Christians commonly make the foolish mistake of thinking they need an answer to every potential accusation they would get from an atheist, which is why many Christians often get nervous about conversations with atheists. The average Christian thinks he has to know every detail of the Bible, and know every response for every possible accusation that an atheist might make. To have a conversation with an atheist, the only thing a Christian needs to know is that atheism doesn't have a leg to stand on; atheists don't live or teach the way they claim to believe, and if you want to learn more about how to talk with them, keep reading.
Let me make my position clear to so no one is confused as to what he or she is about to read:
(Read "Is Repentance Part of Salvation?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
justify (v): to show, defend, or uphold as well-grounded
(See 'justify', Random House Dictionary, 2017, [www.dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)
My stance is coming from the Christian God of Bible being the foundation for all knowledge and morality, and it is vitally important that readers understand my argument can only come from those who uphold born-again Biblical Christian doctrine. No other religious position can defend the arguments I'm making here because those other religious worldviews are contradictory, and will fail to be logically consistent. This includes, but is not limited to, Catholicism, Hinduism, Mormonism, Buddhism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, or any other type of new-age churchianity and heretical beliefs against the True Living God and His Preserved Word (i.e. the King James Bible).
(Read "Why I Use the King James Bible" here at creationliberty.com for more details; the King James Bible is a requirement to make the presuppositional argument I'm about to show you, otherwise, you'll end up contradicting yourself.)
The concept of atheism has existed for thousands of years, but it has been commonly laughed at, and in some societies, it has been shunned or banned. Atheism has only recently, in the past couple hundred years, seen a sudden rise (still only about 3% of the U.S. population) due to the religious worldview of Evolutionism being introduced into our culture. Although Evolutionism will not be a focal point in this article, I did want to mention atheists' heavy reliance upon it, because without media and government help to fool people into thinking Evolutionism is "science," they would have nothing to help convince others of their circular beliefs.
(See CLE's Teachings on Evolutionism here at creationliberty.com for more details; For percentage of atheists, see Michael Lipka, "10 Facts About Atheists," Pew Research Center, June 1, 2016, retrieved Mar 7, 2017, [pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/01/10-facts-about-atheists])
First, let's make sure we understand what the word 'philosophy' means, because often, when I say this word, many people shy away as if it is far too complicated to understand. It's actually quite simple, but I believe that most dictionaries are guilty of making the concept more complex than it needs to be because the word itself is literally translated as "liking wisdom."
|Simply put, philosophy is simply a way of thinking.|
Everyone has a way of thinking, or in other words, everyone has a philosophy whether they are consciously aware of it or not. Your philosophical thinking will affect what kind of career you look for, what type of toothpaste you buy, how you dress yourself, what kind of food you eat, how you raise your children, etc. The way you think affects everything you say and do on a daily basis, and peoples' way of thinking is often what puts them at odds with one another, without first understanding that they have contradicting philosophies.
Sadly, most people will not acknowledge their way of thinking, nor even admit that they have one, and so they end up having a philosophy imposed upon them automatically through TV shows, news, movies, and music, foolishly thinking they are just being entertained. For example, music can change a person's mood, which is why you don't hear gangster rap or heavy metal being played at funerals, and the lyrics can change the way the listener thinks, which likewise affects what they do, and that's why people dress differently when they show up to an orchestral concert versus a rock concert.
(Read "What's Wrong With Christian Rock?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
|The way you think determines how you behave.|
Your philosophy is directly connected to your belief system. For example, most anyone who would read this would not believe that people should have their heads cut off if they don't change their way of thinking, but there are people out there (e.g. Muslims) who have adopted that philosophy because they have been raised in a belief system that supports it.
(For examples of such religious philosophy, read "Islam: A Religion of Terror" and "Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism - The Inquisition" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
The Bible tells us there is a way of thinking after the world, which is founded in deception and traditions, and a way of thinking after Christ, which is founded on the narrow truth:
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
faith (n): confidence or trust in a person or thing
confidence (n): full trust; belief
(See 'faith' & 'confidence', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Feb 28, 2017 [webstersdictionary1828.com])
Latin fides 'trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence, belief,' from root of fidere 'to trust,'"
-Online Etymology Dictionary, 'faith', retrieved Mar 8, 2017, [etymonline.com/index.php?term=faith&allowed_in_frame=0]
Both Christians and atheists put their faith into what is known as a "presupposition," which means they suppose something is a fact BEFORE they begin to analyze any data.
presupposition (n): supposition of something antecedent
antecedent (adj): going before in time, prior, preceding
suppose (v): to lay down or state as a fact; to require to exist or be true
(See 'presupposition', 'antecendent', and 'suppose', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Feb 28, 2017 [webstersdictionary1828.com])
|Orenthal James (O.J.) Simpson was put on trial for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman, and although DNA evidence from both victims was found on the clothing and car of Simpson (which would normally conclude a guilty verdict), the jury found him not guilty on the defense's arguments of racist police conspiracy against a black man. From the very moment the trial was announced, media outlets released photos of Simpson that they purposefully darkened to emphasize his "blackness" because the stage was being set for the trail to become a black and white race war.|
Thus, before any evidence was analyzed, many racist black people automatically professed Simpson's innocence on the presupposition that he was being setup because of the color of his skin, and numerous O.J. Simpson fans refused to believe in his guilt on the presupposition that he was a football star and had such a friendly demeanor on television. The Simpson trial is a very good example of how peoples' presuppositions lead them to conclusions before they see any evidence, and even when they see clear evidence that contradicts their presuppostion, they will refuse to believe it because, in reality, they have made up their minds on pure faith prior to any investigation.
