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.

American Atheists Brags About Curbing Free Speech

Once again, freedom of speech as guaranteed under the United States Constitution is under attack when that speech violates the tender sensibilities of radical Atheists.

The American Atheists website is bragging about their lawsuit against a small town Sheriff who had the audacity to speak about his faith in the public arena, via the department's Facebook page:

http://news.atheists.org/2016/08/11/atheists-reach-41000-settlement-with-tennessee-county-sheriff/

In a nutshell, it was a battle of bucks. Without admission of any wrongdoing, the Sheriffs Dept. decided to knuckle under and settle this silly lawsuit for as cheaply as it could. One of the big jokes here is that 60% of the settlement went to the ATTORNEY. The rest went to 2 plaintiffs for "damages".

WHAT damages could these 2 unhappy atheists have suffered? It seems to me a couple of intolerant liberal atheists got their underwear in a knot and needed a few grand to ease their butthurt.

The comments following the article are just precious... check out this one from "Happy Atheist"... it's a real bird's eye view of what goes on in the minds of the people that support the American Atheists Hate Club:

"70happyatheist • 3 months ago

I wonder how many Christians are involved in breaking the law on a regular basis. I claim that the evidence is that there are large numbers of serial law breakers that qualify them to fall under the Rico statutes of serial law breakers. They could be imprisoned in huge numbers! Instead the Freedom From Religion and American Atheists and perhaps more just sued them and I do not see any comments in the articles about there being serial breakers of the law with impunity. Smile!"

"Breaking the law?" What law? Happy Atheist needs to READ the 1st Amendment of Constitution, paying special attention to the "Free Exercise Clause" that GUARANTEES the right of citizens to openly express their faith, even when those citizens are public employees.

"Serial lawbreakers who need to be imprisoned?" Maybe Happy Atheist would be happier living in an oppressive authoritarian regime, where religious believers are arrested, imprisoned and tortured for not vowing their allegiance to government as the highest power. Atheists like this brainchild have now determined that the church is a criminal organization despite the Constitution special protection of religion through the 1st Amendment. Other countries like The Peoples' Republic of China and the Peoples' Republic of North Korea are on your side, Mr. Happy Atheist.

READ THE CONSTITUTION. The 1st Amendment deals with religious freedom because it was that important to the Founding Fathers. It's NOT a guarantee of freedom from public display of faith,
kiddies. It makes religious freedom a states' rights issue and and guarantees no one is coerced to join a national church. That's it! If you don't like open expression of faith DON'T LOOK.

The only reason Atheists win these minor battles is because they put up more bucks than the defendants in most of these cases. Then they brag about defending the Constitution when their real goal is to distort it and use it to erase religion from society, much the same way Josef Stalin did in the Soviet Union.

Once again, as I keep mentioning we see "happy" Atheists stomping all over other peoples' rights by filing silly lawsuits and forcing the Tyranny Of The Minority on the general population.

If the 2 plaintiffs in the lawsuit really wanted to make a statement, they could have taken their PUBLICLY FUNDED settlements and donated them to a food bank or to a charity like the American Cancer Society. If they had done that, it would be to me more reassuarnce that miracles DO happen.

'Nuff said.

Americans Atheists' War On Christmas

Another lame attempt to step on the Christmas holiday by our dear friends at American Atheists:
                          
So, how does it make the Holiday great by ignoring The One after whom Christmas was named?

Without church, what makes the Holiday "great"? Drinking, eating rich foods, and spending more than you can afford?

Are these the values American Atheists promote now?

How many people put their noggins together and came up with this bright idea?

I guess trying to capitalize on Donald Trump's campaign slogan was considered brilliant on AA's part.

Everybody else just yawns.

Nice try, guys. Maybe next year you'll come up with something clever, but I won't be holding my breath while I wait.

'Nuff said.

Debate: W.L. Craig vs. Keith Parsons

An interesting exchange between Dr. William Lane Craig and Atheist Keith Parsons.

Some of Parsons' comebacks are so knuckleheaded you might find yourself "face-palming".

Enjoy!

Looks like the Thin Skinned Atheists are At It Again

To All You Atheist "Bible Experts"

Please tell me where in the Bible you will find:

1. Positive proof that babies are condemned to hell without salvation

2. The  proof that Jesus promises instant gratification of all prayers

3. The verse in the Bible that bans all public prayer

4. The Bible verse that endorses abortion

5. Positive proof that Jesus was gay

6. The proof that Jesus lied about His return

7. Proof that God sanctions murder according to its legal definition

8. Proof that salvation is an open invitation to sin

9. Proof that Christians are subject to every command of the Jewish law

10. Proof that God will save people from all irresponsible acts

Here's 10 to start. Let's keep the challenge going.