Song - Atheistic Lawyer
- Bible Brian
- 13 hours ago
- 7 min read
Lyrics
[Verse 1]
Well, I walked in the courtroom, hat in my hand.
The judge said, “Son, you better make a stand.”
The prosecution brought a truckload of proof,
but I shook my head and I raised the roof.
[Chorus]
There ain’t no evidence, can’t you see?
Your proof's as thin as a cool summer's breeze!
I went to law school, and that makes me right!
So listen to me, don't believe your eyes.
[Verse 2]
They brought in papers, fingerprints too.
Witnesses swore, yeah, more than a few.
But I just smirked, said, “That don’t count.
Your so called 'evidence' just doesn't amount."
[Chorus]
There ain’t no evidence, can’t you see?
Your proof's as thin as a cool summer's breeze!
I went to law school, and that makes me right!
So listen to me, don't believe your eyes.
[Verse 3]
The prosecution brought a 60 inch screen,
so the footage could be easily seen.
My client did the crime, and was caught on tape,
so I knew what I had to say.
[Chorus]
There ain’t no evidence, can’t you see?
Your proof's as thin as a cool summer's breeze!
I went to law school, and that makes me right!
So listen to me, don't believe your eyes.
[Verse 4]
Oh, the jury stared like I’d lost my mind,
but reasoning’s hard for your everyday kind.
I told ’em plain: “Y’all ain’t qualified,
You didn’t read the books...”
(though neither did I).
[Bridge]
I sat back down, knowing that I’d won.
The truth’s what I say, it's over and done.
But the jury declared the verdict’s in:
“Guilty as charged”... I DIDN'T WIN?!?
[Chorus]
BUT THERE AIN'T NO EVIDENCE? CAN'T YOU SEE?
I DISMISSED IT ALL! LISTEN TO ME!
MY QUALIFICATIONS MAKE ME SMARTER THAN YOU!
WE'RE APPEALING THIS CASE! WE BETTER NOT LOSE!
Background
Atheistic Lawyer is a satirical song depicting a lawyer whose primary strategy is denial. The prosecution presents an increasingly comical amount of evidence, but the lawyer never actually deals with it. He denies the evidence, boasts of his qualifications, and even puts down the jury as if they are all necessarily beneath him.
The song is sung from the lawyer's perspective, but at the same time is intended to criticise his attitude. As a result, he says things that aren't necessarily in keeping with his character. The ironic line "The prosecution brought a truckload of proof", for example, isn't something the lawyer would actually admit. In fact, it isn't something he would reasonably tolerate from the prosecution. In any debate, the mere assertion that there is "a truckload of proof" is just poor form, unless it is immediately backed up with solid examples. This makes it all the more tragic that the specific kind of atheist the song is designed to take a jab at will usually say it without backing it up.
The chorus repeats throughout the song. It begins by asserting the lack of evidence, but immediately contradicts itself by saying "your proof's as thin as a cool summer's breeze". This suggests the opposing side is presenting evidence, it's just that the evidence is not of a quality the lawyer is willing to accept. This mirrors the reality quite well. There is evidence for Christianity, and it's often enough to convince many atheists who set out to study it. But because we all have different standards for evidence, some of us convert, whereas others admit that nothing would convince them.
Having set his standard, the lawyer commits the appeal to authority fallacy, asserting that because he went to law school, that makes him right. This is rarely so overt in actual discussion, but it's perhaps the most common fallacy (paired with ad hominem) in discussions involving atheists. The lawyer finally asserts "listen to me, don't believe your eyes". This is one thing the lawyer seems entirely blind to: He is entirely unfamiliar with each member of the jury. In any discussion, it is always wise to "assume I know more than you assume I know". Asserting there's no evidence is a lot less convincing to someone who has seen some.
And of course, in verse 2, they do see some. When you think of the word "evidence", the first thing you're probably going to think of is fingerprints. So, naturally, I had to include it. Obviously, when it comes to religious discussion, it's not as much of an issue, but metaphorically, you can say that God's fingerprints are found throughout creation. In fact, this is a very Biblical argument. In Psalm 19:1-4, and Romans 1:18-21, we read that creation testifies of its Creator, to the extent that unbelievers are without excuse. The development of modern science (thanks to the Christian faith) only amplifies this.
