I do not believe in the existence of atheists. No, this is not a play on words or a trick statement. Atheists don’t exist. By “atheist” I am referring to the ideal person who does not believe in the existence of God, not the person who labels themselves as an atheist. Clear as mud? All people who label themselves as “atheist” are not, by definition, atheists, because they all believe in the existence of God.
I know they believe in the existence of God by their irrational behavior. I am not referring to the inconsistency of their lives with their claims. For instance, the nonbeliever (I believe I will refer to our “atheist” friends by that term for the duration of this article) necessarily holds the belief that we are the result of time plus matter plus chance, merely evolving accidents, the product of random collisions of matter. Yet they wish to believe that these accidental collisions produce truth, fact, and a coherent understanding of the universe. They are an accident producing accidents. As C.S. Lewis said, “It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.” I am not referring to that irrational behavior, though I did enjoy pointing that out.
The irrational behavior I am referring to is the nonbeliever’s inability to admit when they have been defeated. Many nonbelievers are well educated people. They have done well to keep Theists on the hot seat. But when a well educated man — especially one schooled in logic — has his entire belief system completely dismantled and displayed as inconsistent and false, everybody else knows that this smart person knows he has been defeated. But he refuses to concede. He will not admit defeat. Instead, he retreats to his study to continue his search for one — just one — argument or proof that God does not exist. And he will repeat this over and over.
This irrational behavior is indicative of the real issue, and that is, that God exists, they know it, and they don’t like Him. If they admit He exists, then they have to bow the knee. Their rules no longer apply, God’s law does. That law of God that is written on the heart of every man is eating them alive, and they want very badly to make Him go away so that hopefully the guilt will go away as well. And so despite the evidences to prove the existence of God and the inconsistency of their own worldview, they continue to irrationally hold on to these beliefs.
To further my point, compare the debate over the existence of God to the debate over the existence of unicorns. I could just stop there, right? What debate? And who cares? What bearing does that have on my life? If an intelligent person were clearly shown that belief or non belief in unicorns were unfounded and false, and unicorns did or did not exist, then for them to continue to hold that belief would be an insult to their intelligence. If God were just some unicorn theory that had no real affect on a person’s life, as some nonbelievers claim, then why don’t they treat it as such? Why don’t they just shrug and go on?
Here is how this works, and how I know I’m right. When the believer is discussing the existence of God with a nonbeliever, ask them why they don’t like God. Every one of them will present a list. That list will ultimately consist of areas of God’s law and His character that interfere with the self-law of the nonbeliever. They don’t want a God to tell them what to do and not to do: don’t fornicate, don’t steal, love your neighbor, go to church. They will also likely present a number of misunderstandings about God and the Church. They don’t understand grace. God to them is one big meanie and that if they don’t follow all of His rules perfectly, all the time, God will have no mercy and fry them like Uzza. And most of the time, the list usually begins and ends with Christians being such big jerks, which is, unfortunately, one thing the nonbeliever got right. They don’t want to believe in God because they don’t want to end up like us.
Whatever the list of reasons, they are the subjective beliefs of the nonbeliever. Proofs for the existence of God don’t address a person’s subjective arguments, which is why most apologists don’t ever address them. For some reason it is beneath the apologist to talk to a nonbeliever like he is a human being and not a broken math equation. By all means, use truth, logic, evidences, and arguments. After all, we have truth on our side. But after you have handed their worldview back to them in a broken heap, and they break into irrational behavior, find out what their real problem is with God.
There are no atheists. If you were to find one real atheist, as G.K. Chesterton says, you will have found a madman.
Dante Tremayne
Neiswonger
Doug
Josh Hicks
Clay
I also argue your thesis.
http://spiritualquestions.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/there-are-no-atheists-just-idolaters/
Comment by joeynelson — November 25, 2008 @ 4:14 am |
“he retreats to his study to continue his search for one — just one — argument or proof that God does not exist.”
I have absolutely no proof that a God doesn’t exist and I’m aware of the futility of searching for proof for the non-existence of anything. As there is no proof for a God (and certainly no proof for any particular God) I don’t believe there is one (or more).
“If they admit He exists, then they have to bow the knee.”
You seem to be confused here between what is true and what you want to be true. It doesn’t matter what I want to be real as that has no bearing on reality. I don’t believe things because I want them to be true or untrue, I believe things based on the evidence.
“If God were just some unicorn theory that had no real affect on a person’s life, as some nonbelievers claim, then why don’t they treat it as such?”
Unfortunately, the God theory does have an effect on an atheists life. To me, God is as real as unicorns but of course lots of people do believe in God and this has implications on my and my families life. For example, there aren’t any people believing in unicorns seeking to challenge Evolution or flying aeroplanes into buildings. Of course, there are lots of wonderful religious people in the World just as there are wonderful non-believers. I’d like to live in a World where both groups can respectfully disagree with one another, and I don’t think you should view the existence of atheists as a threat to your religious beliefs.
“When the believer is discussing the existence of God with a nonbeliever, ask them why they don’t like God. Every one of them will present a list.”
The reason I don’t believe in a God is because no evidence has been presented for the existence of a God. The reason I don’t believe in a particular God (Christian, Greek, etc) is that I’ve seen no reason why one might be more plausible than another.
I could make a list of things I like about the Christian version of God and things I don’t like, but this would have no bearing on whether a God does or does not exist.
