ATHEIST "GOD" NOT WORTHY OF COMMENT

[Arthur Durnan]

The self-styled "atheist" god turns out to be "god Chance," blind, inert & mindless tho he/she/it be! Wonderful beyond all compare! Where did he/she/it come from? Only a self-styled "atheist" could answer such. Perhaps, just perhaps from the flotsam on some ancient seashore? But then, pray tell, from whence cometh that seashore? It's certainly enuf to pick one's craw, I can tell you. The self-concocted "atheist" and his/her "god Chance" reminds one of the gentleman who tried to put lipstick on a pig to make it look a mite attractive. Oh, well, as they say Down Under, The Rhine in Spine Falls Minely On The Plyne," yes?

The jaundiced "atheist" world-view is wholly inadequate for a multiplicity of reasons. To positively state, "I am an 'atheist'" would, of course, require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain such knowledge, the self-concocted :atheist" would have to have simultaneous access to all parts of the universe (omnipresence) in order to ascertain whether or not God exists - or had recently been on - on any particular portion of the entire universe. Therefore, the self-concocted "atheist" would, of & by himself/herself possess Godlike characteristics that even, let us say, a Sagan or a Voltaire or an Einstein - or all put together, for that matter - would not claim. When the self-styled and self-concocted "atheist" attempts to prove a universal negative, he/she must be reminded that such action, in terms of logic, is known as a logical fallacy. At best, plainly, "atheism" is illogical at its very core. At worst, it comes across as completely unhinged.

Charles Colson states that the heaping ash remains at Auschwitz, the killing fields of S.E. Asia & the Middle east, and the frozen wastes of the Gulags in the world should serve to vividly remind an "atheist" that the City of Man is hardly enuf; we must also seek the City of God.

And having writ, moves on.....to a Starbucks expresso and the upcoming Pillory Hillary poster contest. Say it isn't so, Gridley!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[ice--eyes]

i don't really understand what you're saying.... athiests don't even believe in any God. though some seem to contradict themselves... what point are you trying to make?

Edited October 17, 2005 by ice--eyes

[fenwar]

At worst, it comes across as completely unhinged.

Arthur, you make me laugh.

[Fiosh]

The self-styled "atheist" god turns out to be "god Chance," blind, inert & mindless tho he/she/it be! Wonderful beyond all compare! Where did he/she/it come from? Only a self-styled "atheist" could answer such. Perhaps, just perhaps from the flotsam on some ancient seashore? But then, pray tell, from whence cometh that seashore? It's certainly enuf to pick one's craw, I can tell you. The self-concocted "atheist" and his/her "god Chance" reminds one of the gentleman who tried to put lipstick on a pig to make it look a mite attractive. Oh, well, as they say Down Under, The Rhine in Spine Falls Minely On The Plyne," yes?

The jaundiced "atheist" world-view is wholly inadequate for a multiplicity of reasons. To positively state, "I am an 'atheist'" would, of course, require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain such knowledge, the self-concocted :atheist" would have to have simultaneous access to all parts of the universe (omnipresence) in order to ascertain whether or not God exists - or had recently been on - on any particular portion of the entire universe. Therefore, the self-concocted "atheist" would, of & by himself/herself possess Godlike characteristics that even, let us say, a Sagan or a Voltaire or an Einstein - or all put together, for that matter - would not claim. When the self-styled and self-concocted "atheist" attempts to prove a universal negative, he/she must be reminded that such action, in terms of logic, is known as a logical fallacy. At best, plainly, "atheism" is illogical at its very core. At worst, it comes across as completely unhinged.

Charles Colson states that the heaping ash remains at Auschwitz, the killing fields of S.E. Asia & the Middle east, and the frozen wastes of the Gulags in the world should serve to vividly remind an "atheist" that the City of Man is hardly enuf; we must also seek the City of God.

