The word ‘atheism’ comes from the negative ‘a’ which means ‘no’ and ‘theos’ which means ‘god.’ Hence, atheism in the most base terms means ‘no god.’
Basically, atheism is the belief in a lack of belief in a god and/or the belief that there is no god.
By contrast, theism is the belief that there is a God, that he is knowable, and that he is involved in the world. Most atheists do not consider themselves anti-theists, but simply non-theists. This is why I say that the Vitriol Hatred most claimed Atheists profess on the Forums PROVES the opposite of their claim to
I've encountered many atheists who claim that atheism is not a belief system at all, while others say it is.
Since there is no official atheist organization, nailing down which description of atheism to use can be difficult.
Nevertheless, the following are some definitions offered by atheists. Which ever definition you go by, atheism denies God.
"An atheist is someone who believes and/or knows there is no god."
"An atheist lacks belief in a god."
"An atheist exercises no faith in the concept of god at all."
"An atheist is someone who is free from religious oppression and bigotry." {Wow..that's funny!}
"An atheist is someone who is a free-thinker, free from religion and its ideas."
There are two main categories of atheists: strong and weak, with variations in between. Strong atheists actively believe and state that no God exists.
They expressly denounce the Christian God along with any other god but 99% of their effort is directed toward The God of the bible.
WHY?
Strong atheists are usually more aggressive in their conversations with theists and try to shoot holes in theistic beliefs with unfounded and "strawman" statements trying to pluck the emotional card.
BUT WHY THE GOD OF THE BIBLE? WHY IS HE IN THE CROSS-HAIRS MORE THAN ANY OTHER GOD?
They like to use logic and anti-biblical evidences to denounce God's existence. They are active, often aggressive, and openly believe that there is no God.
Agnostic Atheists, as I call them, are those who deny God's existence based on an examination of evidence. Agnosticism means 'not knowing,' or 'no knowledge.' I call them agnostic because they state they have looked at the evidence and have concluded that there is no God but they say they are open to further evidence for God's existence.
IF THEY WERE REALLY SURE OF THEIR POSITION THEY WOULD NOT WASTE TIME ATTACKING A GOD THAT'S NOT REALLY THERE!
This act of rebellion is one of the most ILLOGICAL concepts ever, to fight against a God that does not exist in their "beliefs" but must be real enough to attack on a daily basis!
Weak atheists simply exercise no faith in God. The weak atheist might be better explained as a person who lacks belief in God the way a person might lack belief that there is a green lizard in a rocking chair on the moon; it isn't an issue. He doesn't believe or not believe it, he doesn't care one way or the other.
Finally, there is a group of atheists that I call "militant atheists". They are, fortunately, few in number. They are usually highly insulting and profoundly terse in their comments to theists, particularly Christians.
I’ve encountered a few of them and they are vile, rude, and highly condescending. Their language is full of insults, profanity, and blasphemies. Basically,........ no meaningful conversation can be had with them.
I believe they act this way to defer from the real issues at hand, the evidence before them is daunting to prove otherwise so they resort to childish "I know you are but what am I" arguments instead of true Logical debate!
This type of person is the worst kind of "god-hater" as they like to parrot other Atheist statement that they themselves have failed to comprehend what they are saying.
Two Main Types of Arguments from Atheists
Atheist positions seem to fall into two main categories.
The first is the lack-of-evidence category where the atheist asserts that the supporting evidence isn't good enough for him to affirm God's existence.
The second is the category where they believe that the idea of God's existence is illogical and contrary to the evidence at hand. To simplify, one says there isn't enough evidence to conclude that God exists and the other says the evidence is contrary to God's existence.
For those atheists who simply lack belief and exercise no energy in the discussion, neither category applies because they are not involved in the debate.
But, some of those who claim to lack belief in God are often involved in discussions where they are arguing against God's existence.
A typical argument posed by an atheist to show why God does not exist is as follows:
"God is supposed to be all good and all-powerful. Evil and suffering exist in the world. If God is all good he would not want evil and suffering to exist.
If He is all-powerful, then He is able to remove all evil and suffering. Since evil and suffering exist, God is either not all good (which means he is not perfect and not God), or he is not all-powerful (and limited in abilities and scope).
Since either case shows God is not all good and powerful, then He does not exist. Of course, the problem is that the criticism is a false dichotomy.
In other words, there are more than two possibilities; namely, God might have a reason for allowing evil and suffering; man's freedom might require the allowance of evil and suffering, etc."
