It takes somebody really, really … special … to spend hours upon hours blogging, podcasting, and commenting about an imaginary concept of deity with no more intellectual credibility than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. And yet there are people who do exactly that day after day! Think of all those grown men sitting at their computers wasting their time lashing out at people for believing in God when they could be partying it up before the worms eat them.
Are we really supposed to think that Scripture does not give us a much better explanation of such idiotic behavior than its competitors?
Comments
49 responses to “The Achilles’ Heel of Internet Atheism?”
How much ink has been spilt over 9-11 truthers, JFK conspiracy theorists, New Age Mumbo Jumbo, and on and on and on. The more ridiculous people perceive an idea to be the more they’re usually compelled to try and debunk it I know you’re not going to say 9-11 must have been an inside job and the people who argue against it are just committing self-deception and their resistance is just evidence that they know in their heart that Bush brought down the towers.
You also seem to be operating under the false assumption that “partying it up” is everyone’s idea of a good time. Some people actually prefer debating issues they find to be important preferable over keg stands or whatever else you might have in mind.There are plenty of faults one can find with internet atheism,
it’s as mixed a bag as any human endeavor, but this objection is just silly and empty.
The behavior you just described Captain, is highly illogical. I have always thought given the atheists presuppositions that they should be stoic in regards to opposing views. The fact that they are so “emotional” proves to me that what the Bible says about the unbeliever is true. That being suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. If they were not doing this then we should rarely hear from them.
I don’t think my fellow atheists intend to get into that bind, but there is that tempting but forbidden rhetorical fruit of dismissing the other’s view as childish or silly that is too good to pass up when faced with the realities of how much work one needs to do to get just a proper and basic understanding of any religion.
The end result is…well…”New Atheism” which is incredibly boring and predictable, but its style is fun and gives the appearance of hard won knowledge where none exists.
Same charge has been made against Calvinists. Why bother with evangelism when the salvation of Gods elect is secure and only the Holy spirit can change men’s hearts? Does your hours of philosophical argument betray the fact that you don’t really believe in the Holy Spirit. I admit it’s a lazy argument. But so is your version. Ones religious beliefs can inform their political worldview and their stance on social issues. There is plenty of motivation to critique a view you find ridiculous. Besides not all atheists think religion is as silly as Santa Clause, etc. As far as the stoicism remark goes, I cant find a reason why “humans wont get emotional” follows from “God doesnt exist.” Even if we grant the very dubious notion that all intellectual frustration flows from cognitive dissonance that still would’t show all atheists secretly believe in God. Stick to presupposing you are right…abductive appeals dont offer the same kind of shelter.
Why would freed slaves invest their lives in the freeing of other slaves?
I spent far too many decades behind the life-diminishing bars of faith. I wish this on no one, and have committed myself to helping others escape to a life of rationality.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
I was told all my life that morals came from God. I thought that if I ever stopped believing God, I could go do whatever I wanted, free from my morals. Well, that day came. But I didn’t change. And that was the day I realized I had been lied to (unintentionally). Morals come from within ourselves, from a desire to be loved and yes, a desire to love. I still care about other people. I still feel good when I give a complete stranger a bit of gasoline or pick up their dropped phone. And I still would like to see people engaging in rational arguments.
I think you were trying to ask a question like this: “Why do non-Christians care about anything besides themselves?” Behind that is the assumption that you are a moral person because of the existence of God. I would like to tell you that you are wrong. Your morals don’t have to come from God. We are not selfish beings, we are social beings.
Nairn,
“I was told all my life that morals came from God. I thought that if I ever stopped believing God, I could go do whatever I wanted, free from my morals.”
Then you misunderstood what you were told all your life. Morality doesn’t come from *belief* in God, but by His very existence, as His character permeates all His creation in various ways. Hence your adherence to morals, less belief.
It might be highlighted that the over-arching point being made is that the practice of such people betrays their professed principles. No one spends hours on writing and podcasts to debunk the Easter Bunny or Santa.
“Are we really supposed to think that Scripture does not give us a much better explanation of such idiotic behavior than its competitors?”
That men attempt to rationalize their rebellion against God is a better explanation than, “well, it’s fun.” I think his point has been made.
I think the counterpoint has been ignored. You were given many reasons other than “its fun”. BTW if several million people believed in the Easter bunny and Santa, wrote libraries of books articulating and defending Bunnyism and the First Church of Santa the Divine and used thier beliefs to argue for controversial social policies….you better believe there would be people spending hours debunking it. Yourselves included. Seriously, is this such a hard thing to acknowledge? Would your worldview crumble to the ground if you acknowledged that atheists, like Christians, can be motivated by social factors or their philosophical outlook? Oh right…I’m talking to presuppositionalists…maybe it would. Well at the very least you guys make me appreciate other Christians more. I probably have some “thanks for being a decent fairminded person even though we disagree” letters I should be writing.
Jeremy,
If you’d like, you may take “fun” to mean “existential or psychological satisfaction.” The point of my statement was to highlight the individuality of the motive in the various atheistic efforts to “debunk” what they hastily, and perhaps even ignorantly (you’ll excuse me for sticking to my presuppositions), consider to be a “false belief.” It’s not as if atheists are serving some “higher purpose” (as though some purpose actually exists, as they see it) in contradicting others’ beliefs, whether it be belief in Bunnyism or Santa-ism. Of course, any idea that rises against the truth of the Bible is fair game, as far as we’re concerned.
