The willful, unreasonable doubt of Atheists

Atheists are trolls mostly. I mean, these are people who, like, identify as smart people, and somehow, they've tricked people into playing along and treating them like smart people. It's the definition of futile for a religious person and certainly for a Muslim, to abuse any moment of their time engaged in the charade, of debate or discussion with an atheist, trying to convince them, of what's obvious when their whole identity is built around denying the obvious because they think it makes them smart to do that. Not to mention when you have Muslims or religious people, engaging with someone who is an atheist as a career, you know, a professional atheist whose job it is to willfully not be convinced. I mean, an atheist is like that one juror, you know, on the jury who just for the sake of being awkward is like, just because the defendant, was caught covered in the victim's blood, holding the, the murder weapon, standing over the victim's body and carrying a notebook in his pocket, you know, that detailed how he was gonna carry out the crime and how he was gonna stab the victim to death.

That doesn't mean he's guilty. We weren't there when it happened. I didn't witness the crime myself. You'd actually have to bring the victim back to life, and have the defendant murder the victim in front of me, and then maybe, I can be sure that he's guilty. Otherwise, you know, it's just conjecture, biased interpretation of evidence.

It's preposterous, and they think that they're being intelligent. They're committed to fabricating reasonable doubt even if it's unreasonable to everyone but them. I mean, just by the principle of Occam's razor, which they like. God exists. God is the simplest and most obvious explanation for existence, for the universe, for creation.

So you have to justify why this obvious explanation isn't true. You have to convince me, of why there has to be some other convoluted fantastical explanation for existence. Just like in a criminal case, you have to come up with, some plausible explanation for why the overwhelming evidence does not lead to the obvious conclusion. Because look, again, like in a court case, the fact of the matter is that guilt or innocence is impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Any half decent lawyer will tell you that.

An attorney's job is to tell a story using available evidence as props, and whoever can come up with the most plausible and the most convincing story based on that evidence or the interpretation of that evidence will win the case. The prosecutor interprets the evidence to prove guilt and the defense attorney interprets the evidence to cast doubt about that guilt. And when all of the evidence leads to an obvious conclusion, the defense attorney really has to earn his money. That's when he has to get creative. But that's why in the legal system, it's the the phrase isn't actually beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It's beyond a reasonable doubt because there's usually only one story that's actually plausible. There's usually actually only one, interpretation of evidence that's believable, and that's how normal thinking people operate. That's what actual intelligent people do. Genuinely smart people do not insist, on the validity of outlandish doubts and contrived, alternative explanations when clear cut explanations are plain to see and are accepted, by the majority of people. Being needlessly, pointlessly, absurdly contrarian is not a sign of intellect.

It's a sign of someone who uses their intellect just to be needlessly and pointlessly absurd, and that's atheists. I mean, I'm sorry, but if you're silly enough to engage with atheists on their terms and to debate with them on their terms, then it's like, you're agreeing to play football. You're agreeing to play soccer in a marsh, in a swamp, just because they tell you that it's actually a football field and we're gonna play by the rules.