Some Basic Tenets of Atheism
Presuppositions are important to us all. We look at the world through them. The atheist has a set of presuppositions, too. As I said, there is no definitive atheist organization that defines the absolutes of atheism, but that doesn't mean there aren't some common, there are basic principles that atheists, as a whole, tend to adopt. I've tried to list some of them below.
Please note, however, that not all atheists accept all of these tenets.
The only absolute common tenet they hold to is that they do not believe in a God or gods.
1.) There is no God or devil.
(They seem to care a lot more about the true God than ANY other god in the world!)
2.) There is no supernatural realm.
3.) Miracles cannot occur.
4.) There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God's will.
5.) Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.
6.) Man is material.
7.) Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.
8.) Ethics and morals are relative.
For the Christian, atheism clashes with many aspects of our faith. Some atheists openly attack Christianity citing apparent contradictions in the Bible, perceived philosophical difficulties related to God, and what they consider as logical evidences against God's existence.
But the atheists' criticisms are not without very good answers!
Dealing with atheism is actually easy to do.
They don't have any evidence for their atheism and they can't logically prove there is no God.
They can only attack the Bible and attack Christians' ideas of God, which very so much as to make me think that religion is shooting itself in the foot.
But, if you listen to them, you can soon find that their logic has many holes in it.
It takes practice, but you can do it. The following questions can be challenging to atheists,they will not stop them BUT CHALLENGE THEIR INTELLECT to see how long it takes before they become condescending. Do not return their condescension.
Instead, ask them to give rational reasons for their positions. In the process of interacting with them, learn how to argue [In Love] with them better.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2RD4vTuPN0&feature=player_embedded]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GACL4fcgy-I&feature=player_embedded][youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ3XfXTQMCY&feature=player_embedded]
Ways to Attack Atheism (NOT Atheists as people):
Remember this is a spiritual Battle NOT one of mental prowess!
IT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT'S JOB TO CONVINCE OF SIN NOT OURS!
By asking questions of their "Beliefs against God"and always keep in mind that this is battle not of wills but in the spiritual realm alone.
Atheism is an intellectual position NOT a fact of nature.
What reasons do you have for holding that position?
Your reasons are based upon logic, and/or evidence or lack of it.
So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend?
If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, you are holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis?
If so, then isn't that simply faith?
If you say that atheism is supported by the lack of evidence for God, then it is only your opinion that there is no evidence.
You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God.
If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief in them, too?
By using logic [Keep in mind the "Straw-man Trick". ] How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?
This approach is a bit more complicated. If you use this one, first be familiar with The Christian Worldview, the Atheist Worldview, and Logic.
Can the atheist present a logical reason how his worldview can account for the abstract laws of logic?
I think not. But, the Christian world view can. The Christian worldview states that God is the author of truth, logic, physical laws, etc.
Atheism maintains that physical laws are properties of matter, and that truth and logic are relative conventions (agreed upon principles). Is this logically defensible?
I present this outline in hopes of clarifying the issue and presenting, what I consider, an insurmountable problem of the atheistic worldview.
I hesitate to state that this is a proof that God exists, but I think that it is evidence of the Absolute Nature of God.
This argument is adapted from the Transcendental Argument championed by Greg Bahnsen.
How does a Christian account for the laws of logic?
The Christian worldview states that God is absolute and the standard of truth. Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God. God did not create the laws of logic.
They were not brought into existence since they reflect God's thinking. Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are too.
Man, being made in Gods image, is capable of discovering these laws of logic. He does not invent them. Therefore, the Christian can account for the existence of the Laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God and that Man is only discovering them.
Nevertheless, the atheist might say that in his answer is too simplistic and too convenient. It might be, but at least the Christian worldview can account for the existence of logic itself.
Examples of the laws of logic:
Law of Identity:
Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature.
Law of Non-Contradiction:
Something cannot be its self and not itself at the same time in the same way and in the same sense.
Law of Excluded Middle:
a statement is either true or false. Thus the statement "A statement is either true or false" is either true or false.
How does the atheist account for the laws of logic?
If the Atheist states that the laws of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to "vote."
The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory.
If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing natural principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe.
We discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. The laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions. For example, we do not see in nature that something is both itself and not itself at the same time.
Why?
Because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist. If something is not itself, then it doesn't exist. How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed?
It cannot.
Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought. Or, where do we observe in nature that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist?
You cannot make an observation about how something does not occur if it does not exist. You would be, in essence, observing nothing at all and how can any laws of logic be applied to or derived from observing nothing at all?
The laws of logic are conceptual realities. They only exist in the mind and they do not describe physical behavior of things since behavior is action and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth. In other words, laws of logic are not actions.