Further, any social factors or philosophical outlooks that would cause a person to argue *against* Christianity can be chalked up to sinful rebellion, and reasonably so, given what we believe. Sin is something to which both social factor and philosophical outlook are subject. If there is some higher purpose atheists are serving in their efforts, it would be sin. So, rather than crumbling to the ground, such things may indeed serve to strengthen our worldview. That men attempt to rationalize their sinful rebellion against God is a better explanation than [any reason you could possibly give].
McFormtist
Just for the record, I am not ignoring the comments or the counterpoints. I am collecting objections to address should I decide to write another post on this point.
So by all means continue.
And by the way, my worldview, as a presuppositionalist, would not crumble to the ground if I recognized philosophical and sociological factors that motivate atheists. lol In fact I do recognize those factors. You must think presuppositionalists live in a cave or something.
Same charge has been made against Calvinists. Why bother with evangelism when the salvation of Gods elect is secure and only the Holy spirit can change men’s hearts?
http://blog.vox-veritatis.com/2010/01/if-god-is-sovereign-why-pray-and.html
Treating you as ignorant is the most charitable thing we can do, you’re clearly leaving out a large portion of evidence that cuts against your thesis and the two explanations that fit are that you were ignorant of this evidence or that you knowingly left it out.
So understand, when greeted with bizarre accusations like the one you make in this post treating you like you “live in a cave” is the polite thing to do.
Did you miss where I just said that I am collecting objections? You allude to my comment, but do not recognize that part of my comment in your own.
What “bizarre accusations” are you talking about? Are we commenting on the same post?
Keep the objections coming!
If spending time debunking Christianity on the internet means that there is less superstition-based tyranny in my world, then it’s a small price to pay.
“It takes somebody really, really … special … to spend hours upon hours blogging, podcasting, and commenting …”
Does this also apply to all the apologists who endlessly blog about the problems with atheism?
“Does this also apply to all the apologists who endlessly blog about the problems with atheism?”
Andrew, yes. We have a command on God’s authority to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God”, and to “take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor 10:5). This is consistent with Christian Theism
However how would this be consistent with a naturalism? If irrationalism is assumed as the backdrop to what is rational, there is no ultimate meaning in anything. Everything that is done, is done so arbitrarily. Words are just a result of thoughts, and thoughts are just a result of chemicals in the brain. It’s just a bodily function. Sure, you can argue with someone who believes differently than you today, and maybe you can convince someone every now and again, but at the end of the day, what does it matter? You just wasted a few hours of your life that your short life that you could have used to reproduce and pass on your genetics, or surviving or what have you.
@resequiter
You have a command on God’s authority…however there is no God, so there is no such authority on which to make such a commandment.
I know the anthropoligical history of in-group/out-group dynamics, and why I spend my time rebutting incorrect beliefs. I am fully aware that it is not necessary to do this, but it is in my nature as a primate. So the difference between the godly blogger and the atheist blogger is this: We are each wasting our short lives -but at least I know I’m wasting mine.
Josh says:
“@resequiter
You have a command on God’s authority…however there is no God, so there is no such authority on which to make such a commandment.”
Yes, Josh I have a command on God’s authority…however you are wrong when you say “there is no God” so there is such an authority on which to make such a commandment. It would do you well to consider the argument I made above before you make such naive assertions that can easily be turned around.
Also, you made a pretty huge assertion, and I admire you for admitting that you believe that “there is no God”. Not many atheists today have such the backbone, and sink into an agnosticism, e.g. “there may be some sort of god or gods, but we can’t know”. However, given the grandness of the assertion, I hope you have an argument that backs it up. Let’s look at what follows this brave assertion
“I know the anthropoligical history of in-group/out-group dynamics, and why I spend my time rebutting incorrect beliefs. I am fully aware that it is not necessary to do this, but it is in my nature as a primate.So the difference between the godly blogger and the atheist blogger is this: We are each wasting our short lives -but at least I know I’m wasting mine.”
All that follows is just an autobiographical description of how he wastes time, but what kind of use do comments such as these have? After all, Josh admits himself that they are just a waste of time. I wonder how Josh would feel if we consistently followed his description of being a “waste” and just marked all of his comments as spam. Given that they are just a “waste” they belong in the “waste” basket. One really has to wonder if Josh really believes what he just said. If he did, why would he feel the need to tell us? Oh but he did give a reason “It’s just my nature as a primate”. Perhaps Josh should speak for himself. This is just another assertion. Not any real content here, just ask Josh. It’s all just a waste of time anyway. This line of reasoning is exactly what is being referred to in the post. The problem is, that it’s not even consistent. Josh says one thing, and does the other. Atheism is really just schizophrenia masked up. Perhaps Josh should learn from his primate brethren and take his “waste” slinging to the zoo with the other monkeys.
I wasn’t aware that I was required to provide an argument for the statement “there is no god”, or that it was a gutsy thing to say. I was just stating the obvious. If you pointed to an empty chair and said, “be careful not to sit on that chair, my cat is sleeping on it,” I would tell you not to worry. There’s no cat in the chair. I wouldn’t need to prove it..you would. When Torricelli claimed that air had weight, even though it is invisible, he had to prove it. When Pasteur claimed that small, invisible organisms were making people sick, he didn’t tell the rest of the world to prove it wasn’t the true. He had to prove it.