Anyway, have a lovely day
Lucy
Comment by Lucy — November 25, 2008 @ 10:18 am |
I think you will find something of interest in Psalm 10:4. Look at the Hebrew for thoughts… “All his thoughts are, “There is no God.” ”
Also consider Psalm 14:1 & 53:1
I like the rest of that CS Lewis quote… “If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts – i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy – are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true?I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents.”
Thank you for your thoughts Dante,
Cris Jesse
Comment by Cris Jesse — November 25, 2008 @ 10:29 am |
Glad to know you’re another Christian who thinks they can read minds.
Comment by morsec0de — November 25, 2008 @ 12:49 pm |
Dante, thanks for the article. Though I would agree with the arguments of the article, I would say that these kind of arguments might be a hindrance to getting us close to winning the heart of an ‘atheist’. Just a thought.
Comment by ScottL — November 25, 2008 @ 2:53 pm |
I agree. If an athiest did happen upon this article they would feel more like they are being judged, than they are being loved. In order for a person to come to God and Christ they must WANT to, you can’t force them. To make them WANT God in their life they look to the ACTIONS of other Christians. If they see Christians as people who JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE all the time and act self righteous well then who would want to be part of that. In the end a Christian’s goal on this earth is to win over others to Christ. Plain and simple. So why is it that “Christians” are on TV and protesting (JUDGING) others and attacking every non believer views. Jesus was not seen hanging around the pharisees (self righteous) he was seen among the sinners (abortionist,liars,thieves,drunks,prostitutes,athiests) showing them that they are accepted by Christ that ANYONE is accepted by him. NO MAN is denied CHRIST!!!! The door is there. So STOP JUDGING people who don’t fit your point of view, stop getting on a soap box saying LOOK HOW HOLY I AM, LOOK WHAT I WRITE and start having a meaningful open discussion with those you people who have different points of views. Show them that anyone person can come to Christ, no one is judged. A SIN is a SIN. No matter how big or small. All sins are forgiven through Christ.
Comment by Jason — November 25, 2008 @ 7:52 pm |
You guys are very weird (and seemingly, very stupid).
Dante essentially argues that atheists claim not to believe in the existence of God because they don’t *like* God.
Meanwhile Jason comments that in order to win over the atheists, they have to be enticed to *want* to believe — that is, essentially, they have to be made to *like* the ideas being presented for belief.
It’s as if you guys decide what to believe based on what you’d *like* to be true, and you think everyone else thinks that way too.
What you’d *like* or don’t like has nothing to do with whether something is believable.
And Dante’s claim that atheists merely claim not to believe while secretly believing is idiotic. How dumb do you take people to be? You think people are sitting around thinking, gee, I really don’t like God at all, so if I pretend he doesn’t exist, then I don’t have to pay attention to him! This despite the fact that this God is supposedly omniscient. You think people are *that* stupid, eh? Well, with the stupidity levels you are currently exhibiting, I suppose there might be people that stupid, but most people aren’t, and the vast majority of atheists certainly aren’t.
As for your “unicorns” argument, you’re comparing apples and oranges. There is no debate whether unicorns exist, because nobody believes they exist. If, say, 90% of people *did* believe they existed, and there were special unicorn hunting holidays, and tax-exempt sporting goods stores specializing in unicorn hunting gear, and there were petitions to get unicorn-biology taught in the schools and so on, you can bet the debate would be much livelier. So you completely miss when you make that particular comparison.
As for being able to make a list of attributes of God which one might find objectionable, I could do the same thing about Hannibal Lechter. Guess what? Hannibal Lechter is, like your God, a fictional character. You don’t have to believe a fictional character exists in order to read a book which is about that fictional character, and be able to discuss that fictional character’s actions.
I think you’re just believing what you want to be true. You want it to be true that there are really no atheists. You want it to be true that there is at least one non-retarded argument for the truth of your religion. You want it to be true that the arguments against your religion aren’t utterly devastating. Unfortunately for you, what you want to be true has nothing to do with what actually is true.
Comment by scaryreasoner — November 25, 2008 @ 11:34 pm |
Thanks for the comments. Everyone so far has something great to say. Let me try to address as much as I can.
First, the actions of the atheist. I am catching quite a bit of flak for judging the atheist and painting him or her in a bad light. That is not my intention. I deliberately called the atheist intelligent and a friend. The irrational behavior of clinging to a belief despite the evidence is for the point of this post meant to be the equivalent of catching a friend with their pants zipper down. We’ve all done it, and I would rather someone tell me than me spend the rest of the party walking around with my fly open. Yes, my brethren, it’s a sin, but that is not the point I’m addressing here. Relax a bit.
An underlying point of the post is for my Christian brethren to consider Romans 1 when dealing with our atheist friends, which tells us that what may be known of God is manifest in all men, and that His attributes are clearly seen but suppressed by all men. From a biblical perspective, Christians need to believe that the atheist is merely suppressing the truth.
And for my atheist friends, I want you to think about why you don’t believe. How many of those reasons are based on those listed above. The point is for you to think about your reasons. How much of it is based on your subjective dislike for this things of God? That is the question. Christians too struggle with our selfishness. I’m stepping on my own toes as I tell you what I believe you are feeling.
So for some of you who were offended because you misread what I said, I apologize for my failure to communicate. For those who are still offended, that is the first sign of guilt.
