"They aren't fools because they say 'There is no God'. They say 'There is no God' because they're fools." - Citizenfitz
I've had many interactions with atheists. Hell, I was once one myself! Sort of.... More of an agnostic, really. But religion was nothing to me. I never went to church. Not even on Easter Sunday. So, in practice if not in doctrine I was an atheist. I lived my life as if God didn't exist. In truth I'd have saved myself a whole lot of grief and regrets had I started contemplating God sooner than I did. But that didn't really happen until I was about thirty. So... I too was a fool. In my defense I was brought up in an irreligious home - where talk of God was non-existent.
There's an old saying, "Sin clouds the intellect." But sin doesn't necessarily cloud ALL of one's intellect. Just parts here and there. Think of clouds in an otherwise blue sky. And the more sins the more clouds in one's intellectual sky.
For an example, the famous "atheist", Christopher Hitchens' intellect worked very well on some levels. Very poorly on others. He was a good writer, a great public speaker and had a quick wit. However, he had no use for facts - unless they were profitable to him; and he fell into all sorts of philosophical errors. When I read his book, God is Not Great I grew exhausted noting all the intellectual fallacies he engaged in. And that was just the first chapter. Then there were his historical errors....
But Hitchens was an unusual man and atheist. I still agree with him on quite a few things. His reflections on Mother Teresa for example. His low estimation of Bill Clinton. He also famously opposed abortion and once penned a poignant argument against it. And unlike the great majority of atheists today, he usually kept his cool when challenged. Given all this, hopefully he got a cooler place in Hell.
My experience in dealing with atheists is that only a few - around ten percent - don't go primate when their assumptions are tickled. This can get entertaining, as it did in my recent kerfuffle with YouTube luminary, "Professor Dave". Dave isn't a professor at all and in fact has only a BA. He was in a debate recently with a famous scientist, who has a PhD in Chemistry, about the origins of life. It was more a train wreck than a debate. The moderator went MIA and both of them did poorly. It was akin to watching a couple of Protestants excommunicating one another for heresy. To his credit, Dave got in a good burn. But when I went to his YT channel and challenged him regarding his spin on the "debate" he grew very angry and vulgar. Before long he deleted the thread. Even his fan boi's comments - and there were a lot of them. Then he blocked me. Probably a good thing too, otherwise I'd still be there, mocking him. You can go here to see it:
https://citizenfitz09.blogspot.com/2023/10/my-debate-with-crazy-dave.html
But I know how to beat atheists. It's really not that hard. You have to keep things simple, direct, philosophical and on topic. Otherwise they'll just dodge all over the place. In short, the atheist's argument is this: A. "If God exists then I would see Him." B. "I do not see Him." C. "Therefore, God does not exist."
This is called a Modus tollens fallacy: "If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P." The old argumentum ad ignorantiam. Recognizing this, it's a good way to beat them. Not to say they don't engage in lots of other philosophical errors: fallacious appeals to authority, tautologies, straw man-ing, ad hominems, self-contradiction, Masked Man fallacies, the No True Scotsman fallacy, evasion, proof by assertion, lying....
They sometimes don't know the difference between "evidence" and "proof" and will present some debateable slice of evidence as PROOF there is NO God. Then declare themselves the winner! Sorta' like Dave did.
On the other hand they'll demand endless lines of evidence from the theist. If you cite a book about a miracle, they will say the book is anecdotal and demand photographs. Show them photographs and they'll reply they could have been doctored. When you say the pictures were published in an anti-religious newspaper they'll demand to see the video. When you show them a video, they'll say videos can be faked. Should they see the miracle with their own two eyes they'll start talking about optical illusions. There isn't enough evidence in the known universe to dissever them from their intellectual conceits.
They do like to think of themselves as intellectual giants. Compared to theists anyway. As a very good rule it won't be long, long at all, before they're calling the theist "stupid", "uninformed", "a whack job" or something similar.
I like to ask them,"Can you prove there is no God?" To which they'll usually answer: "It's up to you to prove there IS a God!" In fact, I can't recall one "atheist" who's admitted he can't prove there isn't a God. They'd probably rather be burned at the stake. Sometimes they'll counter with "Which god?" Fair enough. To which I respond "The REAL God", then let them take it from there. There's a trap for them hidden in it.
Agnostics for their part are at least honest enough to admit they can't prove God doesn't exist.
Anyway, the point is that saying "There is no God" is no less a philosophical assertion than saying there IS a God. They HAVE TO defend it. Some negative arguments can be proved but this isn't one of them. So even if they refuse to give you a straight answer (almost certain) you'll still have them on the back foot and can use it to boss them around.
Looking back on my own agnosticism I believe now it came from two specific causes: sexual sins; and intellectual pride. I'm confident those are the two loci of the atheist weltanschauung. When all is said and done, they're just lusters, masturbators, fornicators, adulterers... who see themselves as geniuses.
And you might have noticed how most atheists don't really speak about God as if He doesn't exist. No, no, no! They GRIPE about Him constantly! About His "cruelty". About how "unjust" He is. A "sadist!" They'll go on almost forever complaining to anyone who'll listen about someone they claim doesn't exist. Kind of strange, that.
Hitchens was the guru of that line of reasoning. Hey, he titled his book "God is Not Great". Does that sound remotely atheistic? His defenders will say it was against *religion* - but you cannot have a religion without a deity. So, if you say *religion* is bad, the implication is that it comes up short of its divine mandate. Ergo, God IS great! The problem is "religion". But Hitchens wasn't an "atheist", he saw himself as an "anti-theist"... a God hater. Which is a more accurate description of things.
Like Hitchens, "Professor Dave" comes up with some good stuff at times. He's not dumb. He just imagines himself much smarter than he actually is. Like every foolish atheist who's ever lived.
Fitz
No comments:
Post a Comment