They are statements about conceptual patterns of thought. Though one could say that a law of physics (i.e., the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence) is a statement which is conceptual, it is a statement that describes actual physical and observable behavior.
But, logical absolutes are not observable and do not describe behavior or actions of things since they reside completely in the mind. We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in matter. You don't watch an object NOT bring itself into existence if it doesn't exist. Therefore, no law of logic can be observed by watching nothing.
If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised and the atheist has nothing to work with. If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.
Atheists will use logic to try to disprove Gods existence, but in so doing they are assuming absolute laws of logic and borrowing from the Christian worldview.
The Christian worldview maintains that the laws of logic are absolute because they come from God who is Himself absolute.
But the atheist worldview does not have an absolute God. So, we ask, "How can absolute, conceptual, abstract laws be derived from a universe of matter, energy and motion?"
In other words, "How can an atheist with a naturalistic presupposition account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and not physical, energy, or motion?"
The Christian theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God. God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its created. God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.
Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute. They are absolute because there is an absolute God. The atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic/absolutes, and must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.
IF YOU STEAL FROM SOMEONE TO PROVE YOU HAVE SOMETHING HAVEN'T YOU JUST PROVED THAT PERSON HAD IT FIRST?
First of all, when using logic, you should be familiar with basic laws of logic and logical fallacies. It is very useful to point out the various logical fallacies to atheists as they commit them.
Therefore, please be familiar with :
Logical Fallacies or Fallacies in Argumentation
There are different kinds of logical fallacies that people make in presenting their positions. Below is a list of some of the major fallacies. It is a good idea to be familiar with them so that you can point them out in a discussion thereby focusing the issues where they belong while exposing error.
It is true that during a debate on an issue, if you simply point out to your "opponent" a logical fallacy that he/she has just made, it generally gives you the upper hand.
But then, merely having the upper hand is not the goal. Truth is. Nevertheless, it is logical fallacies that hide the truth. So, pointing them out is very useful. Ad hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.
Example:
You are so stupid your argument couldn't possibly be true.
Example:
I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment.
Appeal to force - The hearer is told that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.
Example:
If you don't want to get beat up, you will agree with what I say.
Example:
Convert or die. Appeal to pity - The hearer is urged to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.
Example:
You owe me big time because I really stuck my neck out for you.
Example:
Oh come on, I've been sick. That's why I missed the deadline. Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.
Example:
The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good. Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you?
Appeal to tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.
Example:
This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.
Example:
The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.
Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove.
It is circular.
Example:
God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists.
Example:
I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust Frank? Simple. I will vouch for him.
Cause and Effect - assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.
Example:
When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise.
Example:
When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas. Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas.
Circular Argument - see Begging the Question - assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.
Example:
That car is blue. Therefore, its engine is blue. Example: Your family is weird. That means that you are weird too.
Equivocation - The same term is used in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.
Example:
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, a bird is worth more than President Bush.
Example:
Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species.
False Dilemma - Two choices are given when in actuality there could be more choices possible.
Example:
You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it?
Example:
Do you still beat your wife?
Genetic Fallacy - The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim
Example:
The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle. Therefore, you should not bye a VW Beetle because of who started it.
Example:
Frank's just got out of jail last year and since it was his idea to start the hardware store, I can't trust him.
Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone is disliked by another.
Example:
Hitler liked dogs. Therefore dogs are bad. Example: Your friend is a thief. Therefore, I cannot trust you.
Non Sequitar - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.
Example:
We know why it rained today, because I washed my car.
Example:
I don't care what you say. We don't need any more bookshelves. As long as the carpet is clean, we are fine.
Poisoning the well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
Example:
Frank is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows everything. So, let's hear what Frank has to say about the subject.
Example:
Don't listen to him because he is a loser. Red Herring - The introduction of a topic not related to the subject at hand.
Example:
I know your car isn't working right. But, if you had gone to the store one day earlier, you'd not be having problems.
Example:
I know I forgot to deposit the check into the bank yesterday. But, nothing I do pleases you.
Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a different standard to another that is applied to oneself.
Example:
You can't possibly understand menopause because you are a man. Example: Those rules don't apply to me since I am older than you.
Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument to attack that is a weaker representation of the truth.
Example:
The government doesn't take care of the poor because it doesn't have a tax specifically to support the poor.
Example:
We know that evolution is false because we did not evolve from monkeys.
The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and are always true all the time everywhere.
They are not physical properties. How do atheists account for them from an atheist perspective?
