Atheism is a belief system that has no philosophy of factuality (i.e. no clear definition of a “fact”), it has no philosophy of logic (i.e. cannot define “logic”) and no philosophy of truth (i.e. cannot tell you what is true, and how you will know that whatever answer is given is the correct answer), and finally, no philosophy of morality (i.e. cannot provide a universal standard of good and evil to which all men and women should adhere to).
In other words, atheism is intellectually and morally bankrupt. But that does not stop them from asserting their irrational system. One atheist calls himself “the thinking atheist”. This “thinking” atheist posted his credo – that which he believes.
Maybe its time the genuine “thinking atheists” provided some evidence or proof why the “stuff” of the universe should not be allowed as “Exhibit A” for the existence of God.
I’ve called my response: The Unthinking Atheist. Here’s why. (Atheist’s credo is in blue)
Humans do not require a god to be moral.
I don’t now if this is intended to be some profound solution to the question of morality. Humans certainly need a standard in order to be moral. ANd if there is going to be genuine community, then the moral standard needs to be a universal standard. Atheists have trouble saying there is a universal moral standard, because they are committed to the idea that morality is person-relative — merely a matter of personal opinion. They also need a standard that is not abstract, and in order to get that, they need a moral standard where all the ingredients are related. That requires a Mind, a Mind big enough to encompass all of reality. This just goes to show that humans do need not just any god, but the personal, infinite God of the Bible as the Creator of all things to be a non-abstract and universal moral standard.
Religion divides more than it unites.
What does religion divide? It certainly makes a division between people. But the response is “so what?” This is a rather trivial explanation that apparently is supposed to explain everything (all divisions) yet it fails to address the idea of community, the origin of community, and how Christian community in particular unites people of like faith. Atheism similarly divides people because it offers another view of the world. The “thinking atheist” is no doubt hinting that if all people were atheists there would be no divisions. But, then again, neither would there be divisions if all people were Christians. Like atheists, who disagree on some particulars of atheism, Christians would continue to disagree on some particular point in Christianity. But the essential unity remains.
Since our culture until recently was Christian in its orientation, it is noticeable that some of the most divisive people in the community are the atheists themselves. They demand changes in legislation regarding gay rights, the teaching of evolution in the schools, and most of all, are champions of killing the unborn. And they think these things are not divisive?
It’s untrue that atheists ‘believe in nothing.’
It may be untrue atheists believe in ‘nothing’, but their difficulty is how they believe in anything.
It may be untrue atheists believe in ‘nothing’, but their difficulty is how they believe in anything. Once you step away from the idea of a Creation by a personal, infinite and triune God, the alternative is a universe of chance in which all components are merely “brute” facts — unrelated facts — or abstractions. Now the atheist has the task of building a philosophy of factuality and a philosophy of logic that somehow allows him to determine not only that something is true, but how he knows that what he knows about something is the right knowledge. But on atheism’s principles that the universe began as one huge impersonal abstraction, there is nothing inherent in the nature of things that tells the atheist where he should begin building a chain of relatedness between the “facts” that he observes.
It does not take more faith to be an atheist.
Are there degrees of faith? Not really. Everyone has faith (i.e. trust) in something. The Greek notion of faith is juxtaposed against reason. Reason, in this view, takes us so far, then faith takes us the rest of the way. The biblical idea of faith, on the other hand, is grounded and dependent upon historical acts beginning with the creation account. In this sense, faith is trusting in God, the word of God, and revelation as the necessary environment that allows man to climb out of the abyss of his own inability to create meaning out of abstractions.
It is not the degrees of faith, therefore, that are important. What is important are the objects of faith, and atheists have no objects of faith except their own individual personal experiences. Then, if they are consistent, they will follow first, David Hume’s skepticism that says you cannot really know “impressions”, just your “perceptions” of those “impressions.” If they continue with their logic, they will eventually follow Parmenides, Buddha and the Hindus in declaring everything is one, and there really is no plurality in the universe – just “perceptions” of plurality. When all is one, everything gets absorbed into the unfathomable unknown — illusion, or maya.