That was general stuff, next, a few specific answers.
Dante Tremayne
Comment by thedante — November 26, 2008 @ 3:11 am |
Joey: Thanks (That was easy).
Dante
Comment by thedante — November 26, 2008 @ 3:13 am |
Lucy, thank you especially for the nice send off at the end of your comment. While I know you are serious, I also appreciate that you don’t appear to mean ill will. If you do not mind, I would like to use your comments as an example of part of what I am talking about.
When I stated that every atheist has at the heart a dislike for the things of God, you did a splendid job of pointing that out. Again, this is not a wag-my-finger-at-you indictment. It’s cool. The thing is, as you have pointed out on your page, there are many views of God, and many are messed up. Which proves one of my points that when the atheist presents a list, part of it has to do with a wrong understanding of God. If I could spend time with you, I would love to clear a lot of that up. You also addressed evolution, which, for you not only is a scientific issue, but an ethical one as well.
Thanks for mentioning that the “God theory” has a bearing on an atheist’s life. Some like to think not, while wasting a lot of time debating about it anyway. Glad you’re honest.
Sorry you misunderstood the “If > Then” statement. IF God (I guess any God would do here) were true, THEN you would have to bow the knee. That is, once you understand that God exists, then you are obligated to bow the knee (submit to His authority). Granted, I have not tried to prove the Christian God, but truth of the matter is, any god is still going to be sovereign over us, which still implies that IF true, THEN you have to submit.
As for proof, I don’t know what you have read on the subject. We have the ontological, teleological, cosmological arguments, the argument of miracles, the transcendental argument, proofs for the validity of the Bible and so forth. The one I like most is based on what I posted. If God did not exist, then you have no basis for explaining truth, because you have no foundation of truth, for you are a cosmic accident. The only way you can explain anything is to start with the foundation that God exists and that He is the arbiter of truth and fact. Or to put it another way, God exists because the contrary is ridiculous and irrational. It’s not mean, it’s just logic.
Blessings,
Dante Tremayne
Comment by thedante — November 26, 2008 @ 3:40 am |
Morsecode,
I can’t read minds, though it would be nice, because I’m married and I still can’t figure out what she is thinking. Love her to pieces, just can’t figure the woman thing out.
I can read minds like I know that eventually you have to go to the bathroom. It is a natural human thing to do. I also believe that you (like me) are a proud man, who does not want to be told what to do by a God who lets all this stuff happen.
But just because I don’t like it doesn’t change the fact that it is. I’m too stupid and fallible to be in charge.
Dante
Comment by thedante — November 26, 2008 @ 3:47 am |
Scott, thanks. No matter what you say, someone won’t like it. That is not my intention, but it is inevitable. My first comment should clarify.
Blessings,
Dante
Comment by thedante — November 26, 2008 @ 3:51 am |
Jason,
Stop being so judgmental. And calm down. If you are nearly as worked up as your comment applies, you are at risk of a heart attack.
Here is a tip: this response is so overused that I could make millions by licensing the patented response — you know, the one you just read. In short, the quote from the Bible that you are using, which comes from Matthew chapter 7, is badly misinterpreted. The passage means that we need to be careful in our judgment, to consider our own sins before casting judgment on others. And believe me, I stomp on my own feet a lot before coming to tell others.
Dante
Comment by thedante — November 26, 2008 @ 4:01 am |
ScaryDude, thanks. Being stupid keeps me from having a lot of responsibilities. And being weird makes the ladies swoon. And I’m sorry I offended you so badly, otherwise you might have understood my post.
Dante
Comment by thedante — November 26, 2008 @ 4:18 am |
Dante,
Nice post, your rebuke on facebook sent me here, I read it, it was life changing yet I am still illiterate. No hope for me I guess. Romans 1 heh? Our little secret, makes it so un fair when we engage the unbeliever, to have that insight, doesn’t it?
Comment by Clay — November 26, 2008 @ 6:03 am |
Why is it so hard for the religious belief-pusher (yes, you!) to accept that there Atheists exist? Almost every time I read an article on the ‘net written by someone who is religious, it is about their discontent with Atheists and Atheist belief, or the lack thereof. Do you really need Atheists to not exist to be able to celebrate your own beliefs?
Dante Tremayne, you should almost NEVER use absolutes or assumptions in any debate. An absolute rules out the possibility of exceptions (there are ALWAYS exceptions), and an assumption just makes you look like an ass (to use the true half of an old, annoying saying).
Atheism is NOT organized in its non-belief. It is a phrase used to describe someone who lacks belief or religion. There are very few instances of Atheists gathering. Atheists do not make a point of having large Atheists gathering to point out just how extremely Atheist they are, or how much a higher power doesn’t exist. There would be no point to it. To assume that every single Atheist will spew out a list of reasons they disbelieve in any given religion is absurd. They do not share the same reasons. Mine, for instance, is that I simply cannot believe. I used to be Christian. Church every Sunday, singing the songs of praise, hearing the sermons and having fun with my youth group, but I slowly stopped being able to believe. There are no biblical stories we can absolutely confirm as true, one of the exceptions (remember those?) being that a man named Jesus may have actually existed.
I do not care for the commandments, true. I also do not care to think that your God loves everyone, yet will allow them to burn in Hell forever simply for their non belief. Burn, forever, even if they followed the 10 Big Cs to the dot, which means they would have had to go against everything evolution has written into their genes.
