That line comes from Psalm 14:1 (and repeated in Psalm 53:1). Evangelicals often use it as a “mic-drop” against atheists. But it’s worth knowing the actual context and reading it in Hebrew rather than a translation (which is an interpretation) -- so I looked it up!
The Hebrew word translated as “fool” (nabal) does not mean “intellectually deficient” but “morally corrupt.” In its ancient context, the Psalm was condemning wicked or unjust behavior in Israel, not making a philosophical argument against atheism. The psalmist wasn’t debating cosmology but criticizing immorality. And again, billions of people are moral (and many more so) without religion.
Plus it's little more than circular reasoning. That verse assumes the very thing it’s trying to prove. It’s like me writing in a book, ‘Anyone who doubts me is a fool,’ and then holding up the book as evidence.
Many cultures have sacred texts that call unbelievers “fools” or “blind.” If every tradition claims that, they cancel one another out.
Islam
Qur’an 2:171 – Unbelievers are compared to cattle who hear only “calls and cries” without understanding.
Hindu
Bhagavad Gita 7:15 – “The foolish (mudhah), the lowest of men… whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, do not worship Me.”
Zoroastrian Avesta
Yasna 32:5)– calls those who reject Ahura Mazda’s words “deceitful” and “foolish.”
Even Buddhism!
Although Buddhism often frames things less harshly, it also calls those who deny karma or the Dharma “fools”
I could go on ...
Every tradition reinforces belief by branding outsiders as fools. It’s a classic boundary-marker: wisdom is defined as agreeing with this revelation; folly is rejecting it. In interfaith comparison, these claims cancel each other out. So which god makes me the "fool?"
"Science can't adequately explain the origins of the universe, much less life from non life."
Not yet ...
The “God of the Gaps” argument says: If science cannot explain X, then God must be the explanation.
The "God of the Gaps" argument is a retreat, not a logical, testable argument. To the contrary, it's a logical fallacy—an argument from ignorance. Lack of explanation does not prove an alternative explanation. In the past, people saw god(s) in comets, plagues, and madness. Now we call those astronomy, medicine, and psychiatry. The pattern is clear: the more we learn, the less room there is for a ‘gap-God.’ Science’s power is not that it knows everything, but that it keeps learning. So the honest answer isn’t Imma stick with God. It's "Not Yet."
At one time, science also couldn't explain the common cold, comets, lightening, viruses, eclipses, birth defects, pregnancy, infertility, death, disease, mental disorders, chance, dreams, or any one of a million things. So you had the "god of the gaps" hypothesis where a god had to be responsible for things science couldn't explain. But as science continues to advance (and religion doesn't), that god gets smaller and smaller.
We vote for the same guys. And I don't ever even look at Reddit. That place is a sewer except for very, very specific items like hobbies and such. Any "copy and paste" is from my own manuscripts and rough drafts. And what is a copypasta? Does that come with sauce? LOL
But here's the deal. I don't care if you ever see things my way. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm simply explaining why I cannot accept the claims of any religion. I've told my super religious Christian evangelical family that I'm not an atheist evangelist. I'm not trying to sway anyone to my side. I simply don't care, although I may find it amusing. When you don't believe in an afterlife (or a pre-life like the Mormons who are certifiably nuts), what does it matter if someone lives virtuously for a reason I don't accept? Im just glad they're living virtuously. Why? Because I believe we've evolved (some of us anyway) to understand what works in society and what doesn't, what benefits the family and what doesn't, what contributes and advances Western Civilization and what doesn't. The Liberal Left hasn't figured that out. Sheesh, they're unhinged.
Thomas Sowell, one of the best conservative minds out there, is agnostic, bordering on atheist. So were many, many conservative authors and commentators throughout history. You don't have to have religion to have common sense. You don't have to be religious to be conservative.
Go read what Charlie Kirk's TPUSA site says is their mission statement: Free Speech, Free Markets, Personal Accountability, Smaller less intrusive Government.
No religion needed for ANY of those. But rest assured, I will vote and defend your right to have any religion you wish.