(Simpson was later forced to pay $33.5 million to the families victims; he wrote a book called "If I Did It," which publishers say was a confession of his guilt, and as of 2017, he sits in a Nevada prison for armed robbery.)
Another good example of bad presuppositions is feminism. Feminists presuppose all men are evil, abusive rapists, and before evidence is analyzed, they conclude that all men should be killed off. Any statistical research and evidence presented that contradicts their feminist faith is immediately dismissed without consideration.
(Read "Feminism: Satan's Plan to Destroy Your Family" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
Atheists also have a presupposition that God does not exist, and no ultimate authority rules over them, this world, and the universe as a whole. This is based on pure assumption, since atheists do not have the ability to be at all places at all times at the same time, nor do they have the ability to see all things invisible to the naked eye.
Atheists generally reject the fact that they have a presuppositional bias, but they all have one, and that can be clearly seen by their stern rejection of the supernatural. Their denial of presuppositional bias is sometimes known as the "pretended neutrality" fallacy, or in other words, atheists try to get people to think they look at the evidence from an unbiased position, when the fact is that everyone in the world has a presuppositions by which they interpret evidence.
Because of their presupposition (or PRE-commitment) to materialism and naturalism that refuses to acknowledge the supernatural, they throw out all supernatural evidence before they have examined it, or in other words, atheists expect a Christian to provide evidence for the existence of the supernatural God without using supernatural evidence (i.e. miracles, creation, etc). Let's look at a similar argument to get an understanding of what they're trying to do. In some of our audio teachings, I've mentioned that I live on an apple orchard, and along comes an atheist who presupposes apples don't exist, so he demands that I provide evidence that I live on an apple orchard, but I'm not allowed to use apples as my evidence; which means the atheist is removing from consideration the thing I need to provide proof of existence because they have a presupposition that gets in the way.
There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God; for example, He created the world and He created mankind, but atheists refuse to accept these evidences because they've PRE-decided or PRE-supposed that supernatural explanations are false. So we are only left to say: If an atheist wants evidence for the existence of God that he would accept, it would depend on what his presuppositions are, which leads us to the next point, that atheism can't prove anything.
As I stated earlier, the problem with the atheist presupposition is that they cannot account for logic, reason, morals, science, knowledge, or any other abstract concept. The atheist is unable to prove that these things exist, but they live according to them, which means they live according to the Christian philosophy that can justify these concepts, but with their mouths they mock the True Living God who created them. Since atheists live according to that which they cannot prove, ultimately, all atheists are hypocrites that live by faith.
Atheists could just walk around and make useless animal sounds, but they know that in order to have a meaningful conversation, logical standards must be applied to words, which is what we call "communication." To determine if someone's communication is logical, we need logical standards. Although the following anology is not perfect, it's the best I can come up with to help give a simple understanding of this issue: Just as standards of taste must be established to exist before we can make a comparison of flavors, so too standards of reasoning must be established to exist before we can make a comparison of logic.
Atheists commonly claim that atheism is logical; in fact, I've not met one yet who doesn't claim himself to be reasonable and logical. For example, atheist Jeff Lowder was quoted on The Secular Web (a strictly atheist website) saying:
Logical arguments for atheismattempt to show that the concept of God is self-contradictory or logically inconsistentwith some known fact."
-Jeffrey J. Lowder, "Logical Arguments," The Secular Web, retrieved Mar 1, 2017, [infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/logical.html]
Lowder is claiming that any belief that isn't atheism is self-contradictory (i.e. a lie) and logically inconsistent, which means he believes that atheism is the only logical choice. Atheist Tristan Vick claims the same thing:
"When I say
atheism is more rationalit is because it doesn’t make unnecessary assumptionsand doesn’t try to amend failed a priori assumption ad hoc with respect to God-belief."
-Tristan D. Vick, "Is Atheism More Rational Than Theism?" Advocatus Atheist, Apr 10, 2014, retrieved Mar 8, 2017, [advocatusatheist.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/is-atheism-more-rational-than-theism]
Atheists commonly try to scare people by using complicated terms, but I'll explain in simple words what he's saying. First, Vick's claims that atheism doesn't make "unnecessary" assumptions, but that means that not only does he assume things to be true (i.e. by faith), but his definition of what is "unnecessary" is completely based on his personal opinion.
Next, Vick uses some Latin terms many of you are probably not familiar with, and just like the Catholic Church, athiests commonly use Latin to confuse people into believing they are smart. A priori simply means arguing that logic comes from thought rather than from experience, and ad hoc simply means something done for a particular purpose, so he saying that religious people try to setup an argument that logic isn't based on personal experience in order to prove God, and that doing so is an "unnecessary" assumption. Keep what he said in the back of your mind because we will discuss that a bit more later, but the point of quoting these men was to demonstrate that atheists think their belief is the only logical choice.
