied by an explanation for why I’m angry.  I never just denigrate someone for the sake of denigrating them.  Creating unhappiness is not my goal, it’s just sometimes a byproduct of the work I do.

This is not what you guys do.  You come here for no other purpose but to try to make me unhappy.  So when I say things like “Christianity doesn’t make people better, in fact, it seems to help people be worse” you guys are making my point for me (this makes me the opposite of unhappy).


3.  I get paid per hit.

Every time you come to this blog, I make money.  Every time you check back to see if I’ve taken the bait and taken the time to respond, I make money.

I use that money to fight religion or to go see my girlfriend in Kansas (or otherwise make myself happy).  Tee hee hee.  :)

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • adamfuehrer

    I love you bro. Those trollers just gotta troll.

  • ‘Tis Himself

    To the more hateful commenters on this blog

    Darn, I thought there was finally a blog post about me. I’m disappointed. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.

  • KeganL

    Going to start troll huntin’ here soon.

  • MG Myers

    I love reading your blog, JT!

  • F

    I see them trollin’. I hatin’.

  • cag

    Is there an argument for god’s existence that does not suck?

    • Mary


      • R. Johnston

        Not only is there not any argument for the existence of a god that doesn’t suck; it’s not even possible for such an argument to exist.

        Before anyone can put forward an argument for a god’s existence that doesn’t suck he would need to define god in such a way that god is well defined, god’s existence can readily be distinguished from nonexistence on the basis of empirical evidence, and such definition is close enough to encompassing the amorphous god concepts people hold without ever bothering to adequately define “god” that you haven’t just created an entirely new question to answer rather than the old question of “does a god exist?” No one arguing that god exists has ever done this or even really tried to do it. Definitions of god used by believers range from non-existent, to totally amorphous, to internally contradictory, to untestable by design, to complete gibberish but never hit upon a definition that can form the basis of a non-sucky argument.

    • jamessweet

      I would say that the best one (and it’s not a very good one) is the Cosmological Argument. It is the best for two reasons: 1) Genuine gaps persist in our knowledge of the origin of the universe, gaps which that wily Jesus can still just barely wedge himself into (though he’s had to lose a lot of weight in the process); and 2) there are certain unanswerable (and probably, though they don’t feel that way, nonsensical) questions which lie outside the scope of physics, for which God makes a satisfying answer as long as you don’t think about it too hard — or, in the case of theologians perhaps, satisfying if you think way too deeply about it.

      The first reason is a sucker’s bet, and the both of them fall victim to infinite regress problems. But all other arguments for God’s existence either a) fall down on a simple factual basis, e.g. like the Argument from Design; or b) are simply mumbo-jumbo once you boil it down to what they are actually saying, e.g. the Ontological Argument (attempts to salvage the Cosmological Argument from infinite regress by prattling on about the difference between “necessary” and “contingent” falls into this latter category).

      So no, there are no good ones. The best one can do is argue that the Cosmological Argument makes room for deism not to be patently false. Note this is not an argument in favor deism’s truth; it is simply an argument that such a belief is not trivially false. It’s still superfluous and philosophically dodgy.

      • Kevin

        The problem with the CA is that it defines lack of knowledge of a physical process as being equivalent to proving the existence of a supernatural entity.

        It’s one extended fallacy of the excluded middle.

        My response to the CA is that my hypothesis is that giant green invisible interdimensional monkeys shat the universe into existence out of their red monkey butts.

        You can’t prove I’m wrong. Therefore, the RMB argument is at least as plausible as the CA. In fact, if you replace “god” with “red monkey butts” in the CA, you have made precisely zero change in the argument.

        Which means, to get back to the serious discussion, that there are infinite possibilities with regard to the origins of the universe. Of which a deist god, or Brahma, or Yahweh, or Kukulkan are but a small fraction of the potential supernatural solutions. Insert any one of those deities into the CA, and you have, once again, zero difference in the argument. And this is before you even begin to list the potential natural solutions that can ALSO be inserted into the argument. Of course, the natural solutions are limited by the amount of evidence available to support them, but still, there are plenty of possible natural solutions.

        Which makes the argument useless. There are infinite possibilities, and the CA cannot distinguish which among them is more likely.

        I also get aggravated by the egregious use of “arguments” as “proof”. It’s one of the most-common failings of religious reasoning among the apologetics crowd.