And having writ, moves on.....to a Starbucks expresso and the upcoming Pillory Hillary poster contest. Say it isn't so, Gridley!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

Arthur,

You really should consider remaining med compliant.

F

[TempestTossed]

Reverend Durnan, I am an atheist. Are you on a mission to save atheists, or are you on a mission to protect Christians from atheist rhetoric? I am guessing the latter, since the former cannot be achieved with such ridicule and condemnation. If you are trying to protect Christians from atheist rhetoric, then you are failing because of the condemnation, incoherence, and apparent lack of truth and reason. That may work in tent revival meetings, but it does not seem to be working here. I will respond to your points merely as an exercise in argumentation, and you would best to read it to upgrade your knowledge.

You made your first point by alluding to the old cosmological argument, or "first cause" argument--every event must have a cause that precedes it in time, and the only thing that can cause the existence of the universe is God. At least that is what I presume you had in mind when you asked, "But then, pray tell, from whence cometh that seashore?" My response is that the existence of the universe is not necessarily an event. We don't see any particles of matter coming into existence from any discernable cause. From a naturalistic perspective, it is plausible to suspect that the universe always existed and never had a beginning. Some say that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, and it certainly seems to be the beginning of the observable universe, but the whole universe could be much bigger and grander. But, supposing that the Big Bang is the beginning of the whole universe, you might capitalize on that with, "Ah HA! So then, pray tell, from whence came the Big Bang??" The answer would have to be that there was no cause. This is a sort of doctrine that is certainly not foreign to Christianity. Pray tell, from whence cometh God?

Your second point is made by saying that atheists don't know everything there is to possibly know in the whole universe, therefore they can't possibly be justified in believing for certain that there is no God. My response is that I need only adequate knowledge about the idea of God to know with conclusive (not absolute) certainty that God does not exist. The belief in God fulfills fundamental human hopes in lives that are otherwise often hopeless--hope for a purpose, hope for love, hope for sustained pleasure, hope for long life, hope for universal justice, hope for importance, hope for simple ways of explaining their environment, and hope for a certain guide to living life. Part of that is why Voltaire said, "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer"--if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Since God so closely resembles a creation of the wishful-believing human mind, and since I have seen no evidence for God, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that God does not exist. But that is all a lengthier alternative to a shorter and equally-effective rebuttal: Do you know absolutely everything in the universe? If not, then why are you so certain that there is no Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer?

Your third point is, "Charles Colson states that the heaping ash remains at Auschwitz, the killing fields of S.E. Asia & the Middle east, and the frozen wastes of the Gulags in the world should serve to vividly remind an "atheist" that the City of Man is hardly enuf; we must also seek the City of God. " I have, this time, three points to make in return.

1) Atheists were responsible for the atrocities of the Soviet Union and Southeast Asia, but Nazi Germany was predominantly Christian. It is uncertain what religion Hitler was, but he certainly used Christian propaganda. "Gott Mit Uns" was a popular war slogan meaning, "God With Us." I don't mean that as an argument against the belief in God, but you may want to rethink your own argument and focus instead exclusively on communist atrocites. Also, I am puzzled on what reminder manifests as heaping ash remains in the Middle East. In that region, I am aware only of wars and slayings that went on historically and go on presently between professed Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

2) On the point of communist atrocities, I don't have such an easy rebuttal, because the perpetrators were indeed atheists. But I can still rest easy knowing that the ideology of atheism did not motivate the atrocities. Atheism is not an ideology. It is simply a single belief that there is no God. The communist atrocities were motivated by an ideology of communism and aided by a system of hero-worship totalitarianism. Atheism was a tool to unite the masses under one ideology, but atheism was not the ideology. The Soviet flag had a hammer and sickle, representing the power of the working class. It was not a symbol of atheism. So I would say that atheism remains innocent of motivating great atrocities. The same cannot be said for Christianity. The heaping ash remains of European witch burnings, the dungeons of the Spanish inquisition, and the blood-soaked sands of the Middle Eastern crusades should serve to vividly remind us all.