Atheists do not deny god because they wish to be god.
This really depends on how you define the word “god” or “God”. In biblical theism, God is the one who created all things and therefore claims the moral right to be able to make the rules of right behavior for his creation. This is the point of dispute that came to light when the tempter suggested that eating the forbidden fruit would make Eve wise and she too, would “be like God” determining the categories of right and wrong (Gen. 3:5).
When reviewing atheist’s criticisms of biblical theism, it will always fall back to a complaint about some aspect of the biblical moral code in the Torah — the first five books of the Bible. Some atheists object to the female cleanliness laws; other object to the commands to wipe out the Canaanites; and still others cannot wrap their mind around the idea of blood atonement and accept it as a legitimate moral act.
Atheists may not reject God because they wish to be God, but that is, in effect what they trade. One God — one voice of ultimate authority in their life — for another god — themselves.
Religion and science are incompatible.
This is just about as silly as atheism gets. There are plenty of Christians who are practicing scientists, and accepted in their field as competent practitioners. What the atheist probably means here is that certain religious conclusions about scientific “facts” are incompatible with atheistic conclusions about the same “facts.” But to say religion and science are incompatible is the fallacy of reification that suggests “religion” and “science” have a voice of their own, rather than the fact that theists and atheists have a different view about both religion and science. it also indicates this “thinking” atheist followed Richard Dawkins blindly, when Dawkins wrote that the choice was between “science and superstition.” Without evidence of any kind, Dawkins mounts a tirade against Christianity in particular, but in the process shows that he argues against his own straw man. Apparently the “thinking atheist” failed to ask some penetrating questions of Mr. Dawkins, such as, “what is truth, and how will you know that whatever answer you give is the correct answer.”
Complexity does not equal creation.
How can this statement make any kind of sense? Complexity = creation? Creation and complexity are not the same thing so cannot be equal at all. Creation is an explanation for complexity, but does not equal complexity. If you turn this around and say, “complexity does not equal evolution” it highlights the statement asserts nothing meaningful..
But, as usual, implied in a statement of this kind is the question of which standard is going to be used to determine the cause of the complex universe? Atheists will tell you on unscientific grounds, that the only standard is science itself. But that simply begs the question that how can a standard that changes with almost each scientific discovery be a standard for itself? A standard is a standard, not a pragmatic measuring tool that is subject to variation at the whim of any scientific discovery. The atheistic idea of a universal standard is a flood meter attached to a flotation device: it doesn’t matter how much water is around, it gives you the same reading because the baseline keeps getting adjusted.
The scientific method trumps primitive anonymous texts.
This is intended to be some profound statement of epistemology, it appears. But in what way does the scientific method “trump” primitive anonymous texts? The atheist here cannot have the Christian Scriptures in mind here because they are neither primitive nor anonymous. As usual, though, it begs the question: Which standard is to be used to determine the truthfulness of anything, and how will you know that whatever answer is given is the correct answer?
The scriptures are ridiculous, offensive and demonstrably false.
By what standard? By whose standard? If the standard is merely some abstraction called “logic” or “truth” then the atheist here is merely incoherent. Atheists have yet to show how you can get “logic” and “truth” out of a universe that is ultimately an abstraction. Until they can put forward a positive defense of atheism, all they are doing is blowing hot air in the pretense that their claim is some universal and undeniable truth. To do that, they will have to back-pedal and admit there are universal truths. But on what basis will they do this? On the basis of an abstract notion of universal abstract logic?
One doesn’t require an afterlife to have a meaningful life.
This is sort of true. What it takes to have a meaningful life is a standard to measure one’s activities. This is the Achilles’ Heel of atheism. It has no universal standard, merely the opinions of each human being. Thus, Robespierre, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Castro, Marquis de Sade and Neitzsche all led “meaningful” lives. The question remains, however, was their “meaningful life” a good one or an evil one? Back to the missing standards of atheism, again. Where do atheists get their standards that are impersonal and abstract?