In every instance I've ever seen, the atheists start by ASSUMING logic exists, doubly ASSUMING that logical laws justify themselves, and then triply ASSUMING that atheists are automatically logical. In a conversation with an atheist, I typically start out by asking him if atheism is logical or illogical, and the purpose of this question is to get the atheist to take a verbal stand on what he believes. (i.e. Like politicians, atheists commonly try to avoid taking firm positions on matters so they always have a back door to exit through in case they're proven wrong, so always get them to state what they believe at the start.) The atheist, in every instance I've ever experienced, says he is logical, and that forces him onto a position in which he must then provide his justification for the existence and consistency of the laws of logic.
One of the common attacks that atheists use to jump on the offensive against a Christian like myself is to require that we provide proof for the existence of God. I would have to agree with the atheist on this point, that when a person makes a claim for the existence of something, that person should provide evidence of the claim. I've listened to some people on the Christian side of the argument say that atheists need to provide evidence that God doesn't exist, and that's a foolish argument.
For example, if a man said leprechauns exist, and if you say they do not, you don't need to provide proof they don't exist, the man needs to provide proof they do exist. You would immediately object if someone said you needed to provide proof of the non-existance of leprechauns. It is impossible to shown a "universal negative," that is, no one can show there are no arguments for the existence of leprechauns, so it is the job of the man to provide evidence for their existance, and likewise, it is not the job of the atheist to provide proof of the non-existance of the Christian God of the Bible, but rather, it is the Christian's job to provide evidence for God's existance.
|Without the Christian God of the Bible, it's impossible to prove anything; otherwise known as The Impossibility of the Contrary or The Transcendental Argument.|
Although we are going to discuss a few complex terms here, please don't be afraid of them because I will do my best to explain them in a simplistic manner. The laws of logic have attributes that are called "transcendental," or in other words, they are not experienced to be true.
transcendental (adj): being beyond ordinary or common experience, thought, or belief; beyond the contingent and accidental in human experience, but not beyond all human knowledge
(See 'transcendental', Random House Dictionary, 2017, [www.dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)
(Read "God Does Not Justify Lies" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
The laws of logic are a blueprint for how people ought to think. For example, when constructions workers construct a building, there are blueprints for how the structure is to be built, and all the workers need to follow that blueprint to maintain the structure's integrity and purpose that was created by the artchitect, and likewise, the laws of logic are a blueprint for how mankind should think to maintain the integrity and purpose that was created by the Lord God for the purpose He planned for mankind.
If we all are supposed to operate according to that blueprint, then it's important for us to know what the laws of logic are, and how they are justified. The laws of logic have three key attributes to describe them:
universal (adj): applicable everywhere or in all cases
(See 'universal', Random House Dictionary, 2017, [www.dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)
The Christian presupposition can justify universal laws of logic, because we worship a universal God. The Christian God of the Bible cannot contradict Himself because He cannot lie:
God is not a man, that he should lie;
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
invariant (adj): not changing or capable of being changed; unvarying; constant
(See 'invariant', Random House Dictionary, 2017, [www.dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)
I've been told by atheists in personal conversation that nothing can be known for certain, but that statement contradicts itself. If nothing is known for certain, how does one know for certain that is true? If nothing can be proven, what proof did the atheist use to demonstrate that nothing can be proven? Such statements reveal the lying heart of the atheist to rebel against his creator.
Atheists will also commonly claim that the laws of logic are conventional, or in simple terms, a norm of a particular society. If the laws of logic are conventions, then they automatically lose their law-like character because a law of logic in one society may not apply in another society, and so if someone's belief didn't match the logic of one location, they could simply move to another location and become logical. Atheists might commonly claim the laws of logic are conventions, but they don't live that way, they don't apply logic that way, and they certainly don't teach it that way.
abstract (adj): having no reference to material objects; not concrete
(See 'abstract', Random House Dictionary, 2017, [www.dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)
The laws of logic are an immaterial, unchanging blueprint of|
thought that applies to everyone, everywhere, at all times.
Not only are the laws of logic universal, immaterial, and unchanging, but the Christian God of the Bible is also universal, immaterial, and unchanging. This is not to say that the Lord God and the laws of logic are the same thing, but the laws of logic are a reflection of His character, which is why we come preprogrammed with them, and why they apply outside of our experiences.
I have listened to (and been in) live debates in which mocking atheists ask Christians, "Have you seen God?" or "Did you bring God with you to show Him to us?" It's a common taunt they use to bait Christians into bickering over nonsense, as if the infinite God can be put in a basket and carried around. A simple response to this inquiry is: "Have you seen the laws of logic?" or "Did you bring the laws of logic with you to show them to us?"
Athesits cannot see, smell, taste, touch, or hear the laws of logic, nor are they detectable by any advanced machine, yet atheists believe in them without question. Atheists readily accept the transcendental nature of the laws of logic on faith, but hypocritically reject the transcendental nature of the Lord God with every fiber in their being, and they will verbally dismiss the transcendental nature of logical laws because they don't have an answer to them, while they hypocritically live by them because they know without them, there would be no purpose to conversation at all.