Additionally, I was being quite consistent. I told you that we were both wasting time by arguing with each other, even though only I knew I was wasting my time. I continued to knowingly “waste” my time, and you continued to unknowingly “waste” yours. Pretty consistent. It would be inconsistent to mark my comments as spam, or “waste” them in the “waste” basket, without doing the same to yours.
I realize that it is not necessary for me to write this. It’s also not necessary for me play sudoku on the bus, but I enjoy it as an intellectual distraction; a de-stressor (in addition to the anthropological reasons). It’s fun and challenging to debate people who tell you your arguments are invalid because of rules whose existence they take for granted, and things they see that nobody can see (THAT sounds like masked up schizophrenia to me). Presuppositionalist-style arguments have a tendency to be two people turning arguments around on each other, back and forth. And it’s fun. You say that I’m inconstant, because consistency means something else to you…and then I counter that by pointing out why I was. You’ll probably want to counter that…back and forth. Fun.
Finally, if you have an issue with the primate classification, you should take that up with Linnaeus. He’s dead, but that shouldn’t be an obstacle for someone like you.
“I wasn’t aware that I was required to provide an argument for the statement “there is no god”
Sure you are. It’s an assertion that has yet to be argued. Especially given that it is the very point of debate.
“If you pointed to an empty chair and said, “be careful not to sit on that chair, my cat is sleeping on it,” I would tell you not to worry. There’s no cat in the chair. I wouldn’t need to prove it..you would.”
That’s a nice analogy, but the problem is that it doesn’t consider the argument being given. We are not pointing at an empty chair, we are pointing to the revelation of the Triune God, which is everything created (including ourselves who are in His image) and special revelation (which is His inspired Word). If you assert that the Scripture is not His inspired Word, then you are simply pushing the question back another step, and you must tell us by what authority you are able to do so. If you tell us that you do so because your reasoning leads you to this conclusion, then you must account for the preconditions which makes reasoning intelligible. In any case you should deal with the arguments given instead of answering a strawman argument that has nothing to do with what we are arguing.
” I wouldn’t need to prove it..you would. ”
I recall a couple of posts here about the atheistic burden of proof that I won’t repeat, as I find it was sufficiently dealt with:
https://choosinghats.org/2011/07/the-athiests-burden-of-proof/
https://choosinghats.org/2011/11/extraordinary-claims-the-atheists-burden-of-proof-revisited/
“When Torricelli claimed that air had weight, even though it is invisible, he had to prove it. When Pasteur claimed that small, invisible organisms were making people sick, he didn’t tell the rest of the world to prove it wasn’t the true. He had to prove it.”
However, God transcends the created universe. He is not contained by it, even though He interacts with it. So the level of proof must be reconsidered. In order to see planets, one would require the use of a telescope. In order to see tiny bacteria otherwise invisible to the naked eye, one would have to use a microscope. We challenge the unbeliever to put on the spectacles of Scripture, instead of continuing to look through the yellow spectacles cemented to his/her face. The Scriptures are God’s reasoning on His authority. From His light we have light, otherwise we remain in our blind sinfulness. It is God who has ordained the facts to be what they are, for His glory, “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.” (Romans 11:36) ” All things came into being through Him (The Word) , and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” (John 1:3). This has ramifications on how we reason, and if we do not think our thoughts according to the One who is the Truth (John 14:6) then we remain in the irrationality of our own autonomous sinful thinking. So our argument, in considering the authority of God’s Word, and good and necessary consequences, is that if we do not presuppose The Triune God of Scripture as the ultimate precondition, then we cannot prove anything.
“Additionally, I was being quite consistent. I told you that we were both wasting time by arguing with each other, even though only I knew I was wasting my time.”
You only asserted what you believed we were doing, because of what you thought we were. I told you to speak for yourself, and reason accordingly. If we were to push your worldview to it’s logical conclusion, then there would be no reason to believe whether we were or were not wasting any time. That would require the use of logic, which you have yet to account for. So according to your own reasoning, you might be better off spending your time in a zoo slinging poop at other primates
“I continued to knowingly “waste” my time, and you continued to unknowingly “waste” yours”
1)Given the logical implications of your worldview, you cannot know anything intelligibly
2) Don’t impute your worldview to mine. I believe that you are wasting your time in a different way than you do (exalting your own reasoning against the Self-contained, Omniscient God of Scripture) and that I’m not wasting my time as there is a purpose behind what I am doing, e.g God’s glory.
“Pretty consistent”
Pretty inconsistent.
“It would be inconsistent to mark my comments as spam, or “waste” them in the “waste” basket”
Not according to you.
“without doing the same to yours.”
You should really learn to follow your own line of reasoning before you attempt to do so with others. According to you there would be no problem in marking our comments in spam, because we are just primates slinging poo. According to my reasoning, it isn’t a waste of time for me to argue, and that it is a waste of time for you to argue (but as I said above, for another reason).
“I realize that it is not necessary for me to write this.”
Yet here you are writing it.
” It’s also not necessary for me play sudoku on the bus, but I enjoy it as an intellectual distraction; a de-stressor (in addition to the anthropological reasons).”
I would too if I believed I were living in a void.
“. It’s fun and challenging to debate people who tell you your arguments are invalid because of rules whose existence they take for granted, and things they see that nobody can see (THAT sounds like masked up schizophrenia to me). ”
It must be fun and challenging to do so, given your constant misrepresentation and truncation of the arguments that you are given. THAT sounds like dishonesty to me.
