Where Atheism Fails

So, where does Atheism fail? That answer is really quite simple: from the beginning.

Atheism starts out by taking an illogical position and assumes it to be true.

The Atheist will say "gods don't exist", and when I ask for proof of this truth claim, I'll be told "You can't prove a negative" and "the burden  of proof is on the believer". Not only are these brush-offs both fallacies, but they fail to address the reason for God's supposed non-existence.

Both Richard Dawkins, the great Evolutionist, and Christopher Hitchens, the Vanity Fair opinion writer, tried to prove Atheism in their own ways. Dawkins did a horrible job of making his case and proved his field is science, not philosophy. Hitchens wrote a bitter polemic against God's existence but didn't quite state that God isn't real. He at least was still willing to consider the matter up to the point of his death from cancer.

But the problem for Atheists remains: there is more evidence for the existence of God than there is proof that God isn't real. And even worse: lack of proof (as Atheists claim) doesn't make their case. If a murderer erases all the evidence, does it mean the crime never occurred? Atheists have a real conundrum here, and yet most of them refuse to admit that it takes faith to believe in Atheism.

Faith.

Remember that. Atheism may require even more faith than belief in God.

'Nuff said.

Dumb Question: "Who Created God?"

• The Atheist asks: "Who created God? and if God can exist without a creator, using the same principle, why can’t humans and all the living beings exist without a creator?"

 Because we are finite, that's why, and self-creation isn't possible.The Universe is finite according to the famous Dr. Einstein and Dr. Lemaitres, and no one has proven them wrong.

This continues to be a common attack by Atheists who are ignorant of the science they claim to base their belief system upon. Once more, we Believers have shown that we are logical and rational.

Our existence has a necessary proven cause, so we have to look at beginnings.

For a more detailed explanation of existence, read my previous blog entry:

https://atheist-nutters.blogspot.com/2019/09/logic-demands-creator.html

'Nuff said.

More Pretzel Logic From Atheists Alliance

From a Post by AA President Bill Flavell (Flavell's comments are italicized): 

I bet every atheist has heard Christians claiming that they used to be an atheist. When I hear that, I always ask them why they were an atheist and invariably discover that they were not really atheists at all—they were lazy Christians. Instead of praying/going to church they preferred drinking/sex/drugs/gambling or other self-indulgent pursuits.

So are we to assume no Christians began life as atheists? Ever? 

Then I ask why they changed their minds and they always give me an emotional reason—they had an experience of some kind and discovered Jesus. What I never hear is “I found the ontological/cosmological/teleological argument…” [or whatever].

The Bible focuses on historical testimony, not teleological arguments. Christian belief is an act of faith. Not every Christian has a Philosophy degree and can quote Thomas Aquinas or Saint Augustine.

Well, in my opinion, if you were an atheist for no logical reason, you were a bad atheist and if you are now a Christian for no logical reason, you are a bad Christian.

So Atheists that grew up in non religious households are now bad atheists? All because they did what their parents did?

If logic takes you to atheism, you will almost certainly remain an atheist because no matter how much your life changes, logic will stubbornly stay the same. The beauty of logic is that it does not depend upon how you happen to feel today.

I guess this poor guy never heard of Anthony Flew? After more than 50 years of study, Mr. Flew, the most outspoken Atheist of his time, was led to a belief in Deism by LOGIC.

The idea that logic always leads you to Atheism is simply a silly assumption that Atheists the world over have coddled themselves with for centuries. If you want to see what logic can do, watch the debates between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox. Dr. Lennox uses logic to tear down every premise by dawkins, and he does it in a calm and collected  manner.

This is the reason Dawkins won't debate any more Theists. They're just too logical.

A Crash Course in Jehovah's Witness Atheism

This post on the Atheist Alliance International website claims to teach you how to debate religion in just a 900 word essay.

You can read the article here:

 https://www.atheistalliance.org/thinking-out-loud/debating-believers-a-masterclass-in-under-900-words/

I'll focus on the main points of this "master class" in philosophy:


"After thousands of years, no one has developed a successful argument for the existence of ANY god, despite many smart people trying hard to do so."

This is purely a prejudiced opinion. Billions of religious believers across the planet prove this opinion is dead wrong.


"The second thing to remember is the believer is the one with a belief—you are simply wondering why they have the belief."

WRONG. Since the Atheist cannot prove the non-existence of the supernatural, Atheism is based on the BELIEF that gods don't exist. Hiding behind the "Atheism is the default position" argument doesn't change this. Atheists cannot accept the fact that they live in a faith-based reality.


"The believer has the burden of proof—hold them to it. And avoid saying anything that will transfer the burden to you."

You mean, like telling the Believer he or she is wrong and that gods don't exist? That burden always exists for the Atheist, because Atheism is based on a truth claim. This argument from Atheism is just sophistry.