To summarize atheist hypocrisy:
In order for the laws of logic to be meaningful, there must be a precondition of intelligability, otherwise, they cannot be verified to exist. Atheists maintain that they can determine if they are "logical" by comparing the statements from their own brains against the brains of other people, but not everyone has the same brain, not everyone has the same thoughts, and not everyone agrees. The laws of logic are used to settle those disagreements, and ultimately, we need a source of intelligability behind the laws of logic to give us a justification as to why we should all match our thinking to those laws, otherwise, they become meaningless.
The atheist knows there needs to be something to justify the laws of logic for them to be meaningful and to give a reason for their existence, but they have no way to do this without the Christian God of the Bible, so they typically end up claiming that the laws of logic justify themselves. It's no different than to argue, "The laws of logic are there, and that's just the way things are." For example, Vick (the atheist author I quoted earlier) calls the transcendental argument an "
(Tristan D. Vick, "Is Atheism More Rational Than Theism?" Advocatus Atheist, Apr 10, 2014, retrieved Mar 8, 2017, [advocatusatheist.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/is-atheism-more-rational-than-theism])
Atheists tend to think "I reason my reason is reasonable," or "I think my thoughts are valid," or "I sense my senses are sensible." This is hopelessly circular, but many highly-respected atheists think in the child-like fashion, as was demonstrated by atheist Gordon Stein during a live debate, in which he said:
The use of logic or reason is the only valid way to examine the truth or falsity of a statement that claims to be factual."
-Gordon Stein, "The Great Debate: Does God Exist?" University of California, Irvine, 1985, p. 3, retrieved Mar 1, 2017, [andynaselli.com/wp-content/uploads/Bahnsen-Stein_Transcript.pdf]
The problem with this statement is that he hasn't proven it to be true. How does he prove that logic or reason is the ONLY way to prove factual statements? If he says he can prove his statement by logic or reason, he's engaged in circular reasoning by begging the question, but if he says the statement is proven in some other way, then he's contradicting himself because he said that logic or reason was the only way to prove it.
Once again, we see more hypocrisy because atheists are commonly claiming that the laws of logic need no justification (i.e. they're just there), but atheists have no reasoning for why the laws of logic are "just there." They're simply saying "The laws of logic are just there, so just go with it." However, if a Christian made that argument, "God is just there, so just go with it," the atheists would shoot that down and make fun of Christians for making such a silly argument, but atheists do it all the time and don't think twice. (i.e. They would never accept such an argument from everyone else, but they expect everyone else to accept it from them.)
Other atheists claim that knowledge comes through the senses, or in other words, they use their five senses to gain and verify knowledge, but the problem is that senses are not perfectly reliable. For example, the photo below shows a mirage, which is something that appears to the naked eye to exist, but doesn't exist at all.
The above diagram shows what a logical conversation with an atheist should look like, but typically, you won't get past question #2. Since most atheists believe that nothing can be known with certainty, it means they have abandoned all logic and any path to truth, and at that point, there's no purpose in having a conversation with them because nothing reasonable can come from them until they repent of their nonsensical presuppositions.
You may find some atheist websites out there professing that absolute truth and certainties must logically exist, because as I stated earlier, if they say "there is no absolute truth," that statement in itself would be an absolute truth, and therefore contradictory. (e.g. Are you certain that nothing can be known for certain?) However, in all my previous conversations with atheists, they did their best to avoid any claims to absolute truth, and almost all of them have claimed there is no certainty with knowledge. Atheists still reject absolute truth, and the reason for this is because they don't like rules that would cause them to have to live a certain way. (i.e. They want freedom from all moral obligation.)
All the conversations I've had with atheists (if they go long enough) end up debating moral truth; in fact, I've had many atheists insist on discussing that issue rather than the foundation of logic and reason. Atheists hate the concept of Biblical sin because it shows them their guilt before God, and they want to reject it while still having a way for "good" to exist, so they can claim they are "good people."
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
In discussions with atheists, I have found use five basic logical fallacies they use when attempting to argue in favor of moral standards outside of the Christian God of Bible. Let's look at these five fallacies, explain what they are, how atheists use them, and what key words you should watch out for to spot them if you choose to have a conversation with them.
Most people believe X is morally wrong.
Therefore, X is morally wrong.
Most people believe Z is morally right.
Therefore, Z is morally right.
Atheists have used the majority opinion argument on me, and so I asked if they think rape is moral action, to which they always say "No," but then I asked them if the society voted and 51% decided rape was morally acceptable, would rape then become moral? The atheist would answer "No" once again. As soon as they answer "No" to my question, that tells me that they are lying to me; they never believed that majority opinion was the standard of morals in the first place, but they had no other answer for where morals come from, and why we adhere to them.
A semi-popular atheist speaker in the U.S. Liberty Movement crowd had briefly argued with me on morality, to the point that he sent me a copy of his book to review for myself. The book was supposed to be about why people have natural rights, like the right to life, but he wanted to exclude the Christian God of the Bible. I didn't go beyond the first chapter because, just a few pages into the book, he very clearly used the logical fallacy of majority opinion for the foundational basis of the book:
"The right to life is pretty easy to understand.
Most civilized societieshave laws against murder. Each individual has a right not to be killed. So far, so good."
-Thomas Mullen, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America, 2009, p. 7, ISBN: 978-0-578-00683-3; This was only one of many fallacies, including his reliance on Ayn Rand, one of the most absurd philosophers of the 20th century.