“Presuppositionalist-style arguments have a tendency to be two people turning arguments around on each other, back and forth.”
You must be referring to the Reductio, which is basic argumentation used by more than just Christian apologists. Nothing unique about the style, the only thing “unique” is the content.
” You say that I’m inconstant, because consistency means something else to you…and then I counter that by pointing out why I was. You’ll probably want to counter that…back and forth. Fun.”
I believe I’ve pointed it out already, but you are too busy misrepresenting to notice. Imagine that.
“Finally, if you have an issue with the primate classification, you should take that up with Linnaeus. He’s dead, but that shouldn’t be an obstacle for someone like you.”
If you have an issue with the Imago Dei classification, you should take that up with God. He’s still alive, though the author He inspired to write is dead. It will probably be an obstacle for someone like you, given the constant misrepresentation and strawmen you’ve given before. Consider it a challenge to honestly represent the Christian position.
Resequitur:
So none of your reasoning for your belief in god comes from outside scripture? You just look in the book and believe what it tells you to believe because it tells you to believe what it tells you? If I told you that that position wasn’t reasonable, you’d tell me that the book told you that reason isn’t possible without the god from the book, so it’s unreasonable to reason without accepting god, right? Just trying to get a clear picture.
“So none of your reasoning for your belief in god comes from outside scripture? ”
I believe that creation itself is a form of revelation, however, it isn’t sufficient to lead one to believe Who God is. This is why scripture is there to carry our reasoning along, to a salvific knowledge of God, instead of just the general knowledge that every man has. I believe the laws of logic are tools God created us with to assist us in our dominion of the world, as we are in His image, and the crown of His creation. But they were never intended to be used sinfully (as in apart from God’s reasoning from His Authority ) which is autonomous. There is more that can be said about this, but if you are honestly seeking to know the Christian position, then maybe we can chat more about it. This is just to give you a general idea.
” You just look in the book and believe what it tells you to believe because it tells you to believe what it tells you?”
Well it isn’t that simple. What you believe to be just some old book, is what I believe to be God’s interpretation of His purpose in what we call “Redemptive History”. It is the history of God’s interaction with man, and that the pens of the author’s were carried along as God moved them to write through the Person and work of the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. If you want a summary of our beliefs concerning the Holy Scripture I would challenge you to read Chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Especially if you are wanting to honestly represent our view.
“If I told you that that position wasn’t reasonable, you’d tell me that the book told you that reason isn’t possible without the god from the book”
No if you told me that my position wasn’t reasonable, I’d tell you that after reading God, the Creator, and Ultimate Author of His inspired Word , and after following the reasoning of biblical deduction known as good and necessary consequences, I would say that without the Triune God of Scripture, you cannot prove anything, as it is the Triune God who ordains the facts to be what they are for His own glory (romans 11:36) (Eph 1:1-4, 5,6,7)
“so it’s unreasonable to reason without accepting god, right? Just trying to get a clear picture.”
It is futile to reason sinfully without first considering the ultimate end of man’s reasoning as well as all of his other abilities, which is to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever.
Why can’t you argue like this all the time. It works better.
Josh,
When I saw that you were seriously inquiring, I started to seriously answer.
If someone follows a clear line of thought from beginning to end, but you happen to disagree with it …does that mean it’s inconsistent? I’m having trouble with your criteria for consistency. I think you are confusing what you feel to be an erroneous premise to be inconsistency. If one believes that both parties are wasting time, and the statement was made that time-wasting posts should be marked up with spam, then why wouldn’t it be consistent for them to believe that both posts should be marked as spam? That’s very simplistically consistent. You may find the premise in error (you don’t think you are wasting your time), but there’s no denying that it’s consistent.
You also spend a lot of time claiming to follow everything to it’s logical conclusion, but just follow it to the most absurd conclusion out of many. Josh is wasting his time AND Josh believes he is a primate, and certain species of primate sometimes throw poop at each other at the zoo THEREFORE… Josh believes he is better off throwing poop at the zoo than arguing on the internet.
“If someone follows a clear line of thought from beginning to end, but you happen to disagree with it …does that mean it’s inconsistent?”
Nope, however if someone does not follow a clear line of thought from beginning to end, and I see it, I will certainly point it out.
“I’m having trouble with your criteria for consistency. ”
I’m sure you are, the implications of the atheistic worldview are very troubling.
“If one believes that both parties are wasting time, and the statement was made that time-wasting posts should be marked up with spam, then why wouldn’t it be consistent for them to believe that both posts should be marked as spam?”
I was following Josh’s line of thought, not my own. Not sure how many times I’m going to have to repeat this. But I’ll do it one more time
Josh believes that both parties are wasting time. I said if he were to be consistent then he wouldn’t have any problems with us marking his comments as spam, he then claimed it was his nature “as a primate” to do such, so I likened it to monkeys slinging poo in a zoo. However in my view, I’m not wasting time, but I believe the atheist’s arguments are “ultimately” futile, given the irrationality involved. However given the Christian Worldview, it can be used as a teachable moment. Which is why they are not marked as spam. Josh is the only one who (if consistent) should believe that these comments are a waste, yet believes for some reason to continue commenting here. I then challenged that perhaps he should spend the small amount of time he has left doing something more productive. Not sure why there is so much trouble understanding this.
“You also spend a lot of time claiming to follow everything to it’s logical conclusion, but just follow it to the most absurd conclusion out of many.”