Threats of eternal hell-fire betray a weak argument.
Betray a weak argument for what? It is certainly a very strong argument for the existence of hell-fire – assuming, once again, that it true. So again, the “Unthinking Atheist,” who believes he is offering something profound in his statements, has not thought out a logical answer at all. He’s just throwing abstract concepts – hell-fire, eternal, weak – around as if they have some significant meaning other than what merely resides in the mind of this finite and limited atheist.
Schools should be filled with facts not fanatics.
This is true. I heartily agree with this. What will be in dispute between us, however, is the definition of what constitutes a fanatic. I think all schools should be filled with facts, but not facts interpreted by fanatical atheists or any other kind of atheist. But this is because I have a different standard to use than the atheist when it comes to determining the meaning of a “good” fanatic versus a “bad” fanatic. Atheism has no philosophy of factuality that could feed a school program. And the distress in so much modern education is already the application of a methodology that says “facts” are just a matter of opinion, and it is opinion that determines facts, not the facts themselves that inform opinion.
Your personal experience does not prove god.
It may be true that some personal experiences do not prove the existence of God. But they don’t disprove him either. The proof for the God of biblical theism, however, is not abstract experiences, but experiences with the God who is the Creator of all things. He is the self-sufficient God who is absolute rationality, absolute will, absolute power, etc. An experience with THIS God is certainly proof for the person having the experience.
An inability to disprove god does not prove god.
An inability to disprove something merely means an inability to disprove that something. It speaks more about the abilities of the person making the claim than it does about the claim itself. Anyone one who claims there is insufficient proof for God is at best, going to say that “so far” there is insufficient proof. But such a claim assumes that the person making the claim has at his fingertips all current knowledge, and that the current interpretations of the “facts” of the universe he relies on are the correct ones.
It is an inescapable point of logic, that to make a truth claim of any kind implies a notion of infallibility which, in turn, rests on some idea of omniscience – all knowledge. Either infallibility and omniscience are attributed to a divine being, God, or they are attributed to a human being. But it is known without doubt that no one human being – nor the collected knowledge of all past, present and future human beings – will make the grade to infallibility and omniscience. Human beings, by definition, are finite, and finiteness and infallibility don’t go well together.
The atheists who can and do think recognize their limits of human knowledge, and so fall back on a notion of knowledge and truth that is merely person-relative. Each person knows what he knows; he is his own standard. They do not live comfortably with this view, since many atheists are evangelistic to the point of wanting to turn you from your person-relative truths to their. They have no moral reason why they should try to do it, nor any explanation why their psychology points them in this direction time and time again.
The moment an atheist admits, however, that there are external standards of knowledge, truth and morality that are not abstractions and not person-relative, he is well on the way to understanding that atheism is an incoherent philosophy that is incapable of explaining anything. Period.
Not knowing what caused the Big Bang does not prove god.
Again, a statement offered as if it something profound when in reality it is another piece of trivia. Not knowing only proves no knowledge. Anyone can tell that. But it takes a “thinking atheist” to elevate such a basic statement as some kind of “credo” about the existence of God.
And if you believe in any gods, the burden of proof is on you.
In reality, the burden of proof is on God himself. If there is a God of any kind, he must prove himself. This is so obvious, you wonder why more people don’t grasp the logic of biblical theism. Everything in Scripture is predicated on the first words: “In the beginning, God created.” And what would be the proof for this? Why, the creation itself, duh! But “thinking” atheists disallow the proof that the Bible provides, then demand “prove God, but you must now do it without reference to the creation.” And they call this “thinking atheism.” Someone’s on an ego trip. Maybe its time the genuine “thinking atheists” provided some evidence or proof why the “stuff” of the universe should not be allowed as “Exhibit A” for the existence of God.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.