"Avoiding the burden of proof is not cowardice—it’s efficiency."

Unless its the believer avoiding the burden of proof, which is why Atheists avoid taking on that burden in nearly all their arguments.

Further along, the author wrote this:


"Seeking to agree to disagree

Have none of it. In this type of discussion, one person is right and one is wrong. You will have wasted your time if you don’t pin down who is right and who is wrong. Persevere until it’s blindingly obvious."

In other words, until it's "blindingly obvious" that the Atheist is right. This is not a discussion, this is simply a totalitarian attempt to shove the non-believer's opinions down the Believer's throat and then walk away with some mock victory. The Atheist's premise from the beginning is that the Believer is wrong and there is no proof required from the Atheist to support this.

The Author of the post, Bill Flavell, makes some decent points about arguing, but Tip #8 is kind of funny:


"Learn when not to argue. Some people are so delusional or so lacking in their understanding of logic that a coherent discussion is impossible. When you encounter such people it’s best to find another way to spend your evening—make an excuse and leave."

Mr Flavell's logic hasn't impressed me much so far. His article makes several mistakes that anybody with a basic understanding in Philosophy wouldn't have made.


"It takes calmness, patience, and persistence to knock down believer’s arguments. I think if you use these tips you’ll enjoy your discussions more and you are more likely to find onlookers benefit from them, even if your opponents just retire to religious websites to lick their wounds and see if they can do better next time."

Aye, there's the rub! The real intention is to assume a position of superiority and humiliate an opponent using Mr. Flavell's tips. However, he forgot one very important suggestion:

The Atheist must be sure to limit debates to laymen or new believers. Don't attempt to debate with a pastor, seminary student, or philosophy major. These people are prepared to defend their beliefs in a scholarly fashion, and a poorly equipped Atheist will be the one walking off, licking wounds and sputtering obscenities. The Atheist must pick their fights with only the low hanging fruit.

A great example of this are the debates betweeen John Lennox and Richard Dawkins. Dawkins was clearly in over his head and Lennox proved it.

Flavell made one point I agree with:

"The problem is we have to learn how to reason with religious people and few of us know how to do it." This includes Bill Flavell.

Finally, I'd like to point out that although Bill Flavell states that religious people aren't stupid, his article and the condescension it contains really say the opposite. Perhaps Bill Flavell should better prepare himself for debating before advising others.

'Nuff said.

Logic Demands a Creator

Ok, so it's been a long time, and a lot of events have happened in my personal life, but I'm back and as feisty as ever.

Let's start with an argument I heard from the late pastor, philosopher and apologist R.C. Sproul:

Logic demands a Creator. I'll add that atheism is in fact logically indefensible if you stick to the rules of logic.

"What do you mean?" an Atheist might ask. "How can you prove a god exists without empirical evidence?"

The fact is, emprical evidence isn't necessary. I'll touch upon that argument in another post, but let it suffice to say that something can exist while leaving no trace of its existence. You can still logically defend the existence of God without a trace of physical evidence.

Let's discuss "being". To be, or exist, there are only 4 possibilities:

1. You are imaginary.

2. You are self-created

3. You are self-existent

4. You are an effect with a prior cause.

That list is easily pared down. Basically Number 4 is the best provable reason for all of our existence.

Now let's go back to the beginning of everything.

A long time ago, our Universe began as an infintely hot and dense spot, somewhere in the cosmos. We don't really know what that spot was made of or where it came from, but we do know that from nothing, nothing comes.

If Nothing were eternal, then we wouldn't have a chance for existence. Space, time and matter are created things which didn't exist for us before the Big Bang.

So let's look again at the 4 criteria of existence. Once again, the only proper explanation that properly accounts for the existence of our Universe is Number 4.

Right now, we have no way of knowing for certain where the Singularity came from or how it was made, but it was made. Everything we can perceive is an effect that had a prior cause. To be an effect there must be a cause. Causes, however, cannot recede into infinity. There must ultimately be a cause without a prior effect. Now we look to Number 3.

The First Cause, or what some call the Prime Mover, must be intelligent and powerful. After all, the creation of the cosmos, which is something that came from somewhere, would require a level of power we humans could barely imagine. God fits the bill here.

An imaginary being can't create anything. God can't create Himself, that's a contradiction. God can't be the Beginner of all Things if He is, in fact, an effect with a prior cause.

Therefore, God is self-existent, and having no beginning and no end, infinite and eternal. We call Him God because He has the ability create the Universe, which is our home.

I believe God exists. Physics and Logic demand His existence. Otherwise I wouldn't be here posting this blog.

Next: The Empirical Evidence Argument and why Atheists shouldn't rely on it.

'Nuff said.