You are getting the gist of a reductio, congratulations!
Not sure how many times people are going to have to tell you (but here it is AGAIN) that an argument that is internally consistent doesn’t become internally inconsistant simply because you disagree with part of it. Additionally, I never made the argument that I SHOULDN’T waste my time here, I simply argued that I WAS wasting my time. Also, if you have a mandate from god to convince non-believers of his glory, he’s probably shaking his head at you for the sarcasm, the belittling, the condescending attitude, the failure to put together anything but the most convoluted logic, a lack of understanding (contempt, really) for an opposing viewpoint, and a general desire to irritate the very people you are supposed to be helping. Be careful. He might fire you.
Additionally:
1.Reductio works best when you can actually disprove something by using it.
2. You are consistently and erroneously conflating Atheism and existential nihilism. The atheists I know experience the joy of life just as much as you do (if not more due to the knowledge that this is all we have), grieve over loss of loved ones just as much as you do, and try to lead a productive and happy life, just like you.
3. Your tactics for teaching what you consider to be the most important information in the universe, frankly, suck. Not only have you not convinced me, you’ve made it totally clear that your god exists purely in the Christian imagination. You’ve taken everything I’ve said, argued virtually nothing coherent and relevent, presupposed a lot of arbitrary things, and tried your best to make me think you must be right because you think you’re smart. If this is the best messenger god can give…he must not really be trying anymore. However, I think we can agree on one thing: since your teachable moment did nothing but push me farther away from the Christian worldview, then we have both slung poo tonight.
Well said Josh. And there’s another reason to engage in these debates – you get to read the good arguments from other counter-apologists. And you make exactly the same point as me about the ‘greater glory through snarkiness and sneering’.
Strange how posts are going up here but my post from 36 hours ago on the most recent blog has yet to appear. Is it too hot to handle, or are you only going to let it appear once you’ve cobbled together your reply?
Until then… stay special.
“Not sure how many times people are going to have to tell you (but here it is AGAIN) that an argument that is internally consistent doesn’t become internally inconsistant simply because you disagree with part of it. ”
That wasn’t my understanding, however, it seems to be the concern that many are raising, but I’ve still yet to see any of those who are complaining account for the preconditions of intelligibility. If you don’t respond that level of argumentation, or if you fail to see it, then it’s going to be difficult for you to see why I’m arguing the way I am.
“Additionally, I never made the argument that I SHOULDN’T waste my time here, I simply argued that I WAS wasting my time”
I never said that you did.
“Also, if you have a mandate from god to convince non-believers of his glory, he’s probably shaking his head at you for the sarcasm”
I doubt it, given the common usage of sarcasm in scripture.
“the belittling”
You belittle yourself by calling yourself a primate, I challenge you to consider yourself as the image of God, which is the crown of His creation.
“the condescending attitude”
I’m just following the conclusion of your worldview at that point and talking to you like every other animal in the forest.
“, the failure to put together anything but the most convoluted logic”
I was just using what you gave me. Don’t kill the messenger.
“a lack of understanding (contempt, really) for an opposing viewpoint”
I’m not an expert but this isn’t my first rodeo.
“and a general desire to irritate the very people you are supposed to be helping.”
It must be irritating for you to bite the hand that feeds you.
“Be careful. He might fire you.”
Good thing “God is not man, that He should lie, not the son of man that He should change His mind. ” (Num. 23:19)
“Additionally:
1.Reductio works best when you can actually disprove something by using it.”
Yes, disproving atheism on it’s own terms. That’s the gist.
“You are consistently and erroneously conflating Atheism and existential nihilism. ”
There is the rub, I believe that existential nihilism is atheism at it’s most consistent. I’m not saying you are such, rather, I’m challenging you to be consistent with your beliefs.
“The atheists I know experience the joy of life just as much as you do (if not more due to the knowledge that this is all we have), grieve over loss of loved ones just as much as you do, and try to lead a productive and happy life, just like you.”
1) I know you do, however, my argument is that you do so because you are operating within the Christian theistic conception of things, meaning you do so because Christian theism is true. To conceive of the world as otherwise is impossible, thereby disabling you to account for the preconditions of Love, Joy, productivity, life, et al.
2) The same applies with grief, and sadness over the loss of a loved one. A world without death is the natural inclination of mankind, death entered the world through the sin of our representative, Adam, because He failed to obey God’s command, and instead sought to be like God, instead of being satisfied with being the image bearer and having the dominion that God had given him. So we grieve over loved ones because it was not the original intent of creation to die. It’s something we brought in. I don’t expect you to instantly understand that, but it is very basic to Christian theism. (This isn’t a slight to you so don’t take it that way)
“Your tactics for teaching what you consider to be the most important information in the universe, frankly, suck. ”
I’m sorry you feel that way Josh.
“Not only have you not convinced me, you’ve made it totally clear that your god exists purely in the Christian imagination.”
Nope, that is just a result of the atheistic brain screening, unfortunately.
” You’ve taken everything I’ve said, argued virtually nothing coherent and relevent”
Or I took everything you said, gave it back to you as is, and you are finally starting to see the incoherence and irrelevance of your conception of the world.
“presupposed a lot of arbitrary things”
Kind of like the atheistic presupposition of the uniformity of nature.
” and tried your best to make me think you must be right because you think you’re smart”
I’m just a laymen, so my arguments were pretty basic.