        It needs to be pointed out: No argument is proof of anything — because it can be argued. BTW: That’s the official position of the Thomists over at, so it’s not just me saying so.

      • Steve

        “We don’t know, so god did it” is a horrible argument for anything.

        And it gets you nowhere. Let’s say we’d know that the universe had to be created by something. So what? All you have is deism. You still can’t get to theism from there. You still haven’t explained what this god is like and what he wants. How do we get from “A god created the universe” to extremely detailed rules about how we are supposed to live our lives?

  • Eliott

    JT…I admire your restraint…I on the other hand am an atheist…not a pacifist…fuck these guys.

  • godlesspanther

    Greta made a fantastic list of reasons that non-believers have to be angry. She did so with a vitality and sense of humor. The religious freaks are very angry as well. I have yet to see any of them supply concrete reasons as to why they are angry and have yet to see any of them display a genuine sense of humor.

    It appears that they are just generally angry and bitter people. The question is whether the extreme religiosity is a cause, effect, or just a strong correlation.

  • danielmchugh

    They’re trying to express their anger over you denying them their gawd-given right to not accept that we exist! How could you be so inconsiderate?!

    More to the point, how did you learn to do it so well? I gotta start taking notes…

  • Mike de Fleuriot

    Somehow the size and weight of all those theists arguments together, could not even manage to out weight JT at his most relaxed. And that is just basing this on the theist arguments only.

  • UA

    Hope you know that there are tons of people who love your blog. I do! I learned a lot about mental illness and I think you are doing a kick-ass job in terms of atheism and your personal problems. (I’ve also found that I’ve overcome my taught (based on christian upbringing?) stereotype on monogamy) SO yeah, you have taught me A LOT.
    Thank you. All those hate mails just mean you are famous ;)

  • omcdurham

    JT, love your writings. Every time I argue with Christians, they always seem to either fall back on the Bible and issue a quote that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, or take the ball and go home. Although I feel an initial sense of victory at trumping their argument, I feel like I let something slip away when a defeated opponent runs away and hides.

    I give credit to many of my coworkers who are Christians and know me as an atheist, yet are willing to argue with me about atheism without judging me as a person…quality people. Not all Christians are bad people, and in my line of work, most are liberal as well. They support gay marriage, are Obama fans, and some of them actually like some of the atheist things I post on Facebook.

    While their dogma is so much horseshit, contradiction and plagiarism, some of the adherents of Christian beliefs are nice. Misguided, but at least somewhat closer to the Jeebus they claim to have taught love and acceptance.

  • Richard

    …..I don’t know if JT is actually angry, or was trying to pull off a second April fools joke trolling to match Christina’s one about JT joining a Christian rock band…

    Either way, notice how they all evaporated?

  • bcoppola

    I get paid per hit.

    Every time you come to this blog, I make money. Every time you check back to see if I’ve taken the bait and taken the time to respond, I make money.

    I use that money to fight religion or to go see my girlfriend in Kansas (or otherwise make myself happy). Tee hee hee.

    Well, then, if that’s the case: You suck balls. :-)

    Glad to help!

    • bcoppola

      And your momma’s ugly too!

      • bcoppola

        Blag Hag rules. You drool!

        (OK, that’s all. Promise.)

        • JT Eberhard

          Now, now…it’s only funny when your insults aren’t true. :P

  • MikeMa

    Got to work out a way to engage them. You need the cash & we (some of us) need the practice. Any of those xtians who try to attack you by way of your journey through mental illness must be shown the mirror. And for the Mabus level troll, there is always a killfile.

  • Moe

    Who says the jokes about your Dick were made by a Christian?

    Are you so arrogant as to think some atheists could not think you were a jerk?

    • anteprepro

      That might be the case. But the people who made the derogatory comments about JT’s mental illness, which were the far worse comments , also made sure to speak scornfully of atheists in general in the same comments. So…nice try. But you’re defending douchebags, and that doesn’t reflect well on you.

  • Moe

    Anyway, maybe size doesn’t matter to Michaelyn.


    • Marshall

      Keep it up Moe, I’m sure JT appreciates your stopping by to increase his bankroll while simultaneously giving us all someone to laugh at and poke with snark-sticks.

  • Pingback: Angry Atheist « The Wayward Willis()