The phrase "
Christians, just because some atheist writes a book or has a fancy degree, don't be afraid of them; they're just people, and in many cases on such topics of knowledge and morals, they have no idea what they're really saying. For example, atheist Raymond Bradley, Professor of Philosophy at Simon Fraser University gave a presentation at the University of Western Washington in which he argued for absolute moral truth at the beginning of his talk by saying:
It is morally wrong todeliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing."
-Raymond D. Bradley, "A Moral Argument for Atheism," University of Western Washington, May 27, 1999, retrieved Mar 2, 2017, [infidels.org/library/modern/raymond_bradley/moral.html]
The problem is that he NEVER addressed WHY it was wrong. All he ended saying in justification for his position was the use of majority opinion:
"On all of these examples, I would like to think, theists and
other morally enlightened persons will agree with me."
By saying that "morally enlightened persons" would agree with him, he's actually arguing that if you don't agree with him, then you're not enlightened, or in simple terms, you're just stupid.
(This is a type of ad hominem attack that could be classified as an abusive fallacy, which attacks someone's intelligence rather than dealing with the arguments.)
He spent the rest of his speech attacking the Christian God of the Bible, but he had no justification for what he believed. Don't be deceived, this fallacious argument is extremely common, especially in places of so-called "higher learning," but most of it gets hidden behind a bunch of complex terms, so the average listener doesn't notice it.
To help dispel some of that confusion, here are a few terms you can look/listen for to help discern when someone is using a majority opinion fallacy concerning morals:
"One of the big TV networks alone bought 29 of our Tinitron color sets.
Why Sony, when they could have had any TV in the world?"
-SONY, "What sets did the press bring to Miami Beach?" LIFE, Oct 20, 1972, p. 63, ISSN: 0024-3019
Although I didn't quote the entire advertisement because it was too long, the end of it suggested to readers that if the professionals decided SONY was the best, then consumers should do the same; likewise, I've had atheists suggest that scientists (i.e. evolutionists), and other so-called "elites" of our society should decide moral truth. That statement not only presumes that scientists are unbiased and moral people, and that these "elites" they have personally selected are worthy of such a task, but it's still a majority opinion; it just confines the voters to a small group of people.
Monkeys do X.
Therefore, X is moral.
For example, atheist and evolutionist Marc Bekoff, ecologist at the University of Colorado, wrote a book that got some attention from a U.K. newspaper. The news article says:
Animals possess a sense of morality that allows them to tell the difference between right and wrong, according to a controversial new book."
-Richard Gray, "Animals Can Tell Right From Wrong," The Telegraph, May 23, 2009, retrieved Mar 3, 2017, [telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html]
Texas director of the American Atheists organization gave a presentation in which he showed a video of a herd of bison coming to rescue a single bison that had been attacked by some lions. He then said:
This is where morality comes from."
-AronRa, "The Evolution of Morality," Ft. Lauderdale, Feb 17, 2010, [youtu.be/lUW5J-6M5Hw?t=2m54s]
It's interesting to note that atheists commonly use the naturalistic fallacy when it comes to something animals do that we find pleasant. This article from the University of California, Berkeley, called "Finding Morality in Animals," talks about pimatologist Frans de Waal's argument that moral behavior in mankind evolved from monkeys:
"De Waal makes his case for animal morality by citing scientific studies demonstrating animal benevolence. In one experiment, researchers show that
a chimp, if given the choice, would rather share food rewards with another chimp than keep it all for himself-"
-Jill Suttie, "Finding Morality in Animals," University of California, July 9, 2013, retrieved Mar 3, 2017, [greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/morality_animals]
However, when it comes to something animals do that we find abhorrent, atheists tend to turn a blind eye. Monkeys take their feces and throw it at people, so is this a moral action that we should all abide by? If we take the atheist's argument seriously, then it would moral action to throw poop at people we don't agree with during a formal debate.
(See Kelly-Ann Mills, "Angry monkey throws poo in little girl's face during family day out to zoo," Mirror, Aug 15, 2016, retrieved Mar 9, 2017, [mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/angry-monkey-throws-poo-little-8635195]
In another example, photographers in Tanzania National Park took pictures of a lion eating its own cub; so if this is "where morality comes from," it must be moral to eat one's own children. Why is it that an atheist, when making the argument of where morals come from in the animal kingdom, won't show people pictures of a lion eating its own children?
(See James Dunn, "The shocking moment a lion rips apart and EATS a helpless cub: Cannibal cat asserts its dominance on his pride in brutal fashion," Daily Mail, Sept 14, 2015, retrieved Mar 3, 2017, [http://dailym.ai/2mk0p3l])
I was with a friend at a local pond, and while looking at the ducks, we noticed two male ducks fighting over a female duck by drawing blood on her neck and sexually forcing themselves on her while she tried to get away. Why don't atheists show this kind of behavior when arguing for morals in nature? Since animals are supposed to know "right and wrong," is it then morally correct for men to gang rape women?
