“The Folly of Atheism”

sigh.

Candid Apologetics, I’m pretty sure I have never seen so many errors in the introduction of anything I’ve ever read. Each and every sentence in the first 2 paragraphs contains a point that needed addressing. If your intention was to induce mass head-shaking and seas of face-palming, I would say mission très accomplished. However, if the intention had been to deconstruct atheism and present a salient argument for christianity, then you have failed on a scale not seen since Crystal Pepsi. With so many fallacies and misrepresentations in the introduction alone, it would be virtually pointless to take apart the rest of the posting. If you have some time and brain cells to spare, the article in its entirety and a few other gems can be found on their website.

Atheism is perhaps the most difficult worldview1 to defend. This is because atheism is full of contradictions2. Points are often overlooked3. In their effort to avoid admitting the existence of God, atheists often put themselves in place of God4. Atheism is a very inconsistent belief system5. In this post, I will address one of those inconsistencies.

Atheism is the belief system that believes God does not exist6. This attempt fails because, well, no atheist can prove that God doesn’t exist7!! They can only hope (which is another inconsistency) and make intellectual excuses8. In the end, the atheist ends up in a contradiction between the way he or she lives and what he or she says9. This is one of the biggest problems for atheists10.

1] Atheism is not a worldview; it is the lack of belief in the existence of gods. Lacking a belief in your god no more constitutes a worldview than does your lack of belief in Ganesh. You, like many other ill-informed christians, seem to be conflating atheism, secularism, and humanism. In actuality only the latter constitutes a worldview and no amount of word-play or twisting of logic could possibly qualify atheism as such.

2] I would love to hear how you can attribute any contradiction(s) to the notion of not believing in a god due to a complete and total lack of credible evidence. By definition, a contradiction needs to involve more than one point, whereas atheism has only one point.

3] What exactly is overlooked? Atheists don’t believe in gods because no one has ever shown that any exist, but if someone demonstrates credible evidence, we will revise our stance. Atheism is really quite simple, but you attribute far more to it than is actually the case.

4] I would love for you to show an example of an atheist whom you feel has put themselves in place of your, or any god for that matter; I’m not even sure what you mean by this to be honest. Are atheists trying to get people to blindly worship them, asking for 10% of their earnings, demanding they chop off the end of their penis, dictating what not to eat or drink, or who they can love?

5] sigh. Do you even know the actual meanings of the words that you are using? You seem to be assigning your own meaning to an awful lot of words. It is impossible for the lack of belief in gods to be a belief system. Were that the case, you would have belief system for each of the thousands of gods that you don’t believe in. As for inconsistencies, no clever (or likely not so clever) manipulation of words can demonstrate any inconsistencies in the lack of belief in gods.

6] It amazes (no, saddens & irritates) me how many theists don’t even know what atheism means. I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve had to explain this to a christian: atheism is NOT the belief that gods do not exist, it is the lack of belief that gods exist. This is not just semantics, there is a distinct difference between the two. Rather than come up with my own analogy (I’ve had a long day) I googled it and found one I quite liked (credit to @DangerousTalk for the article I found it in)

I don’t know if there is a purple house on Oak Street, so I might lack the belief that there is. That doesn’t mean that I disbelieve that there is a purple house on Oak Street necessarily, but it could mean that too. However, if someone showed me a picture of a purple house on Oak Street, then I would have knowledge of the purple house and would almost certainly believe that there is in fact a purple house on Oak Street. By that same reasoning, if I said that I don’t have any reason to believe that there is a purple house on Oak Street, that doesn’t mean that I believe that there is no purple house on Oak Street. It also doesn’t mean that I believe there must be a blue house on Oak. In other words, atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, but it is not a disbelief in a deity necessarily and it is not necessarily a belief in something else either. It can be, but that is not a requirement of the set of people who lack the belief.

7] It was at this point that I realised you were new to this. Barring logical contradictions such as a married bachelor, or a 4-sided triangle, one cannot say with 100% certainty that something does not exist. It is for this very reason that you cannot prove that unicorns, elves, Kali, or Zeus do not exist. Attempting to use this puerile argument has highlighted your inability to think critically. The expression ‘jumped the shark’ initially popped into my head as I read that point, but I then realised that would would have given far too much credit to the arguments that had preceded it.

8] I feel like I keep repeating myself; what intellectual excuse could one have for lacking belief in something for which no credible evidence has been shown? Only believing in things for which there is evidence is not an excuse, it is rational. Do you not also weigh evidence when deciding if something should be believed in? It is those of you engaged in apologetics that make use of intellectual excuses, not those of us who do not believe.

9] Again, if you actually understood what atheism was, you’d realise how foolish this point is. The only thing that could contradict what an atheist says (‘I don’t believe in gods’) is if they acted as if they actually did believe in gods; have you seen many that do this? I know I haven’t.

10] The only problem for atheists is that it is 2014 and somehow half the planet still believes in magic and allows that belief to affect the lives of others. THAT is our problem.

So there it is, 10 points in 2 paragraphs. I really couldn’t be bothered to look any further into this posting due to its inauspicious introduction. They say not to judge a book by its covers, but I think in this case, it was the prudent thing to do. This article even made Jesus face-palm.

199453_m

Advertisements

3 thoughts on ““The Folly of Atheism”

  1. You’re like the guy who goes to a social football league, plays on the lowest grade, and thinks he’s the man when he wins by a single goal on bad refereeing.

    Not to disparage the author to whom you are responding, but you should try responding to more competent writers. Except you won’t, because you will get destroyed, and your ego can’t handle it.

    • Your analogy isn’t apt; his compete lack of competence in apologetics is not analogous to ‘bad referring’, it’s solely a reflection on the author. I chose to this respond b/c the article was brought to my attention, and something so wrought with errors should not have gone unchallenged. Nice try with the armchair psychological diagnosis about my ‘ego’ 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s