3) If that previous sentence were an argument against God, it would not hold. The existence of God is independent of the behavior of human beings. That is a third reason that your argument about atheism does not hold. Even if atheism motivates extreme violence, it would not relate to whether or not God exists.

Edited October 17, 2005 by TempestTossed

[irishcowboy]

Tempest Tossed, it sounds almost as if you are trying to get some one to "save you" .....

one thing about it, is that it has already been done should you just accept it....

you seem to be trying to explain away, things you do not want.... just like the rest of the world, picking and choosing what they want to follow adn dont want to follow, even the laws of the lands..... for instance, most people try to ignore the fact that there are speed limit signs.... some try to make believe that those signs are just for inexperienced drivers, others think that those are the minimum speed limit signs.... these people would never rob a store, or rape, plunder, lute or kill some one, but they love to break the parts they dont like....... ( i got passed the other night, by some one doing over 100 mph in a no passing zone, at a major intersection, on a blind curve sless then a mile from a high school, and this person was still traveling well over 75 as they passed the high school) .....

there are many people that pick and choose the rules that God has put in place only the ones they feel are worthy of following...... we even try to justify doing it, and then when some one calls us on it, we tell them they aint suppose to judge, or that they are being to legalistic, or that we no longer fall under the laws.... they use excuses.....

I am not saying I am perfect, by all means, and have been called to the carpet as recent as yesterday.... as long as I repent and make good my errors, not to do them again, well, I am still going to make errors, that is until i leave this land, then I wont have to worry about it any more.....

God is there, there are no doubts about it. God can not be explained away, no matter what rules are put in place by man, God will still be there. Man is trying to do away with God, trying to not rely on Him, trying to figure away to put God into the archieves of history..... believe it or not, Gods story is History, and future too.....

God will draw you in, seeds have been planted... and they are being watered as I type here, soon those seeds will be growing, and one day, one day God will call upon you and you will be serving Him.... no matter how much you run, or try to hide, you will be called upon to make a choice.

mike

[TempestTossed]

Mr&Mrs Mike Irish, I do not agree with what you say, but I have nothing to argue about, so the best to you both.

[Guest sallystrothers]

Arthur, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That was a very well written piece! I sense the same bit of frustration I come across with many athiests I have known -- they boast an arrogance beyond all reasonability known to man. Arrogance it may be, lest in the absence of intelligence (we may only hope intelligence is not the missing ingredient for inasmuch arrogance proves to be found likewise). The only belief system lacking religion is the one lacking beliefs.

[Guest BAatheist]

Arthur,

You really should consider remaining med compliant.

F

Seconded F, seconded!!! I found a gem!

matt

[Bread_of_Life]

I'm afraid I must agree with BA and Fiosh here, in their humourous but topical comments.

I also must agree with TempestTossed when he asks:

Reverend Durnan, I am an atheist. Are you on a mission to save atheists, or are you on a mission to protect Christians from atheist rhetoric? I am guessing the latter, since the former cannot be achieved with such ridicule and condemnation.

Tempest, believe you me, when I was an atheist (and that's not so long ago), it was just this sort of behaviour that Arthur is displaying that helped to put me off grown-up and in-depth theological discussions with Christians. Unfortunately, there are believers among us that are Christianity's worst enemy. I ask that you judge our religion not by the message of its followers, but by the message of Christ, a message of peace, love, ultimate humanity and giving.

As it happens, I also agree with all your rebuttals - but then my faith didn't come from Apologetics or arguments, but from a person, the person of Jesus manifested through the working of the Holy Spirit in my life and soul. You will doubtless find this naive, and say that I am deluding myself. This is perfectly possible of course - but then I would rather be happy and deluded, fulfilled and wrong - than not at all.

If you have any questions dude, feel free to PM me. Hey, screw it, PM me anyway, it'd be nice to chat to someone intelligent and reasonable.