“However, I think we can agree on one thing: since your teachable moment did nothing but push me farther away from the Christian worldview, then we have both slung poo tonight.”
I don’t believe so, but as I said, I’m sorry you feel that way. God’s Word can be used to soften the hearts of sinners, or harden them, in either case it has it’s intended effect. I do pray that God will grant you repentance.
“maybe you can convince someone every now and again, but at the end of the day, what does it matter?”
Improving the world is a noble aim for me. Perhaps it isn’t for you.
“You just wasted a few hours of your life that your short life that you could have used to reproduce and pass on your genetics, or surviving or what have you.”
That says more about your motivations than it does mine. Perhaps improving the world is a ‘waste’ to you; it isn’t to me. If passing on your genes and surviving is all you have to motivate you, that’s fine, but you shouldn’t make that assumption for others. Alternatively, if belief in God is what it takes to motivate you beyond that selfish attitude, then that’s fine too – but again you shouldn’t make the assumption that all others are the same.
” If irrationalism is assumed as the backdrop to what is rational, there is no ultimate meaning in anything.”
‘Ultimate’ meaning? Something either has meaning or it doesn’t. Positing a God makes no difference to this. If something is meaningless without God then it remains so with Him.
“Improving the world is a noble aim for me. Perhaps it isn’t for you.”
What is the atheists’ standard for nobility? What is the atheistic standar for improvement? How do these terms makes sense within the atheistic worldview?
“That says more about your motivations than it does mine.”
Not really, I’m following the logical implications of your worldview. Try and keep up with the argument
“Perhaps improving the world is a ‘waste’ to you; it isn’t to me.”
I never said it was a waste, Josh did. I’m challenging you to follow through consistently with what you said.
“If passing on your genes and surviving is all you have to motivate you, that’s fine, but you shouldn’t make that assumption for others.”
Try and read the argument again, I specifically set a distinction between my worldview, and the logical implications of atheism.
” Alternatively, if belief in God is what it takes to motivate you beyond that selfish attitude,”
1)Now you are making moral objections? Why is it wrong to be selfish over not being selfish? Where did this come in the atheist worldview? How does objective morality make sense?
2) Let me remind you again that I’m just following the logical conclusion of what is being argued. If you want to remain inconsistent then that’s just fine, you just are conceding your own worldview to do so.
“then that’s fine too – but again you shouldn’t make the assumption that all others are the same.”
Why shouldn’t I? Make an argument, rather than repeating what I shouldn’t do over and over.
“‘Ultimate’ meaning? Something either has meaning or it doesn’t.”
Was that supposed to be an argument against Christian Theism?
“Positing a God makes no difference to this.”
We aren’t simply “positing” “a God”. We are arguing that unless the Triune God of Scripture is at the back of everything, ordaining (pre-interpreting) all of the facts together for His glory, then there is no meaning in anything.
” If something is meaningless without God then it remains so with Him.”
There is no such thing as “meaningless” in the Christian worldview. That only exists within the atheistic imagination as the backdrop.
“Not really, I’m following the logical implications of your worldview. Try and keep up with the argument”
Not really to you too – you’re offering non sequiturs and CLAIMING that they result from logical implications of my worldview. There’s no argument there for me to keep up with.
Your game-plan appears to be to take any reason offered for anything and reply “But what’s your justification for THAT?”. This is a literally childish tactic that simply leads to an infinite regress, and one that doesn’t go away if you posit a God. I can just keep asking you ‘And why is that” every time you explain to me why your God creates meaning, or why He creates morality.
Discussions of this kind must start from an area of common ground between the two parties. From there we can explain one thing in terms of another. If you deny any common ground whatsoever then any discussion is impossible. This fact demonstrates nothing about any failure in the atheist’s position, mere that your side forbids any frame of reference to understand the other.
Given all that, why even ask why atheists blog about religion? By your understanding you might as well ask why atheists do anything at all. Why is blogging about religion, acupuncture or homeopathy any different from any other activity in perceived pointlessness?
As an aside, the snotty, point-scoring tone of your posts makes a mockery of your claim to be posting for any God’s glory. You come across as Comic Book Guy, sneering away at a keyboard. It’s a pretty shoddy kind of glory that any deity manages to extract from your playground taunts. [Normally I separate the tone of a person’s argument from the arguments themselves, but you’re making ‘motivation to post’ the subject of the argument]. Second, if you’re saying “If I was an atheist, I’d find it meaningless to do X, then it is QUITE legitimate for me to say that that is YOUR standards we are discussing.
“There is no such thing as “meaningless” in the Christian worldview. That only exists within the atheistic imagination as the backdrop”
You’re confusing your failure to see meaning with an actual lack of meaning.
“How does objective morality make sense?”
You tell me to ‘keep up’ and then make an argument that Plato destroyed thousands of years ago. The ironing is delicious. And that applies to all your other “Only makes sense if God exists” arguments. If it doesn’t make sense without God then it doesn’t make sense WITH God either, and you’ve done nothing to demonstrate otherwise.
Finally, your ‘primates slinging poop’ argument is an unwise diversion on your part. It’s like saying “The largest mammal is an elephant, therefore if you’re claiming whales are mammals, you’re asserting that whales are no bigger than elephants”. Or if the flaw still eludes you: “Primates are densely covered in hair; if humans are primates then they must also be densely covered in hair”.