One thing I ask is that you clarify your following statements:
“They will also likely present a number of misunderstandings about God and the Church. They don’t understand grace. God to them is one big meanie and that if they don’t follow all of His rules perfectly, all the time, God will have no mercy and fry them like Uzza.”
Specifically:
Can you name specific instances or give specific examples of misunderstandings about “God and the Church?” I am extremely put off at the assumption you make that the decision to be an Atheist was taken lightly and not researched; that it was just something the Atheist decided to do on a whim.
What do you mean by grace? That can be taken in multiple ways.
About frying in Hell, are we wrong? Does the bible not say that the penalty for non-belief or disobeying the Big Cs is an eternity in Hell?
Comment by The Cynic — December 12, 2008 @ 7:59 pm |
Seriously? This is what you believe?
Alright, I’m tolerant of other religions, creeds, and cultures, but this is just beyond me. You’re saying that deep inside we believe in a god? Why? I find it perfectly reasonable that life can end up by chance. You simply cannot see all the steps that it takes to get to complex life. do you believe in microevolution? Most theists do, but they do not believe in macroevolution. That’s like saying squares are ok but rectangles aren’t. Truth, fact, and reason are all man’s constructs. They have no bearing on the natural world. Am I to believe that gravity is not real and we are just weighed down by sin?
Comment by Brian — December 14, 2008 @ 1:01 pm |
Cynic,
First, please don’t use absolutes while telling people to never use absolutes. You contradict yourself. Of course, it’s impossible to avoid using them. Besides, why do post-moderns think that it is more cool to shun absolute language? Different topic.
I never said God loved everybody. Romans 9 explains that pretty well. But as for grace, biblically speaking, every one of us deserve to fry like Uzza (and what I meant was that God struck Uzza on the spot and killed him), and we all deserve to burn in hell. But God is merciful and compassionate, and you have food to eat and a place to live and at any given time God can take that all away and make you suffer for your lack of thankfulness for those things that He has given you. But He doesn’t, and you continue to breathe His air without any care for Him. That is grace.
But in the end, yes, a lack of belief in God and trust in His Son Jesus will lead you to an eternity in Hell, getting the one thing you never wanted: being face-to-face with God, but this time, His angry side. But that too is a different subject.
Comment by thedante — December 17, 2008 @ 1:47 pm |
Excuse me Dante, but reading through the cynic’s comment, I see no absolutes. Hence the modifier “almost” in conjunction with the absolute “always”. Meaning that the situations he describes are not quite absolute, leaving room for the inevitable exception. I would assume you know this and I wouldn’t go to the minor trouble of explaining it, had you not demonstrated in your comment a complete ignorance of this concept. At least it looks that way to me. Please don’t take offense to this, I will accept any rational explanation to the contrary
I must also argue, along with the other atheists commenting on this page, that I DO exist, and that I have no belief in god. It may be that your bible dictates that we cannot exist, and that we must believe and yet wish not to. I would say to this that you should try thinking outside the constraints of your holy book. If you simply think from an objective viewpoint, its easy to see logically that a person can not believe in god. I am sorry to say this, but I am a tad miffed that you would assume that I go about my life constantly denying a belief in such an irrational manner.
I would enjoy a good argument with you in an intelligent manner about the existence of atheists, god, jesus, etc. However, I must point out that every single one of your arguments thus far has depended on the actual existence of god and the bible being his word, or at least a human transcription of his word. Now, I have seen no proof of this, and I must regrettably decline any of your further arguments along this vein as irrational and unfalsifiable until you can prove the existence of your specific god. This is my only condition, and I see it as fair, since all of my arguments come from objective and provable concepts. On the other hand, if you can also argue using objective evidence and logic, then I believe we can have a quite pleasant and intelligent discussion.
Respectfully,
Mr. Disbelief
Comment by Mr. Disbelief — September 28, 2009 @ 1:41 am |
Mr. Disbelief,
You’re right. Although he did go on to use absolutes in his argument, my argument wasn’t against those, but that first statement. It is a good catch on your part.
As for the use of logic and objective truths in proving the existence of God, that wasn’t the point of the post, as you well know. Although I can argue logically quite well in my defense, I don’t care to. I don’t plan to argue into the kingdom, as you can just as easily be argued out (who said that? I can’t remember. Good line though.). My argument is that fundamentally all atheists really do believe in a God, they just won’t admit it. The atheist banner is: “God doesn’t exist, and I hate Him.”
But I will give you a quick argument, one that I have stated already. You desire to debate using logic and objective truth. However, to do so, you have to assume 2 things, that there is a right and wrong, and that there is a truth that is objective and apart from you. How is that possible in an atheist worldview. Logically, you are a product of time, matter, and chance, and all your answers are thus a product of that product. How does chaos produce order? Also, To use logic is to assume right and wrong, that one answer is correct and another incorrect. How? To do so, you have to assume that there is an objective and ideal “right” for which all “rights” are held to standard. Thing is, you, and your universe are a big cosmic accident. There is no right and wrong, there just “is”. To assume good, evil, right, and wrong is to step into my belief system.
So, I can argue logically, because I have a rational explanation for logic. You don’t. Therefore, your arguments are invalid.
Hope that helps.
