Atheists
Atheists often criticize Christians and other faith based systems. Every once in a while I read or think of a new thought in relation to this subject. You have probably heard many of these. However, I will try to keep an up to date list in this post by adding to it from time to time rather than entering new subjects each time.
1. If the Atheist is correct then they have no moral basis upon which to judge Christians.
2. If the Atheist is correct then they have no basis for any moral judgment at all. Any moral argument is completely subjective if there is no moral absolute or rule by which we all should live.
3. If the Atheist is correct then all the complexity of life and intelligence around us evolved from matter/energy.
a. If this is the case then the Atheist has a problem. It takes faith to believe that given enough time matter will evolve into what we see today.
b. The faith the Atheist has is a trinity. They replace the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with Time, Matter and Chance.
4. If the Atheist says “There is no God” then they make themselves out to be God.
a. In order to make a universally absolute statement you must be all places at all times – past, present and future
b. You must also have complete knowledge of everything in that space/time (past, present and future).
c. In order to accomplish a and b above you must be all powerful to pull it off.
d. The Atheist has just assigned himself the attributes of God, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. The only possible conclusion is the Atheist does believe in God. They just believe themselves to be God.
e. Conclusion: Atheism is a self defeating, illogical system.
I’m very happy to see that you have restarted the blog.
I loved stumbling across it but was saddened it never got updated!
I guess that’ll not be the case for now on.
I have a question about this entry’s argument:
4. If the Atheist says “There is no God” then they make themselves out to be God.
a. In order to make a universally absolute statement you must be all places at all times – past, present and future.
I don’t understand 4.a. in particular: I can say that water is wet without being in all places at all times.
While I understand your thinking behind 4. (making onself to be God), that is now how the Atheist sees it.
Is there a more objective way of making this point clear.
I ask this since your argument here is most useful in debating with an atheist or agnostic.
Most atheists I know would simply reject the logic that denying the existence of God makes themselves out to be God.
Hi Terran,
It is late so please excuse me if I make some serious grammatical errors.
While your argument is correct that you can say water is wet we need to remember that God is not the same as water. In addition we cannot say at all times in all places that water has always been wet or will always be wet or is perceived as wet. We assume it as a very high probability but that is all the further a limited creature can go. In addition wet is a very subjective thing. If you were born with no sense of touch you would not understand what wet is. Furthermore you can be standing in the atmosphere and not perceive that it is wet even though it is partially made of water. For example, I spent a good amount of time in the Middle East in the military. It was very hot and dry. Yes, there was some water in the air but I guarantee you that I could not perceive it.
A discussion about God and His existence is a matter of a different sort. Nobody has seen God in the literal sense with the exception of those who saw Jesus. Of course, He is as much of God as you can see in human form so let’s not go nuts here on that issue. It could take another hour to discuss. The bottom line point is the only thing that can make an absolute statement of any sort is by definition God. In addition, proving a universal negative is impossible.. Proving a universal positive is also impossible. All we can do is approach very high or very low probability since we are mortal. Had we been here for eternity and if we had complete power and knowledge we could say things with absolute certainty. That is the definition of God. All we can say is we believe and give the reasons. All the Atheist can do is say he does not believe which really puts him into a system of faith of his own. The Agnostic can only say that he doesn’t know what to believe.
I am the first to admit I am a limited human being full of flaws, apt to sin and commit errors quite frequently. All we really ask of the Atheist is that he acknowledges his limitations and that he does not hold himself above the believer. That is the more objective point of all of this. Some believers are almost as bad by insisting that the Atheist believe what they believe. The bottom line is there are two distinct types of Atheists, ordinary and ornery . The ordinary Atheist will listen to reason. The ornery Atheist will just play games with you and waste your time. I suggest you try to reach the ordinary Atheist. I suggest you simply attempt to get them to see that a believer has more evidence and a higher probability of being correct.
The honest Atheist soon becomes an Agnostic. Since Agnostic means A = No and Gnostic = Knowledge (for those who don’t get the Latin) then they are definitely at a disadvantage in the world and will hopefully be less judgemental.
I hope this has helped a bit. I will be unavailable for the next several days.
Regards,
Mike K.