If we’re primates then it doesn’t mean we’re all just flinging poo. It means that primates includes humans, who do all the things you already know we do. Of course, you CAN also fling poo, even if it’s just metaphorically on a discussion site. You can even claim that doing so brings glory to your God.
Andrew Ryan,
What, might I ask, *is* the basis of your worldview? Just so it’s out on the table. I’m having trouble seeing where you’re standing.
McFormtist
“Not really to you too – you’re offering non sequiturs and CLAIMING that they result from logical implications of my worldview.”
I have to wonder here if you are actually reading what I write.
“There’s no argument there for me to keep up with.”
no It’s there, keep looking. This isn’t Where’s Waldo
“Your game-plan appears to be to take any reason offered for anything and reply “But what’s your justification for THAT?”
I’m asking for a bit more than just a justification, I’m asking for the preconditions that must be in place for you to be able to make an intelligible moral judgement without leading to the void of subjectivism .
“This is a literally childish tactic that simply leads to an infinite regress, and one that doesn’t go away if you posit a God. ”
What’s childish is the need for you to constantly misrepresent my argumentation so that you can bring it down to something more akin to what you are used to rebutting. How many times to I have to repeat that no one is “simply positing” “a God”.
“Discussions of this kind must start from an area of common ground between the two parties. ”
Yes, I agree. The problem is that our definitions of common ground are conflicting. So that just pushes us back a step. I’m challenging you to argue at the presuppositional level of argumentation. Which is what I’ve been alluding to.
” If you deny any common ground whatsoever then any discussion is impossible.”
I don’t deny any common ground, I affirm that our common ground is that we are both created in the image of God, we both are living in His created universe, we are both using the tools He has ordained making it possible for us to reason, and we are both living under, and being held together by His sovereign rule. However, you reject this notion. I am arguing that by rejecting this notion, you are banishing yourself onto your own autonomous island of irrationality , where you must somehow account for Logic, morals, et al. using your own reasoning. Then after that, you must tie it all together, and account for why any of these things have relation to the others. This is the argument.
“Given all that, why even ask why atheists blog about religion? By your understanding you might as well ask why atheists do anything at all.”
Yep. It’s to see if atheists are really consistent with their own worldview.
“Why is blogging about religion, acupuncture or homeopathy any different from any other activity in perceived pointlessness?”
Good question, we’ve been asking the same thing to you.
“As an aside, the snotty, point-scoring tone of your posts makes a mockery of your claim to be posting for any God’s glory.”
1) You are using moral objections again, let me remind you that you have to borrow from the Christian worldview to make objections to our conduct here. If you see something wrong with this then you are conceding your own worldview
2) There is nothing wrong with mockery on some occasions, It’s called “Answering a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.” (Prov 26:5). It has a redemptive purpose. That is, showing you the foolishness of your unbelief. On the other hand I’ve not mocked you in everything I’ve said, because I do believe that thanks to God’s common grace, we all have the capabilities to reason even though we have been made dull because of our sin, and in that case we are “Answering not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.” (Prov 26:4)
“You come across as Comic Book Guy, sneering away at a keyboard.”
I’m actually quite the social butterfly.
“It’s a pretty shoddy kind of glory that any deity manages to extract from your playground taunts.”
God also get’s glory from doing what He wants even though renegades like you think they can escape His sovereign rule. “He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision.” (Psalm 2:4,5) His wrath is revealed an His Justice is made known.
“[Normally I separate the tone of a person’s argument from the arguments themselves, but you’re making ‘motivation to post’ the subject of the argument].”
your welcome!
“Second, if you’re saying “If I was an atheist, I’d find it meaningless to do X, then it is QUITE legitimate for me to say that that is YOUR standards we are discussing.”
But I’m not saying that, so it is illegitimate.
“You’re confusing your failure to see meaning with an actual lack of meaning.”
No I’m not. You’ve yet to account for the preconditions of intelligibility, so my argument still stands.
“You tell me to ‘keep up’ and then make an argument that Plato destroyed thousands of years ago.”
That’s a vague reference. Please be more specific.
“The ironing is delicious. And that applies to all your other “Only makes sense if God exists” arguments.”
How does it apply?
“If it doesn’t make sense without God then it doesn’t make sense WITH God either, and you’ve done nothing to demonstrate otherwise.”
1) You made an assertion here, namely, “If it doesn’t make sense without God then it doesn’t make sense WITH God either”. This is a positive assertion that has yet to be demonstrated. It’s just begging the question.
2)I’ve demonstrated it by the impossibility of the contrary, yet you have yet to give the argument any thought, you have basically just given me a hand wave.
“Finally, your ‘primates slinging poop’ argument is an unwise diversion on your part. It’s like saying “The largest mammal is an elephant, therefore if you’re claiming whales are mammals, you’re asserting that whales are no bigger than elephants”.
You’ve gone from understanding the content of the reductio, to the price of tea in china. Let’s get back on track here.
” Or if the flaw still eludes you: “Primates are densely covered in hair; if humans are primates then they must also be densely covered in hair”.”
The argument is not just limited to the nature of primates, but rather to the full anti-theistic worldview. I think this is where you are diverging.
“If we’re primates then it doesn’t mean we’re all just flinging poo.”
However if you are primates existing in the anti-theistic conception, with irrationality as it’s basis, that means that is just all we are doing. I say don’t live in the anti-theistic conception, but in the reality accounted for via Christian theism.
“Of course, you CAN also fling poo, even if it’s just metaphorically on a discussion site. You can even claim that doing so brings glory to your God.”