D
Comment by Dante — October 1, 2009 @ 1:42 pm |
Brian,
Sorry, but chance does not lend itself to reason. Revisit your logic books. You are a process of chance reactions producing chance responses with absolutely no guarantee nor standard for knowing whether those responses are even remotely close to describing the ever changing chance “driven” accidental accumulation of events called reality. What you just said, according to chance, just adds up, er, correction, jumbles in to “nmcapnaidfnqpvjq;oprvnaofgefvp99qovnoq;a;”
Atheists won’t admit this, hence my article.
Comment by thedante — December 17, 2008 @ 1:54 pm |
No, that’s what I just admitted. When you do the right random reactions, life pops up. That’s evolution. That’s how stars formed. Order comes out of chaos. But you must not confuse order with thought and reason. Order, as described for this argument, just means sustained chemical reactions going on in the human body, giving me free will to do whatever. Order simply arises from chaos. It’s like evolution.
Comment by Brian — December 17, 2008 @ 7:49 pm |
By the way, I think you should read the bible a little more. Specifically, an OLDER version of the bible. Like I think you should read the Dead Sea Scrolls. You will find that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam descended from ancient Judaism, which was a multi-theistic religion consisting of 11 gods, the greatest being Elohim (or just El), and lesser gods including Damon, Baal, and Yahweh. This is in Genesis, it’s just been edited in newer versions so people won’t catch it. El gives Yahweh the task of creating the universe, for reasons unknown. And then Baal is everywhere else in the bible. I know, I was a Christian once. Ancient Judaism was a pantheon of gods, not one god.
Comment by Brian — December 23, 2008 @ 8:28 am |
I DEMAND A REBUTTAL GOOD SIR!
Comment by Brian — December 23, 2008 @ 3:00 pm |
Hey Brian. Are you the same Brian on the last 2 posts here, as well as the one further up? If so, that makes this post easier. Sorry for not rebutting you sooner for your post #20. I was thinking that maybe someone else would read and respond — y’know, interact.
I’ll start at the bottom. Not to disrespect you, but rather the colorful history lesson you provided on the history of the Bible and old manuscripts … wow. With countless thousands of reliable manuscripts to attest to the Bible as it is, these strange “older” manuscripts that no one has ever really heard of don’t stand much of a chance to be taken with any seriousness. That is all.
For your evolution and order argument, I think we may have missed eachother on that point. What I am asserting, is that evolution, order from chaos, deals both with thought as well as matter, for in this worldview, thought is also a reaction of matter. As I stated earlier, if it was chaos and accidental then, then there is no way to determine if it is not chaos and random now. You have no objective standard of truth and order to base anything. What is is a random collection of stuff. Matter and thought. You have to believe in objective truth (something you cannot do in atheism) in order to state that this or that is true. Hope that helps.
Comment by thedante — December 24, 2008 @ 7:42 am |
Evolution is not the same as the concept of order from chaos. The fundamental rules of the universe that govern the heavenly bodies can never change. Technically there is chaos now, it’s just put into a different form.
There were about 250 documents that comprised The Dead Sea Scrolls. 39 copies of Psalms. But I will ask you this: how do you know that what you’re believing in (the Christian God) is true, and not the more ancient Pantheon of gods?
Comment by Brian — December 24, 2008 @ 5:48 pm |
And also, what is your proof that your god is real and not another god or gods?
Comment by Brian — December 27, 2008 @ 2:41 pm |
By the way, I’m the same Brian. What happened to my posts, man?
Comment by Brian — December 28, 2008 @ 10:49 am |
Brian, I’m not sure what you mean by, “Where’s my posts?” other than that they are delayed in getting posted and responded to. Sorry, but most of us writers here have other jobs and can’t get to all the questions very quickly.
There is plenty of reason to believe that the Christian God is the true God and not one of a pantheon or whatever, such as the Mormon’s believe. However, that is not the subject here. We are addressing whether or not God exists, not which one He is. I need you to recognize first that you cannot have a consistent worldview as an atheist.
Now, you stated that “Evolution is not the same as the concept of order from chaos,” but that the “rules of the universe that govern … can never change.” There are a couple of problems here. In evolution, all things change. What is today, will likely be different tomorrow. The “laws” you refer to merely explain what is happening, not enforcing how those things come about. At any given moment, some colossal cosmic occurrence can throw everything we know (which ain’t much in the grand scheme of things) out of order and render all the laws we now know obsolete. That’s how your evolution thing works. Yet, what you are actually trying to assert is that there is this objective body of “laws” that govern and order the universe, some “thing” or “idea” that stands outside of the universe, an objective truth, that orders this chaos. Where did this omniscient and eternal “ideal” come from?
Comment by thedante — December 29, 2008 @ 11:54 am |
I can’t have a consistent world view? What nonsense is that?
Evolution is not the same as order from chaos, not really. Evolution is kind of the same, but it acts on biological entities (which, duh, are made of atomic particles). You don’t start out stong molecules and weak molecules, then the weak molecules die…. well I think you get my point.
The order of the universe is in the universe, it is not separate. There is no objective truth, not the way you see it. There is no cosmic entity that will change the laws of the universe except a black hole. The laws that dictate how the universe will act can never change, not unless a black hole is present where you are looking. Certainly the things that come about as a result of these laws (planets, starts, nebulae) change. But the laws themselves do not, because on the fundamental level of interaction particles do not change. There is no omniscient ideal present. The universe is here, we don’t know how it came into existence but we can theorize.