Here are some keywords and descriptions to look/listen for when identifying an atheist using a naturalistic fallacy concerning moral standards:
(See Michael Lipka, "10 Facts About Atheists," Pew Research Center, June 1, 2016, retrieved Mar 7, 2017, [pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/01/10-facts-about-atheists])
For every "good" action an atheist brings up in nature, there's an "evil" action that can be brought up as well. The problem is that there is a lot of censorship in their arguments to keep the public from considering that their argument is completely childish and insane. Ultimately, they are judging the actions of animals based on their own presuppositions about morals, which means they're not really looking to animals for morals, otherwise atheists would believe that rape, child murder, and cannibalism were acceptable and moral practices. (i.e. They use the argument, but they don't really believe it, which makes them liars and hypocrites.)
People feel good if someone does X.
Therefore, X is right.
People feel bad if someone does X.
Therefore, X is wrong.
This athiest author fallaciously appeals to the emotions (e.g. "empathy" and "compassion"), and calls it a "rational" argument:
what reason an atheist can give to be moral, so allow me to offer an answer. You correctly pointed out that neither our instincts nor our self-interest can completely suffice, but there is another possibility you’ve overlooked. Call it what you will – empathy, compassion, conscience, lovingkindness... Acts that contribute to the sum total of human happiness in this way are right, while those that have the opposite effect are wrong. A wealth of moral guidelines can be derived from this basic, rational principle."
-Adam Lee, "The Basis for an Atheist's Morality," Patheos, July 14, 2007, retrieved Mar 3, 2017, [patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2007/07/basis-for-an-atheists-morality]
Don't misunderstand; I'm not arguing that an atheist cannot be moral; on the contrary, I believe they can be moral because the law of God and His moral standards exist outside of atheist's personal beliefs. Atheists can NOT steal, or NOT murder, or NOT rape, but they cannot JUSTIFY their moral decisions. In an atheistic universe, there no way to justify that evil exists, and therefore, they cannot justify that good exists either. There are certainly actions in this world that can be painful and make people feel bad, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong. For example, child molestation is painful, but it is not wrong in an atheistic universe, and so atheists need to provide a justification for moral rules, or, if they are going to be consistent, relinquish using them.
Let's apply that so-called "athiest logic" by looking at Marquis de Sade, a French sadist and atheist philosopher who said, "
(See Carol A. Dingle, Memorable Quotations: French Writers of the Past, iUniverse, 2000, p. 149, ISBN: 9780595153701)
This atheist author argues for his religious belief in Evolutionism, which he believes developed in the brain by random chance, which is beyond absurd:
"The conscience... makes us feel as if we have done something that's wrong or something that's right. Guilty or not guilty. It is amazing that a process as amoral and crassly pragmatic as
natural selection could design a mental organ that makes us feel as if we're in touch with higher truth."
-Robert Wright, The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life, Random House Digital, 1995, p. 212, ISBN: 9780679763994
When discussing this issue of "feeling" like something is right or wrong, I've had atheists ask me, "Wouldn't you feel bad if someone did that to you?" If everyone decided right and wrong based on how they personally felt, then there would be constant fighting over what's right and wrong because not everyone feels the same way about the same issues; for example, some people FEEL like homosexuality is right, and others FEEL like it's wrong, so who's right and who's wrong? In an atheistic universe, there is no way to tell who's right or wrong by personal feelings, which is why the atheist asks "Would you feel bad if..." because they're trying to draw a majority opinion, which we've already learned is another fallacy.
For example, a young man and young woman decide to fornicate (i.e. have sex outside of marriage) because their emotions told them it was right, but the young woman's parents had emotions that told them it was wrong, so who is the moral party in the situation? Who do we decide has gained the most happiness, or who do we decide has taken away the most happiness from someone else? Who had the correct feelings in that situation? In an atheistic universe, there is no way to know for sure, and this is why so many atheists use the fallacy in their writing, but when they have someone directly address them with these example, they quickly run to another fallacy because there is no way to answer this.
These are questions that cannot be answered without a transcendental moral truth. Atheists continue to write about the subject, but what they're writing is nothing more than a snow job (i.e. a bunch of deceptive words use to persuade the audience) that doesn't amount to any rational thinking.
For example, atheist Richard Holloway wrote an incredibly boring book called Godless Morality in which he used all the fallacies we've covered so far, and he claimed that morality was like art. I have no kinder way to say this: That is really stupid. If you give a description of a project to ten different artists, you'll end up with ten different interpretations and styles of it, which is no different than to say each person's moral standard is up to themselves, and if that's the case, then there would be no reason to convict any thieves, murderers, or rapists because they were just living up to their own personal morals.
(See Richard Holloway, Godless Morality, WSOY, 1999, ISBN: 08624190993; Holloway, from the beginning of the book, goes on the attack against what he calls "religion," but the only religious text he quotes from is the Bible, which means it's not "religion" he's attacking; he's attacking the Christian God of the Bible only.)
Let's suppose there is a woman in a coma, and a man chooses to rape her; was this morally acceptable since he felt it was the best thing for him to do at the moment and she couldn't feel anything while he raped her? I've asked this question to every atheist I can remember who has tried to appeal to emotion, and to date, I have not gotten a direct answer. You could also consider a man that is paralyzed from the neck down, and a woman stabs and kills him in his sleep; he couldn't feel the pain, so was it okay for her to kill him? Appealing to emotion doesn't work to explain these things because people think in different ways and feel in different ways, or sometimes are not able to think or feel at all depnding on the situation, and so the entire argument becomes meaningless.
