Akiane's Story Proves Atheists Wrong

Akiane’s Story Proves Atheists Wrong: Born To Atheists Yet Religious As A Baby

Some atheists here assume that people are only religious because they were indoctrinated as children by religious parents.

They believe christians won’t be religious if they weren’t indoctrinated by their parents during childhood.

But the story of Akiane Kramaric who was born to Atheists parents absolutely debunks that idea, because despite the fact that she was brought up and homeschooled by her atheists parents with virtually no other external influence, she wasn’t just religious but her extraordinary experiences as a little child inspired the conversion of her atheists’ parents and made them to believe in God.

At the tender age of 4, Jesus appeared to her and said He would teach her how to draw, and He did as it was through her that Jesus blessed the modern world with a portrait of what He actually looked like while He was human on Earth, which she eventually made at the age of eight.

However knowing how some atheists reason, with an orientation extremely inclined to discrediting any story that speaks in favor of religion or God, such as those in the Bible, especially with the fiction card, it’s important to note Akaine Kramarik’s story is not fictional or recorded in the Bible but a true modern day story. She’s a real human being that exists and she’s even made an appearance in the Oprah Winfrey show among others.

Her incredible story and portraits including that of Jesus could easily be confirmed via Google search, Wikipedia or even her own website.

The portrait of Jesus which she drew at the age of eight called “Prince of peace” is said to have been her most valuable portrait yet, which is not surprising since it was Jesus who taught her how to draw, so it makes perfect sense that her best work had to be that which she drew of Him

Special pleading fallacy.

Plus, the ‘evidence’ is hearsay " At the tender age of 4Jesus appeared to her and said—"

It’s just that, a story, a claim.

Appeared on Oprah? Oh Please. Another logical fallacy, argument from authority.

This is an atheist forum, the bible is not accepted here as credible evidence of anything.

You have presented no credible evidence, nothing which can be tested, which is the basis of empirical method.

So Jesus was a brown-haired Caucasian with green eyes? And for just $3,300 I can get a 3’x4’ print of his portrait by an 8yo child.

This is all a rather transparent attempt at advertising a commercial venture. I ain’t buying the picture, the story, or your ridiculous religion.


How could a story prove something?

Better yet: how can atheists be wrong? For my atheism to be wrong; would seem to require that I think god is real, but I’m lying about it. :woman_shrugging:t2:

Oops, didn’t get that far. the whole post is woo. In my naivete, I assumed the OP was just another apologist, albeit loopier than most

I’ve always found the notion of a tall caucasian Jesus a bit silly. Born in the Middle East 2000 years ago, he would have almost certainly have been relatively short, with dark skin, dark hair and dark brown eyes.

As it turns out, a realistic picture of Jesus has been around for some years. Of course it’s all moot, what with Jesus probably not having existed and all.

A word to the family of that little girl. Perhaps have ago at getting her the psychiatric help she clearly needs, instead of exploiting her. Arseholes. :face_with_symbols_over_mouth:

The third sentence of the Wikipedia article you linked says her father was Catholic, which makes you a liar/exaggerator. Where do you think stories like this come from? They often come from people like you exaggerating.

Why should anyone pay any attention to your testimony for Jesus after you’ve been caught lying about it? I mean, if your side is right, and ours is wrong: wouldn’t it still be a terrible idea for your side to try to convince us by sending us liars? It is a stupid idea, no matter who is right.


My 3 year old nephew drew an accurate picture of “god” . We were all amazed when he told us it was OH GOD…it later transpired that his Mum was having an affair and that the picture was of Charlie…but of course all he heard was Mummy call “oh God” from inside the bedroom. Bang goes another profitable venture.

I guess a hard atheist could be wrong because he/she claims '“there is no god/I believe there is no god”.

Me, I’m a ‘soft atheist’ simply don’t believe nor claim to know. I think it’s unlikely there is god, but concede there could be. Much like there could be fairies at the bottom of my garden. Be delighted to believe if anyone will show me some evidence.

A minor point; AS far as I can tell, proof of a prime cause is not in itself evidence of any other qualities that prime source/god would have. It could not be assumed that he/she/it is benign, (The YHWH of Judaism is a monster) or has any other qualities; each would need to be demonstrated .


Think I may have told this true story before. (told to me by my mother, so I know it’s true)

I was about 4, at kindy. We were finger painting.

Teacher: “My goodness Cranky, you’re very busy, what are you painting?”

Me “I’m painting a picture of Godd”

Teacher (patronisingly): “But Cranky, no one knows what god looks like”

Me: " They will in a minute"

Now I think that story is every bit as credible as Henry’s fairy tale. :innocent:

1 Like

However, you could say that we can reasonably conclude that there is no god because:

  1. Nobody has ever found evidence of a god, despite millennia of desperate searching by millions.
  2. Despite the exponential growth of our scientific knowledge since the 18th century, nobody has ever discovered a phenomenon that required a supernatural explanation.
  3. Every claimed “miracle” has been attributable to fraud or natural phenomena.
  4. Gods always mirror the cultural environments of the people who create them. Jupiter is a Roman aristocrat with a dysfunctional family. Jehovah and Allah are tribal warlords.

The list goes on. But these reasons are enough for me to say there is no god and never has been.

Not quite.

Enough for you to make that claim. Not enough for me. I think that in view of the argument you presented, we may reasonably say that there is probably no god.

My position is that god cannot be argued into or out of existence. I demand empirical evidence and will accept nothing less .