As for your god, until you prove that he, she, or it exists you cannot tell me that you know how the universe came about. But really, can you prove to me that the god you worship is the real one? You can’t because there is no evidence of it.
Comment by The Antichrist — January 6, 2009 @ 3:49 pm |
Antichrist,
Whenever someone doesn’t get what your saying, blame yourself first. That’s how I look at things. So I think I must not be getting my point across very well as you have gone and repeated what the folks posted just before you. Maybe if some other folks would chime in and rephrase what I have been saying it might help. I’m sorry that you don’t understand what I have written.
On another note, are you an atheist? You named yourself “Antichrist” which is another name for the Devil, the fallen angel. Not a really consistent name to have if you don’t believe this stuff to begin with.
Comment by thedante — January 8, 2009 @ 7:25 am |
Dante, I understand perfectly the point you’re trying to get across. The problem is that it doesn’t hold water. There doesn’t have to be an objective truth for the universe to work. The properties inherent in the chemicals that make up the universe are the order you speak of. There isn’t an objective truth and there are no morals based upon it because it doesn’t exist. Thus, we could say that murdering babies is fine. But since there isn’t any religion, we base our morals upon the community and kindness to others. Look at EVERY other religion and they say the same thing. Be kind to your neighbor. Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you. We base these morals on tested ways that make a civilization work. And as for the consistent world view? What, because there’s no objective truth in my life? Rubbish. There is no need for an objective truth.
Comment by The Antichrist — January 9, 2009 @ 8:42 am |
What a horrifying and preposterous piece of logic. On one hand, if convincing yourself and others that atheists don’t exist really makes you feel better about yourselves and your delusions, then by all means, don’t let me stop you from reveling in your delusions. On the other hand, what’s the point in convincing the people who will inevitably agree with you upon recital of scripture? That seems like a redundancy, and a general waste of time.
Your arguments are weak and presumptuous at best, arrogant and thick-headed at worst. All I’ve gathered from this post is that you’ve probably talked at more than a few atheists in your lifetime, but you’ve never listened to what any of them actually have to say. Instead, you’ve spent that time waiting for your turn to talk about how they’re apparently deluded “by design” (via, the presence of god being inherent in all of creation) but what if there is no designer? Most atheists will concede that they are not absolutely certain about the existence of god, but will remain thoroughly convinced that there is no god unless presented with substantial evidence.
Evidence uncovered by evolutionary biologists is in direct conflict with the idea of an intelligent designer, supporting instead a sort of “unintelligent design,” even though few are willing to admit this for the sake of political correctness. To suggest an intelligent designer even despite the mountain of evidence against it, however, is an ass-like stubbornness. Your argument is akin to saying that unicorns absolutely exist, and anyone who denies it just hates unicorns. Perhaps the next time I encounter a nonbeliever in unicorns, I’ll ask him, “Well what do you have against unicorns? Why do you hate them so much?”
The point you either completely miss, or are afraid to admit, is that flying invisible pink unicorns and the like are brought up because most rational people are thoroughly convinced that unicorns are present only in fantasy. By that same rationale, encountering the very same lack of substantial evidence supporting the existential hypothesis of god, we must logically assume that the hypothesis is false. It is to illustrate the logical inconsistency present in arguing the existence of god while denying the existence of unicorns with equal certainty.
If you can prove the absolute truth of the bible, then perhaps the field of evolutionary biology can come into question, but I seem to recall the bible being wrong about some remarkably important concepts such as the value of pi and the heliocentric nature of the solar system (i.e. the bible says the sun revolves around the earth). Shouldn’t “God” know the value of pi? If “God” is in omniscient, then “he” ought to be able to see the solar system and therefore realize that it is the earth which revolves around the sun, is that not also true? We must conclude that either the bible is true and that God is an incompetent moron, or that the bible is false and the existence of God as described by the bible must be examined with a critical eye and ultimately rejected.
The truly irrational act is the clinging to a book of fairy tales as if it contained some kind of absolute truth.
Comment by Archangel Chuck — January 14, 2009 @ 7:35 am |
Oh come on! You’re not giving up, are you?
Comment by The Antichrist — January 14, 2009 @ 8:24 pm |
Brian,
Sorry for the delay. I do have other things that are more pressing. And thanks, but I already know what in vitro means. But you don’t understand anything I have said. This is my last word on this. The universe, from your perspective, just is. The laws “inherent” in the universe, aren’t. These laws you speak of are merely our perception of how the universe is functioning. The laws we know now will likely change as they do every hundred years, because we (or you, that is) don’t know what the universe is doing. From your perspective, as I quoted C.S. Lewis in the post, you are spilled milk trying to describe the upset milk jug and why it was upset. You can’t. And science has already told us that it can’t figure it out. In short, you don’t know if there are actual laws that govern the universe. But you insist that there is some set of eternal laws that govern this eternal universe. But you can’t know for you are part of it and you, just as much as the universe, can change, evolve, or mutate and become something completely different.
Of course, I could just end with your quote, “There isn’t an objective truth and there are no morals based upon it because it doesn’t exist.” With no objective truth, there is no foundation for you to base your statements or anything. Everything means everything and nothing at the same time. That, and you just made an objective truth statement that there is no objective truth. For you to say, “it is true that there is no truth,” you just contradict yourself. If there is no objective truth, everything you just said is meaningless. Go step in front of a bus. It’s not really there. And neither are we.