The Bible tells us that mankind likes to think they're right in everything they do:
Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked:
who can know it?
Without actually answering the question, they switch wording to say that we should not cause anyone harm, and so I ask, "Why is it wrong to harm?" When I ask that, I get more change in wording, and they respond that harming/suffering makes people feel bad, which begs the question, "Why is it wrong to feel bad?" In this line of questioning, I had an atheist once go right back to the word suffering, which means he went in a giant circle of reasoning, and not only was he using appeal to emotion, he was using a logical fallacy known as Begging the Question.
Claim X assumes X is moral.
Therefore, X is moral.
(See Christopher Johnson, "We're Moral 'Cause We Exist (Atheist Guest Dan Courtney)," CLE Podcast, Mar 16, 2014 [youtube.com/watch?v=1i7J8ZC5tlg])
If we assume an atheist/materialist worldview, why would it be wrong for mankind to just die off and go extinct? After all, I've often heard evolutionists/atheists claim that mankind is killing off the planet, so would it not be better for nature as a whole for us to die off? A desire to survive, as was argued by Courtney, does not account for, nor justify, moral action, and that argument not only applies the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion (i.e. a man can feel like he wants to live or wants to die), but it also begs the question of why the atheist's personal feelings are the basis for moral standards.
I've also found it common that, at this point in the conversation, the atheist will claim that OUR discussion is going nowhere, and this is a deflection because in reality, it's the atheist's lack of reasoning that is going nowhere. The atheist has entered into a circular argument, and the only options are to admit the hopelessly circular position they have adopted, blame their own circular reasoning on their opposition, or change the subject.
Let's look at this circular reasoning pattern in a diagram that uses the atheist's argument of survival being moral:
There are no set keywords or descriptions that can help with this example because there are near-countless ways to make a circular argument. However, once you recognize an atheist begging the question, it is easy to respond to their fallacy.
If we heard an atheist making the argument in the diagram above, we could just provide examples which put a road block in the atheist's circular path. For example, a news report of a man who nearly killed his wife (i.e. police showed up on the scene to find the claw end of a hammer stuck in her head) was sentenced to life in prison, but he said "I'm not a monster" because "life is about survival."
(See Giacomo Bologna, "Springfield man who nearly killed wife with hammer: 'I'm not a monster'," Springfield News Leader, Feb 27, 2017, retrieved Mar 7, 2017, [news-leader.com/story/news/crime/2017/02/27/springfield-man-who-nearly-killed-wife-hammer-m-not-monster/98247972]
Under the atheist's circular justification for morality, since he did these actions out of a feeling of survival, therefore, he was moral to put a hammer in his wife's head. That's clearly absurd, but these are the things atheists typically will not consider until they're face-to-face with a Christian who can see through their fallacies. Any attempt Courtney might make to argue against the murderer has to be made on a different premise than "survival," which would only expose his lies (i.e. he doesn't actually believe that survival is the basis for moral truth).
This is not the only logical fallacy that atheists have used to help murderers justify themselves, which brings us to our last point...
If claim X is not accepted as a moral standard, those who disagree must be beaten or killed.
"Throughout history, it doesn't matter who has the Bible or who believes in the right religion--it's
who has the bigger fist and who has the more guns. [sic] It doesn't matter who's right, it matters who has the greater might... throughout history it's been proven that the might make the right."
-Josh Singer [Atheist], live on the air in a debate with Gene Cook, The Narrow Mind Podcast, Dec 8, 2008, [https://youtu.be/bPAnxs6XPcQ?t=8m7s]
Some would argue that this is not an appeal to force because no threat was made; however, I would argue that no DIRECT threat was made because there is an indirect threat in that statement. When the atheist is arguing how we determine moral standards, but then makes the claim that moral standards must be determined through combat, it is an indirect challenge of warfare to win the debate.
I had my own personal discussions with this particular atheist, and I gave him an example about the girl he was living with at the time. If a thief broke into their home and decided to rape and murder his girlfriend, then he would have to accept that as moral action because the thief had a bigger first and better weapons.
Here are some keywords and descriptions to look/listen for when analyzing atheist arguments for moral standards:
In most instances, these five basic fallacies (i.e. majority opinion, naturalistic, appeal to emotion, begging the question, and appeal to force) are not just used independently by atheists, or in other words, they typically use more than one during a conversation. It can sometimes get even more complicated because they use almost all of these fallacies at the same time.
For example, the atheist claims that survival of the fittest (#5) is the basis for morality, but then I point out that means Hitler was justified in his actions, so the atheist changes his argument to say that society would not let Hitler do the things he did. When society gets to decide, he's now switched to arguing majority opinion (#1), to which I ask if the majority decides that rape is acceptable, will he then accept rape as moral? The atheist then says it's herd mentality that just naturally exists in animal groups, which means he's now switching his argument to the naturalistic fallacy (#3), so I point out that ducks rape their females and ask if it's acceptable for men to rape women? The atheist then responds that it's wrong because it harms someone else, which means he's switching his argument to appeal emotion (#2), and I ask him if someone can't feel it (like in a coma or paralysis), is it okay to rape them? The atheist then says rape is wrong because it has nothing to do with survival, which means he's gone full circle back to appeal force (#5), and that means he's begging the question in circular reasoning (#4).
|The atheist cannot maintain a rational approach to these issues.|
Don't misunderstand, this isn't just some hypothetical scenario. I have personally experienced multiple atheists that walk in these fallacious circles, but then turn around and accuse me of not allowing the conversation to go anywhere. I realize this may seem a bit complicated at first, but with just a little practice, it's easy to discern when they start making these arguments, and it doesn't take long. (i.e. Even with friendly introduction, I hear atheists using logical fallacies within the first few minutes at most.) Circular reasoning and hypocrisy are the foundations of atheistic thought process, so it never takes long before they start showing them, but in their willful blindness, they proclaim themselves to be the most reasonable and logical people on the planet.
