An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 42 – Atheism.

By C.L. Bolt

So much work has been done regarding atheism that one hesitates to add much more concerning it in an introduction to covenantal apologetics. The atheist must be pressed for consistency in every area, and her inconsistencies immediately pointed out. The problems of skepticism described in this series are so easily applied to atheism that those new to this method of apologetics sometimes mistakenly think that the method is only applicable to atheism.

The atheist will mockingly demand evidence for the existence of God all the while pretending as though she is neutral with respect to any evidence that is set forth. The Christian cannot allow the atheist to get away with this. Rather, it must be pointed out to the atheist that she carries the burden of proof. She is making the bold and arrogant claim that God does not exist, and should justify her universal negative. This is even more true with respect to the evidence for the existence of God, which she denies exists in any corner of the universe.

Of course, the atheist will scoff and explain to you, you ignorant Christian apologist, that atheism is not the belief or claim that God does not exist, but merely a lack of belief in God. She recognizes the impossible task of proving the universal negative regarding God and the evidence for God and is attempting to lessen the load on herself while increasing it for you. Yet, a hard atheistic stance toward the God of the Bible is implicit in any soft atheism, for the Bible claims that the Christian God is known by every person. If Christianity is true, then the atheist believes in God. The atheist should not assume from the outset that Christianity is false if she does not want to beg the question or carry a burden of proof.

We must ask what the atheist has as an argument against the existence of God, and if anything is produced, show that these arguments already assume that God exists. We must ask what guarantee the atheist has that there is not a shred of evidence in the universe for the existence of God. The atheist certainly does not know everything. Of course, the atheist will fall back again onto something to weaken her case so that she does not have to defend her position. She will do this by citing probability as opposed to certain knowledge, but this move has already been dismissed through pointing out that a hard atheistic stance must be taken. For the atheist, it must not even be possible that a piece of evidence for the existence of God exists. Probability has nothing to do with it.

The atheist must be asked what she means by “evidence” and what she would accept as evidence of the existence of God. It must then be pointed out that both her definition of evidence as well as her silly demand is completely arbitrary. She would exalt herself above God in defining evidence and evaluating whether or not that evidence is sufficient, and this is in and of itself enough for her to hate God when He really does clearly and undeniably reveal Himself to the atheist.

The atheist rules her subjective kingdom in unrighteousness and rejects anything having to do with God as much as she can. This puts the atheist on bad terms with God. The atheist is not neutral with respect to God or evidence of His existence. The atheist hates God and attempts to justify that hatred through arbitrary definitions of and demands for evidence and argument. If the atheist were consistent then she would concede that she does not even have a reason to ask for evidence or argument for a given belief, whether that be belief in God or anything else.

God sets the standard for what is acceptable as evidence of His existence and nature, and He says that the evidence is abundant and plain. The evidence of the existence of God is so abundant and plain, and His nature so clearly perceived by those who claim that they lack belief in Him, that they are without excuse. The atheist attempts to reject the Christian story upon a rationally arbitrary whim; the rejection is first spiritual, then moral, and only then intellectual, although the three are in truth tied very closely together and separated only for emphasis. The atheist must know everything in order to behave the way she does, but she clearly does not know everything. The atheist should, to be consistent, become an agnostic.

< Previous | Next >


3 Comments

An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 41 – Polytheism.

[…] Previous | Next > Blog this! Bookmark on Delicious Digg this post Buzz it up share via Reddit Share with Stumblers […]

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s actual post text did not contain your blog url (http://www.choosinghats.org/2011/05/an-informal-introduction-to-covenantal-apologetics-part-42-%e2%80%93-atheism) and so is spam.

An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 43 – Agnosticism.

[…] < Previous | Next > Blog this! Bookmark on Delicious Digg this post Buzz it up share via Reddit Share with Stumblers Share on technorati Subscribe to the comments on this post Bookmark in Browser […]

Consistency: It Burns!

[…] common objections, fallacy, inconsistency, logic, name calling An atheist links to one of our intro posts, with the title; “The Stupid! It Burns! (covenantal edition)”. He quotes one section, […]


Leave a Comment