Tag Archive | Atheism

Setting Yourself Up As The Real God

Ianto Watt on Atheism and morals:

“Anyway, let’s get back to the point, eh? And that is the question of whether or not there is any rational meaning to Jimmy’s lyrics in Stairway to Heaven. Yes, I know, in your mind I’ve already prejudiced the entire case by prefacing it with the word ‘rational’. Well, that’s tough. You atheists can’t have it both ways. Either you believe in some kind of universal law (which requires universal assent), or you don’t. Make up your mind. If there’s no God, there’s no reason to object when Jeffrey starts nibbling on your toes. Or when I use the word ‘rational’. Or when anybody does anything you don’t like. In other words, what cosmic difference does it make that you don’t like something some other atheist did, if there is no cosmic order?

Yes, it’s up to you to prove it, not me. Prove why Joe Stalin was a bad atheist. How can you? Because if there’s no God, there’s no universal definition of what is good, nor bad. Without a God, universally recognized as such, what do those terms really mean? So here we are, back to semantics. The word you hate. But unless you can cite some universal congress of atheists who convened and unanimously voted on what atheism really means (and allows), then you’re really just arguing on behalf of yourself. In which case, you are simply setting yourself up as the real God. Hail Caesar. Hail you. Hail no.”

Read more: http://wmbriggs.com/post/21437/

Chance Melts Away Knowledge

Ice & sun on Gosaikunda lake

“Imagine a middle school kid doing his class work in his math class…  His method of finding out the solution?  He uses some dice that he rolls out and whatever the number lands on is what he writes down as his answer.  Would anyone think the child truly is learning?  No, his answer is a product of chance.

Now let’s say the child has an exercise that asks what is four multiplied by four. …He rolls two dice and the answer is sixteen. Would anyone say the child truly “know” that sixteen is the solution?  No, again, his answer is a product of chance.  It just happened to land on “sixteen.” Here we see that one of the important aspect of truly knowing something is that one came to the conclusion according to proper methods as oppose to mere chance.  This is an illustration of how methods based upon chance destroys knowledge.  How much more problematic is a worldview that assert that behind every aspect of attaining knowledge is the fury of chance.  Chance melts away knowledge like a bright sun to an ice cube. Even if it so happen that the right conclusion was reached, chance has reduce every method of knowledge to a game of dice.”

Source: https://www.monergism.com/blog/doing-math-dice-and-atheism%E2%80%99s-destruction-knowledge

The Final Reference-Point Required

Cornelius Van Til:

Fingerprint-magnabrushThe issue between believers and non-believers in Christian theism cannot be settled by a direct appeal to “facts” or “laws” whose nature and significance is already agreed upon by both parties to the debate. The question is rather as to what is the final reference-point required to make the “facts” and “laws” intelligible. The question is as to what the “facts” and “laws” really are. Are they what the non-Christian methodology assumes that they are? Are they what the Christian theistic methodology presupposes they are?” (Source)

Source: https://www.monergism.com/blog/doing-math-dice-and-atheism%E2%80%99s-destruction-knowledge

Such A God As This They Cannot Endure

Descent of the Modernists, E. J. Pace, Christian Cartoons, 1922“Opposition to divine sovereignty is essentially atheism. Men have no objection to a god who is really no God; I mean, by this, a god who shall be the subject of their caprice, who shall be a lackey to their will, who shall be under their control; they have no objection to such a being as that; but a God who speaks, and it is done, who commands, and it stands fast, a God who has no respect for their persons, but does as he wills among the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of this lower world, such a God as this they cannot endure.”

~ C.H. Spurgeon

Source: http://www.surphside.blogspot.ca/2016/01/opposition-to-divine-sovereignty.html

Basing Morality on Empathy is a Recipe for Failure

Les noisettes

Biblical Landmarks:

“Atheists are Good Without God!

An Atheist announced on an internet discussion board, “Atheists are good without God!” It was not the first time I had heard it. Over the past twelve years, on the many atheist forums I had visited, the atheists and even some professing “Christians” had made this claim. To support their assertion, they posted a few “studies” that showed how atheist ethics (devised from their own empty non-belief system) were superior. Atheists had lesser numbers in prison, they claimed, a lower divorce rate, less crime in secular countries, and better raised children because they taught their children (the atheist ethics of) tolerance (which excluded Christians), anti-racism and the “Golden Rule” or empathy. Empathy, they avowed, was the best guide for morality. Empathy, in fact, would create the Utopia the world has, since the Garden of Eden, yearned after for so long. This godless form of morality was purportedly superior to all notions of cold and rigid religious dogma and objectivity.

Upon first consideration, exchanging cold, hard, objective morality for that of warm, gentle, compassionate empathy is appealing. But is it correct? In this blog I will show my readers how in truth it is a recipe for failure and the reasons why.”

Read more: http://www.biblicallandmarks.com/wpl/why-basing-morality-on-empathy-does-not-work/

The Flying Spaghetti Monster Doesn’t Disprove God


Monesvol“Well, that was a pretty lame argument. 😛 Still, one point I’ll make about the FSM is that it’s not enough to simply have an alternative *label* to God, but if you’re going to say that the FSM is just as likely an explanation as God is (in a theological argument), then you have to stipulate that the FSM has specific attributes. In other words, if you’re looking at genuine theological arguments, not just pop phrases that could fit on a bumper sticker, then you’ll quickly see that the attributes required for the FSM to explain the same things that God is used to explain, in those arguments, requires the FSM to take on just about every essential attribute of God. In short, “God” is not an empty label used to invoke the mysterious (despite the fact that atheists often treat theists as doing just that). Thus, there is good reason for a theist to argue for God doing something instead of the FSM doing something. Plainly put, if the FSM was used as an explanation, the FSM would just have to be another name for the same divine being currently called “God.””

Read more: http://calvindude.org/dude/2014/07/23/presuppositionalism-tossed-way/

The Highway to Atheism

Praying_Hands003“Carelessness in duties is the highway to atheism.- For every formal and slight prayer doth harden the heart, and make a way for contempt of God. Men that have made bold with God in duty, and it succeeds well with them, – their awe of God is lessened, and the lively sense of his glory and majesty abated, till it be quite lost: by degrees they outgrow all feelings and tenderness of conscience; every time you come to God slightly, you lose ground by coming, till at length you look upon worship as a mere custom, or something done for fashion’s sake.”

~Puritan Sermons, Vol. 1, pg. 402; “How may we cure distractions in holy duties?” by Thomas Manton (preaching on Matt 15:7-8)

Source: http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/thomas-manton-highway-atheism-66725/, Comment #1