Everything that was brought into existence was caused to exist. Can you have an infinite regression of causes?
No, since to get to "now" you'd have to traverse an infinite past.
It seems that there must be a single uncaused cause.
Why can't that be God?
Examples of logical absolutes are:
something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time (Law of non contradiction).
A thing is what it is (Law of identity).
A statement is either true or false (Law of excluded middle).
These are simple, absolute logical absolutes.
If atheism is true:
The universe has laws.
These laws cannot be violated.
Life is a product of these laws and can only exist in harmony with those laws and is governed by them.
Therefore, human thought, feelings, etc., are programmed responses to stimuli and the atheist cannot legitimately claim to have meaning in life.
Human constructs?
If the laws of logic are human constructs then how can they be absolute since humans think differently and often contradictory.
If they are produced from human minds, and human minds are mutually contradictory, then how can the constructs be absolute?
Therefore, the laws of logic are not human constructs. The Universe exists The universe exists. Is it eternal or did it have a beginning?
It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite).
Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.
What brought the universe into existence?
It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.
The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God.
What does atheism offer instead of God?
If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy).
This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.
Uncaused Cause Objection
If something cannot bring itself into existence, then God cannot exist since something had to bring God into existence.
Answer:
Not so. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes lest an infinity be crossed (which cannot happen). Therefore, there must be a single un-caused, cause. All things that came into existence were caused to exist.
You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed).
Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.
Responding to Atheist Statements about God
"I Lack belief in a God"
If you say that atheism is simply lack of belief in a god, then my cat is an atheist the same as the tree outside and the sidewalk out front, since they also lack faith.
Therefore, your definition is insufficient.
Lacking belief is a non-statement because you have been exposed to the concept of God and have made a decision to accept or reject.
Therefore, you either believe there is a God or you do not...or you are agnostic.
You cannot remain in a state of "lack of belief."
If you lack belief in God, then why do you go around attacking the idea of God?
If you also lack belief in invisible pink unicorns, why don't you go around attacking that idea?
"I believe there is no God."
On what basis do you believe there is no God? Why don't you believe there is a God?
"There is no God" You cannot logically state that there is no God because you cannot know all things so as to determine that there is no God.
"There is no proof that God exists"
To say "there is no proof for God's existence," is illogical because an atheist cannot know all things by which he could state that there is no proof because there are no absolutes according to them.
He can only say he has not yet seen a convincing proof; after all, there may be one he hasn't yet seen.
"All of Science has never found any evidence for God"
That is a subjective statement. There are many scientists who affirm evidence for God's existence through science.
How did they find it and you can't?
Your presupposition is that science has no evidence for God, but that is only an opinion. Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc.
God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore, it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found.
What is God?
or Define God.
God is the only Supreme Being who is unchanging, eternal, holy, and Trinitarian (Not Triad) in nature.
He alone possesses the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.
He alone brought the universe into existence by the exertion of His will.
Prove your God is real.
I can no more prove to you (Because you won't see the truth and have the faith of God planted in your heart) that God is real than I can prove to you that I love my family. If you are convinced I don't love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as invalid.
It is your presuppositions that are the problem, not whether or not God exists.
I can no more prove to you that God is real than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgement of many types of evidence...because your presuppositions don't allow it.
The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning.
The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe.
When the atheist complains, ask him to logically explain the existence of the universe.
I would point out to you that opinions and guesses don't count.
Responding to Atheist Statements about the Bible
"The Bible is full of contradictions"
Saying the Bible is full of contradictions does not mean it is so. Can you provide a contradiction that we can examine in context?
Responding to Atheist Statements about Evolution and Naturalism
"Evolution is a fact"
That depends on if it is "micro or macro".
Micro variations occur, but macro variations (speculation) have not been observed.
The best we have are fossils and they have to be interpreted.
Besides, there are plenty of gaps in the fossil record.
Have you read any books that discuss the contrary evidence to evolution?
If not, then how can you say you are educated enough to say it is a fact?
"Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God."
"Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws."
If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.
Responding to Atheist Statements about Truth
"There are no absolute truths"
To say there are no absolute truths is an attempt to state an absolute truth.
If your statement is true, then it is self-contradictory, and not true and you are wrong.
As you can see there is "Absolute Truth"or there IS NO TRUTH AT ALL!
Is truth relative?
How could it be; if it were, then Atheist truth is as relative and changing and unimportant as any other, so where's the foundation that it rests on?
THE ARGUMENT FAILS ITS OWN TEST!
YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO!
This is a case of painting your beliefs into an illogical conclusion.