Listen, you have contradicted yourself several times in the last few responses you have made. Even your more intelligent atheist friends will point that out. Go take a few courses in logic before you try this again.
Comment by thedante — January 15, 2009 @ 7:45 am |
Hey Chuck, don’t call yourself an archangel if you don’t believe in this stuff.
It’s either logic, or a preposterous piece of illogic. You made no sense there.
I did not intend for this piece to be a logical argument, but a subjective argument based on observing and talking to lots of atheists. Just as you can’t give a logical argument for why some girl loves you (if that were possible), I’m not giving one either. More proof? Listen to yourself. Your comment would have been one-fifth the length it is had you not used the plethora of angry and defensive adjectives you used to describe my despicable post.
And to shoot you down on your weak understanding of evolutionary biology, try reading a book a little more recent than 1902. Even your own scientists are in doubt as to the nature of evolution. As with every other scientific theory, the scientists change their minds and ideas like I change my underwear.
And no, the Bible doesn’t promote a geocentric system. It’s called phenomenological language. Read up on that too.
Comment by thedante — January 15, 2009 @ 8:03 am |
And you’re stepping on your toes when you assume that there really is a god when you have no proof of such a claim. Objective truth, as you put it, is a grand almighty being. You can’t assume that because you haven’t met god and you don’t know if it’s there. What you’re asserting cannot be proven. Your argument is a complete waste. There is no objective truth, only the mind perceiving what is here. Morals are present, but they are relative. Just look at Muslims and Americans, the difference is astounding. Had you been born in India you would be praising Krishna. Had you been born in Afghanistan you would be praising Allah. There is not an objective truth present. Of course, we perceive the laws of physics and chemistry, but our perceptions is still unclear, as we don’t know how the universe works entirely.
Comment by The Antichrist — January 15, 2009 @ 2:56 pm |
It all depends on what “is” is…
So stuff is here. It came from non stuff. It came from another dimension (or something). It came with explosive power and energy. But that power and energy does not govern or organize, it just “is.” And the stuff just bounces around randomly until some principle of unorganized interaction causes an effect — and the effect structures a new construction of stuff — all within a universe where (according to the stuff of numbers)there is more unseen stuff than observable. But what we observe is lots of stuff spinning around black holes that are smaller than the O right there. Spinning round and round, (Why spinning? Hmmmm.) Stuff and energy bouncing, evolving, and sucking into black holes.
I think it is poetic! I think it is true. I think there is a reason for it.
Comment by RevK — January 16, 2009 @ 1:18 am |
Basically that’s the unadulterated truth. We don’t know where we came from, our best guess is that the universe sprang into being in the big bang. Before that we don’t know. But it’s better than making up stories (religion).
Comment by The Antichrist — January 16, 2009 @ 3:26 pm |
Regarding “AC’s” post of January 15, 2009 @ 2:56 pm –
How does the observation that Muslims and (non-Muslim, presumably) Americans hold to different morals support the conclusion that morals are *merely* relative and that there is no objective truth? That’s quite a leap, and not a logical one at all.
And if only to beat a horse who surely has been pushing up daisies for quite a while now, I must point out the self-contradictory nature of the assertion that there is no objective truth. AC, you set this statement forth as truth, and, moreover, you implicitly call your readers to account to their (transcendent, ethical) obligation to acknowledge and affirm truth. Even in falsely denying the existence of truth, you inevitably do what your made-in-the-image-of-God human nature requires you to do: you (unwittingly) affirm the existence of ultimate Truth.
Comment by Jim A. — January 18, 2009 @ 3:17 pm |
Because morality is relative. It’s perfectly logical. I’m not affirming the existence of any god (for you it’s the ultimate truth). You are illogical for following a religion that has no substantial proof. Don’t quote the bible just yet, as it hasn’t been proving. The “truth” I am asserting is that the universe just is. It’s just here. There is no reason to interject a god. Other than that, there is no objective truth. Truth is relative.
Comment by The Antichrist — January 22, 2009 @ 8:16 pm |
*Proven*
Sorry.
Comment by The Antichrist — January 25, 2009 @ 2:05 pm |
dante posted this in responce to lucys post
“The only way you can explain anything is to start with the foundation that God exists and that He is the arbiter of truth and fact. Or to put it another way, God exists because the contrary is ridiculous and irrational. It’s not mean, it’s just logic.”
just because the ideas of an atheist are riduculous and irrational does not make them true or untrue. even if they are untrue, it does not mean that god is the answer to the universe.
you should stop just accepting your “god” and start questioning this ideology because what your doing at the moment is looking at god but not actually testing if he is real.
the basis for science is producing a theory that you think might be correct, and then you test the theory to see if it is correct.
what religeon has done is that it has thought of a theory but has just left it at that and not tested it.
i believe that god does not exist because there is no evidence to show him trying to help or contact us in anyway. even if god does exist, the world would be better off without him because religeon is one of the main causes for pain in this world.