Having said that it’s all moot. As far as I’m aware so far, all claims about god are unfalsifiable . Perhaps pedantic, but I try to avid truth claims when it comes to metaphysics. Day to day ,I live as if there are no god(s) and as if I have free will, even though I lean towards hard determinism.

Lovely story about a pretty girl with great artistic talent and a persistent faith in her god and her determined marketing strategy. I note that one of her pencil sketches at age five is entitled ‘The Business Man’. At age five I would assume it is a portrait of her father, who probably organised her marketing plan, practising Catholic or not.

Does it provide any evidence against atheism? No.

In a round about way Henry is just championing the old flimsy idea of the ‘innate knowledge of god’ argument, that guarantees we have all been hard wired by god before birth to ‘know’ he exists and therefore cannot claim ignorance as a defence for being unworthy horrible sinners at heart.

So I read Akiane’s story, studied her paintings (interestingly displayed by age, beginning with self portraits at age four) and I am not convinced that her talent or her faith can be used to disprove anything. I am still an atheist and Henry you proved nothing but your relentless desire to prove that which simply cannot be proven or disproved.
Give it up mate, you are making yourself look ludicrous.

Its just one more story of a person with incredible talents unable to accept their gifts as being directly attributable to the person they are or how they perceive the world, and are impelled by their own acquired insecurities and doubt, to project the source of that talent outside themselves. Like a person who has been convinced they are incapable of being “good” or “moral” or “complete” and literally relying on an unsubstantiated power outside themselves as monitored by professional spiritual interpreters.
Its the equivalent of saying “I cant be good with out God” when one says “I cant be an exceptional artist without having art lessons from Jesus.”

Two issues occurred to me as I read the original post. Many have already noted how this post by Henry S. is just another story/hearsay with no evidence. With all their good points, I don’t have any more to add there.

The other item that struck me: “At the tender age of 4, Jesus appeared to her and said He would teach her how to draw, …”

Hmm, according to WHO death statistics, on average 15,000 children around the world under the age of 5 die every day.
God and Jesus allow this to happen when he/they have the power to help them. Instead, Jesus decides to appear before this 4 year-old to teach her how to draw. And apparently inaccurately if the portrait, ‘Prince of Peace,’ is supposed to be JC.

Something doesn’t fit my logic and reasoning. But why should I ever expect religion or any gods to make sense or be consistent?


AWWW FUCK! Use one unfounded bullshit assumption to debunk another bullshit unfounded bullshit assumption. If you have the patients to sit through the bullshit… (here you go…)

1 Like

Something else I did not mention but is painfully obvious from the Wikipedia article about Akiane is that she openly admits her whole family have been spiritual, having sampled Catholicism, Christianity and Buddhism. She freely admits that at least one of the several parochial schools she attended had a profound influence on her sense of the divine through exposure to religious art.
And just so you understand Henry, a parochial school is “is a private primary or secondary school affiliated with a religious organization, and whose curriculum includes general religious education”.
So much for your claim to her parents and early life being atheists.

In short Henry you been caught lying for Jesus.

1 Like

I think the reasonable conclusion is “There appears to be no good evidence for a god.” (We have 2000 years of failures for the Christian god and the failures of another hundred thousand gods to demonstrate this.) “Therefore, there is no good reason to believe a god exists.”

This is different than the assertion, “No god exists.” Making this assertion literally creates the Black Swan Fallacy. I fully agree, most evidence supports the fact that no god exists.

A lack of evidence, is in fact. evidence of absence. Each debunked theistic claim indicates an area examined that no longer needs to be examined by scientific inquiry. It is a road closed as we know it does not lead us to god. Close enough roads and if the god thing is out there hiding, well, it’s off some side road we have not yet explored. Until we run across it, there is no reason to make the assumption that it is actually there and with each failure it becomes more reasonable and more logical to make the assumption that the damn thing probably isn’t there at all. “Probably.”

I think it is completely fair to say we do know where the God thing is not. It is not in the God of the gaps as the theists can not demonstrate that even a gap exists. It is not in any ontological assertion as one can not think a god into existence. Renaming consciousness does not work. Appeals to morality fall flat on their face as we understand the evolution of morality. Presuppositionalism is just blind assertive bullshit with no evidence at all. etc etc etc… We certainly know where this god thing is not hiding. That to me appears demonstrable.

I love this stuff. I did a quick read of the transcription and
David Abia Ariellesen’s condemnation of Akiane really set off a shit storm in the comments section. Its a fundamentalist christian bloodbath about idolators, fake prophets, nasty old men…Prince of Peace indeed, and only after one drawing lesson!!

No they don’t, I have literally never read a single atheist here assume that ALL theistic belief is the result of childhood indoctrination.

Please cite some evidence for your claim.

Now they’re Christians, and again, please evidence this ridiculous straw man fallacy you’ve made up?

In medieval Europe everyone knew that there were fire-breathing dragons. They also knew that there was a god. The former piece of false knowledge has been totally discarded today due to a complete lack of evidence, and nobody today would challenge you for saying there are no dragons. Why should the god myth be any different?

The dragon myth actually had more evidence to back it up than the god myth. Medieval people saw carved dragon heads on Viking longboats marauding up rivers. The appearance of those boats was usually followed by fire and slaughter. Half-understood stories from traumatized survivors did the rest.

Evidence please…

I was drawing at 4, as were all my grandchildren. I’d say that demonstrates that drawing is an innate skill all children indulge at or about that age.