But the claim would not be an revelationally self-conscious one, concerning the Christian Theist.
“I say don’t live in the anti-theistic conception, but in the reality accounted for via Christian theism.”
I meant to say “I say we don’t live in the anti-theistic conception”*
That was a typo on my part
“There is the rub, I believe that existential nihilism is atheism at it…”
People believe all sorts of nonsense. Can you demonstrate it?
The Plato reference is to Euthyphro’s Dilemma. It applies to morality but works for logic and meaning too. Google it with ‘iron chariots’ and read their passage on it.
I think it is important to point out that Chris was characterizing “Internet Atheism” in particular and not “Atheism” in its entirety. While I haven’t asked Chris this point blank, I’m fairly confident that he would agree with me that there are intellectually fierce, honest, and thoughtful atheists out there, just that when it comes to atheism as represented on the internet, those types of atheists are well hidden and most likely confined to academic journals instead of Blogspot or Youtube.
I think it helps to remember that Presuppositionalists don’t feel like they’ve thought their way into their position or earned it by any merit on their own (contra the typical exit narrative of theist turned atheist, where the former faith is described as illogical, childish, unreasonable, and/or deluded). Rather, due to their exegesis of Romans 1 in particular, they feel lucky to be given by God’s Grace the understanding they have.
There isn’t really much to say about a post like this other than to point out that it suffers from a profound lack of imagination.
“It would do you well to consider the argument I made above before you make such naive assertions that can easily be turned around”
Of course, thats exactly what Josh was trying to show…how easily something that is just flippantly asserted can be turned around. Completely over resequiter’s head.
Similarly, Bolt who began this post by saying “why dont they just party it up”, when reminded that there are plenty of political and philosophical reasons for debunking views you think are nonsense…he goes “lol…of course I know that, what do you think we live in a cave.” Whaaaaa??? Are you serious? The one that really blew me away happened at my blog today. After Bolt mightily smited a summery of topics I gave for my next podcast episode, I pointed out that they weren’t even arguments. He cant know what were going to say because we haven’t said anything yet. He responded back by saying, “I know they weren’t arguments and I wasn’t trying to refute them” Seriously? Do you usually go calling logical fallacies on statements you know aren’t intended as arguments and that you aren’t trying to refute? I mean is that dishonesty or does he really not get it? Still, Im actually glad I ended up here, as frustrating as it is, because its turning into a bizarre case-study on the psychology of presuppositionalists. Seriously guys, you don’t find this kind of density even at Answers in Genesis…and you guys are supposed to be the theologically/philosophically sophisticated ones. Watching you guys answer criticisms is just downright surreal. Its not a problem with Christians overall. Spend some time on William Lane Craig’s blog and see how apologists with intellectual integrity conduct themselves. Since I know you can’t do anything without scriptural say so, take this as your motivation… “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with GENTLENESS and RESPECT,keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” When people like me criticize you it’s not because of your “good” behavior, its because you are behaving like pseudo-intellectual spin doctors and its transparently obvious even to other Christians.
“He cant know what were going to say because we haven’t said anything yet.”
I already explained this at your blog. You alluded to “devastating arguments,” asked three questions, and then mentioned “problems.” So I decided to answer the questions that you believe are related to arguments and/or problems with presuppositionalism to save you some time. I did not see any argumentation and did not fancy myself to have refuted any. Further, you were saying something, though you did not offer full arguments. Finally, I’ve been using this method for over seven years now, and while that is no guarantee that I will not hear anything new in terms of questions or objections, I usually don’t.
“Do you usually go calling logical fallacies on statements you know aren’t intended as arguments and that you aren’t trying to refute?”
The particular fallacy you reference applies to questions. So in that instance, yes. It has nothing to do with dishonesty or me not getting it. It would appear, rather, that you don’t “get it;” namely the fallacy in question and when it applies.
Thanks for sharing your insulting, misinformed opinions with us. Keep it up and I will just block you. I would prefer rather to engage you though, pending your decision with Justin on whether or not you all want to. If not, that is fine too.
Jeremy Says:
“Of course, thats exactly what Josh was trying to show…how easily something that is just flippantly asserted can be turned around. Completely over resequiter’s head.”
The Triune God of Scripture is not “flippantly asserted”, but it isn’t as if Josh gave any examples to how it is. The only thing he did was assert that “there is no God” and tell us how he chooses to waste his time. If anyone flippantly asserted something it was Josh. Completely over Jeremy’s head.
“The Triune God of Scripture is not “flippantly asserted”, but it isn’t as if Josh gave any examples to how it is.”
I never made the argument that it was flippantly asserted. “Provide examples” isn’t going to cut it as a stock response to nothing, Logic Wizard.
“I never made the argument that it was flippantly asserted. ”
I know you didn’t, my friend. However your friend Jeremy was trying to make the argument that you were trying to argue that. So perhaps you should tell Jeremy to stop trying to make arguments for you, and let you speak for yourself. 🙂
“Provide examples” isn’t going to cut it as a stock response to nothing, Logic Wizard.”
I would ask you to provide was only if it were the case that you argued that I “flippantly asserted” the Triune God. But given that you didn’t, contra Jeremy, you won’t need to do so!
Understood.
[…] a recent post here – https://choosinghats.org/2012/02/the-achilles-heel-of-internet-atheism – I made the following observation: It takes somebody really, really … special … to spend […]
Meh, atheism.