Comment by mikey — January 25, 2009 @ 5:28 pm |
Greetings All: I just happened across this forum. I am a Christian. I am not intelligent enough to argue the “finer” points of the sciences. The truth of the matter for me is that I wasn’t around when all the stuff came to be. All the information I have as knowledge goes, comes from someone else, just like you. I wouldn’t even attempt to encounter the “non-believer” on an intellectual basis. All I know is that I thought I was logical in being open minded enough to listen to what another Christian was telling me about God and Christ. With that, I can affirm and confirm what I KNOW has happened in MY life as a result. All I can do with that is put it out there as information for others to decide for themselves whether they want to believe it or not. I don’t judge you if you don’t believe because I understand the Word of God’s teaching to say that you are judged already. If you do not believe in God (or any god), that is totally up to you. As long as you have (at least) the same information I had to make a decision.
As far as the atheist view of not wanting to be told what to do or say or believe, I have this to say on the matter: When I was in high school (even now for that matter), I hated math. I wasn’t any good at it. I was required to take take algebra for a couple of years and some other math to be considered for college. I didn’t understand the need to use up all that time trying to learn something that I KNEW I would never use in life. However, I was required to not only endure the classes, but participate. I would have been put in some kind of prison for kids if I were to picket the school for “requiring” me to take math. On the other hand, one poster commented that the Christian view is upsetting to them because it touches their personal lives. That is why prayer was taken out of schools. There was enough people screaming about it. It wasn’t being forced on anyone. If you didn’t believe in it, you just didn’t participate. While, like I said earlier, I was FORCED to participate in MATH!! Yuk.
I think this is my bottom line: If Christians REALLY did what they were supposed to do according to our ultimate truth, this whole thing would be moot. I beleive that atheists work off logic and reason. To be intelligent enough to understand all the sciences is certainly commendable. The only thing is…Christianity is neither logical or a religion. It is a relationship. You will never be able to explain it with science. It can only be explained by experience. I am not a Christian because somebody was able to prove anything for me. I am because in my own little world I saw myself as in need of the relationship (if it could be had) with the Christ. If you could prove everything, there is no need for faith, which is the basis for the relationship with Christ.
I know I rambled alot. That is probably the reason I can never have a job being a writer. Not trying to add or take away from anything being said in this forum, just putting out a comment. Not looking for rebuttal. Just plain ol’ me putting in my two cents. Have a great day!!
Comment by ScottW — January 29, 2009 @ 8:57 am |
There is no god. There is no reason to believe in god. There’s no evidence that god, allah, jehovah, zeus, jupiter, pan or any other god has ever existed.
Your ‘argument’ doesn’t even make any sense.
Atheists lack the belief in your imaginary friend. Claiming that we actually do makes you sound like a Nazi.
Comment by Jimnoir — April 7, 2009 @ 12:06 am |
If God was real, he wouldn’t have given us the facility to deny his existence.
If God was real, everyone would automatically believe in God. It would be “hard-wired” into us, just like self-preservation is.
Comment by Sarah Bilogi — April 7, 2009 @ 12:08 am |
@Sarah: Wow, that sounds like one tyrannical God. Forced belief eh?
Comment by Ray — June 19, 2009 @ 3:01 am |
I am an atheist. Not a nonbeliever. Sorry that you don’t think I’m real, or, rather, that my beliefs are real, but it is what a truly believe. I have taken a long hard look at religion (not just Christianity, but most religions) and I can’t see any reason to believe in them. Pagans believe in magic, which I find to be false. Buddhist believe in nirvana, which I also find to be false. Christians, in salvation through Jesus. To me, false. But I’m not going to discredit what you believe.
The problem here, as ScottW pointed out in a most excellent way, is that theists, atheists, and non-theists all try to argue for or against religion with logic. Religion CANNOT be logical. That’s the whole point. You don’t know or believe that you’re saved from the fires of hell thanks to Jesus dying for your sins because it can be proven with logic; you know or believe it because you have FAITH. FAITH is the ultimate “get out of jail free” card for theists, because atheists cannot argue against it. Atheists can argue logic all day and, apparently, so can Christians. However, your arguments for God look a bit too much like what ancient Greek orators would do, in that you’re attempting to make people look more and more ridiculous based on assumptions of knowledge. Your arguments presented for proving God’s existence are dis-proven on the Wikipedia page for those arguments.
Look, I’m no genius. I know that when I look at the stars and the heavens, that what’s there makes no sense to my brain. Someone somewhere may understand it, but I don’t. That’s not the point. I don’t know where the universe came from. I don’t know why there’s suffering and injustice. I know that I don’t want to line the pockets of some “preacher” somewhere and I know that religion shouldn’t be so closely tied to philosophy, or if it’s going to be, it should be looked at from the same eye (do you believe the Matrix? That’s philosophically just as plausible as God).
All I know is that from my own process of thinking, I don’t believe that there’s anything more to this life than what we experience. Mine experience is an atheist one, uninhibited by the laws of religion (though I do still have morals. Killing people is wrong and it doesn’t take religion to teach that). Yours is one of a believer, filled with joy from praising your savior and the chastity you embrace. Both are okay.
So, please, atheists, stop being ignorant and arguing with people you can’t win against.
And believers, stop trying to use logic to explain the wonders of your system based on faith.
We can all get along if both sides just accept the other for who they are. It’s what Jesus would have wanted (yeah, I believe he was a good guy and had some really great ideas about how to live).
Comment by AndyG — October 12, 2009 @ 12:19 pm |