The "papers" and witnesses that swore are obviously more literal here, given that a strong piece of evidence for the Christian faith is the historical documentation. I chose that phrase very carefully. A small minded atheist looks at the Bible as utterly irrelevant. If you so much as cite Scripture to define the position you are defending, you will immediately be met with accusations of "circular reasoning". In reality, first of all, the Bible is not one source, but a collection of 66. The New Testament alone is 27 books, each either eyewitness or contemporary testimony. It is, therefore, circular reasoning to assign the Bible any lower value than we would assign any other work of antiquity. One may more easily dismiss Socrates than Jesus.
In verse 3, a 60 inch screen is brought in, and video evidence shows the client committing the crime. This is just to increase the comedy of the song. Obviously, no one has video evidence of literally anything that happened before 1826. But there are two things to consider here. First, as previously alluded to, it wouldn't matter if they did. It's essential to note that evidence doesn't speak for itself, it is interpreted. This, again, is why some atheists become Christians, but others literally admit God could re-arrange the stars to say "Richard Dawkins, I am God, believe in me", and advanced aliens would be taken as the more probable explanation. In other words, it would be entirely possible for an atheist to believe Jesus rose from the dead, yet still reject His divinity. Denial is, and will always be, an option.
But for those who aren't willing to take that option, there is an extra layer. There is evidence we can all access, but there is also evidence that cannot be accessed by anyone else. Personal experience cannot be shared, it can only be testified to. In other words, there is evidence that is genuinely useless to anyone except the one person to whom it belongs. It is still good reason for them to believe.
After three full choruses of pure denial and assertion, the jury isn't taking the lawyer seriously. He once again puts them down, asserting they're just average Joes who aren't qualified. He also tells them "You didn't read the books", but quietly whispers "though neither did I". Sadly, Mozart AI only occasionally managed to register that this was supposed to be a quiet change of tone, and most of those versions were ruined in other ways. This line is a subtle jab at the way atheists regularly over-state the amount of study they've done. In particular, they'll often claim to have read the Bible, when in reality they won't have read more than a few scattered verses shared by their favorite influencers.
After all of his boasting, the lawyer rests his case, believing he's done a sufficient job defending his client. To his unjustified surprise, none of his tactics worked. The jury finds his client guilty, and he is sent into a fit of rage. He concludes with a slightly altered version of the chorus (which sounds a lot less angry in the final version than intended), in which he promises to appeal the case. The word "qualifications" is messed up, but that's AI for you.
In reality, the kind of atheist this song is designed to mock isn't likely to admit to losing a debate, no matter how horribly they get trounced. In fact, they're likely to get increasingly more obnoxious, then declare victory when the Christian inevitably gives up. For such people, I have designed the perfect trophy to celebrate their victory:
But of course, in reality, wearing an opponent down until they just don't feel stimulated by a discussion is no kind of victory worth claiming. The only victory worth claiming, ultimately, is a successful defence of the truth. Denial alone can never be sufficient for this. Not in court, not in online debate forums, and especially not when you're standing before the judgement seat of the Holy One.
Ultimately, death is inevitable. Denying it is delusional. Delaying it is futile. The only wise approach is to prepare for it. Now, if atheism is true, we are inescapably tied to Nihilism. You can fully commit to the part, you can win as many debates as you like, your prize is identical to every other human being on the planet. And you won't even know it. In other words, whether it's true, or it's false, atheism isn't worth fighting for. In other words, atheists show they don't actually believe their worldview (or at least lack the ability to think through the implications) every time they argue for it.
By contrast, as long as you believe Christianity is true, it is entirely consistent to fight for it. It may still be false. I am of course going to contend that's unlikely, but it might be. In this case, the reward will never come, but you won't know that unless you know it's not true. By contrast, if it is true, it's worth every moment you spend defending it, every moment you spend living it, every time you say "no" to temptation.
And if we're being honest, that's where the denial comes from. It is far easier to deny God than to deny ourselves. At this point, we've gone far beyond the scope of the song, but I feel it's worth addressing this here. Denial of God is not, and has never been, an evidence issue. Even the most hard-hearted atheist occasionally has his doubts. "What if there is a God?" Well, if there is, the scenario will play out exactly as in the song. Except you won't be the lawyer. You'll be the client. The evidence against you is mounting, denial is all you have. But you're guilty as charged, and those charges will include sins you don't even remember.
The only way to survive this trial is to get a real lawyer. But only one can win this case. I like to say that when a sinner believes in Christ, they effectively "swap verdicts". He who knew no sin became sin that those who know Him may become His righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21). In other words, He took your guilt, you take His exoneration. Taking it is entirely your choice.
AI usage
This song was produced using Mozart AI.
Comments