Believers have any number of ridiculous justifications for their beliefs. We non-theists and anti-theists (like myself) like to collect them and at times ridicule them when necessary.

Frankly, there are no reasonable arguments for God's existence. All arguments are usually pointed in one direction - ignorance. And when I mean ignorance, formally I am referring to an argument from ignorance.

Looks like we can add another dumb argument, this time uttered by an ignorant. In his new book, the douche-bag talking head of Fox News, Bill O'Reilly states:

Next time you meet an atheist, tell him or her that you know a bold, fresh guy, a barbarian who was raised in a working-class home and retains the lessons he learned there.

Then mention to that atheist that this guy is now watched and listened to, on a daily basis, by millions of people all over the world and, to boot, sells millions of books.

Then, while the non-believer is digesting all that, ask him or her if they still don't believe there's a God!

I guess we shouldn't be shocked that while he's masturbating this great self-platitude to himself as evidence for a God that O'Reilly created in his own self image, I have to ask why would this argument be convincing to anyone else?

The answer, of course, is simple. If you are someone who already believes in an interventionist, personal God, then you'll find this piece of logic by O'Reilly sound.

However, where is this same God when the child or the grandmother is drowning in the flood waters of the Tsunami or Katrina respectively? Surely, if God can make O'Reilly a "bold piece of humanity," why can not God be there when we could really use help? Seemingly, God has reasons to do good things, but when things get bad, God's reaction is to stick his thumb up his bum and idle by instead. God could do something bold for humanity such as attesting to his existence and simply save a drowning child from the waters, yet, this is something he can not, does not, or will not do.

Invariably, this answer from the theist is a special plead that devalues human life. We are told without doubt that God does only good things. Following the logic, God must feel it is a good thing that a child or an elderly person drowns.

That's a sick and twisted notion of good.

A really, really poor argument by a creationist is to assert that the beauty we find in the world or the universe is proof of a Creator - the God of Genesis. While needlessly creating a universe so immeasurably large that it dwarfs our itty-bitty pale blue dot in scale by comparison, this Creator went out of his way to make us nice stuff to look at and enjoy! Rainbows, flowers, butterflies, nebulas – invisible to the naked eye without the orbiting Hubble telescope, and children are all cited as incontrovertible evidence of this sublime, graphic artist.

This argument by a creationist seeks to focus our attention on the nice stuff, pulling at our heart-strings and appealing to our emotions. But why stop there? We know what beauty is from what is not beautiful. While it is delightfully easy and a joy to cite the good things in life, it is quite discomforting to face the things in life that are not beautiful, but ugly and just plain indifferent to our existence.

Very well. Let's talk about some of the ugly things and ask the question - just how evil and sadistic this designer is?

How do you explain this?

And what about the myriad other birth defects that affect our children and families?

• 1,040,865: congenital heart defects
• 323,904: neural tube defects, such as spina bifida
• 307,897:  haemoglobin disorders, such as thalassemia and sickle cell
• 217,293: Down Syndrome
• 177,032: G6PD enzyme deficiency

In fact, there are almost 8 MILLION children who are born with serious genetic birth defects.

Surely, in proximity to all of His creation, humans are more important than animals. He created us in His image, giving us souls, and took that same form to rescue us from Himself in his divine plan. Therefore, we must be of some importance.

No. The evidence says otherwise.