For example, this atheist blogger states:
"Whether you are a believer or not, it is true that
atheism is the logical choice."
-Blaise, "Is Atheism reallly the logical choice," Ask The Atheists, Oct 18, 2010, retrieved Mar 7, 2017, [asktheatheists.com/questions/1120-is-atheism-really-the-logical-choice]
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;
For example, most atheists I've talked with have been guilty of fornication, which is sex outside of marriage, but think other things like rape are unacceptable. The Bible teaches that rape is evil, but it also teaches that fornication is evil. The atheist's problem with the Christian God of the Bible is that God does not agree with their personal standards, meaning that they have decided, by their own feelings of lust, that fornication is acceptable, and because the Christian God of the Bible condemns them for their lust, they reject Him, while hanging on to other moral standards against rape because those are socially unacceptable. (In other words, they're using appeal to emotion and majority opinion at the same time.)
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
-2 Peter 3:3
Romans 1 speaks very specifically to the atheist's dilemma:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
(Read "Geologic Column: The Bible of Evolutionism" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
"Lucy was the very last part of the exhibit, but since she was the main reason
we drove 6 hoursto go to Houston... Seeing them [Lucy's bones] in person doesn't teach you much, but there's just something magical about it. I stood and stared at her for as long as my family would let me, and had butterflies in my stomach the whole time. To look down at that little 3'-8" skeleton, knowing how long ago she lived and how closely related we are to her - no words can do justice to the feeling you get."
-Jeff Lewis, "Review of the Lucy's Legacy Exhibit at the Houston Museum of Natural Science," Jeff's Lunchbreak, Oct 1, 2007, retrieved Mar 14, 2017, [jefflewis.net/blog/2007/10/review_of_the_lucys_legacy_exh.html]
I know it sounds crazy for someone to worship like this infront of some monkey bones, but I never said atheism was logical. They literally worship the creation rather than the Creator, and they serve the creature by making museums and grand displays the same way a pagan would build a temple and create an altar to their gods.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
This is why the Bible tells us that atheists are fools:
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
-2 Timothy 2:24-26
These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.
On the other hand, it's sad that I've seen so many people claiming to be Christians hurling insults at atheists, calling them "idiots" or "stupid." I've commonly seen this on the internet. Atheists can be very intelligent, but they have a foolish philosophical thinking, and hurling such insults at them is not only a logical fallacy (ad hominem), but it doesn't serve the Lord Jesus Christ. The bottom line is that the atheist is willingly blind to his sin, using circular reasoning to try and justify himself as a "good" person when there is none good.
What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
-2 Peter 1:16
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
-1 Peter 2:24
Because the basis of science is found in the laws of logic, and science requires believing that the future is going to be like the past. For example, if an atheist says the sun is going to rise tomorrow, the question we're asking is how he knows that. Don't misunderstanding, I'm not saying he doesn't know that, but I'm looking for an answer on how he justifies knowing that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. In every instance I've ever witnessed, I've heard the atheist say that "it's always been that way," which means to answer the question "How do you know the future is going to be like the past?" the atheist responds, "The future has always been like the past," which is the fallacy of begging the question we covered earlier.
Some readers might find this a bit complex to understand, but let me pose a question as food for thought: "How do you know you didn't come into existence 30 seconds ago with all your memories preprogrammed into your mind?" I've never had an atheist even able to respond to that question during a discussion. They often try to divert the question to say that other people can verify things for them, but how do they know that everyone, and the entire universe, wasn't created 30 seconds ago with all memories of each other implanted into us? If we came into existence 30 seconds ago, then we can't know the future is going to be like the past because there hasn't been a past up until 30 seconds ago.
Science, as an atheist will tell you, is based on probability, meaning that they look into the past, see a pattern, and assume that pattern will continue, which means probability (and therefore science) is based on the belief that the future will be like the past. So when an atheist says it's based on calculation or probability, they're begging the question (the circular reasoning fallacy we mentioned earlier) because when asked ""How do you know the future is going to be like the past?" the atheist responds, "The future has always been like the past," which is the same thing as saying "I haven't got an answer."
Without the laws of logic, science would be impossible, so again it leaves us with the hanging question: How does one justify universal, immaterial, unchanging entities in an atheistic universe? After a decade talking with atheists, I haven't heard an answer to this yet; they give responses, but those responses are arbitrary and ambiguous every time, and trying to get atheists to understand this when they refuse to relinquish their irrational worldview is like trying to give vitamins to a corpse.
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
(Read "Is Repentance Part of Salvation?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
This is one I've heard many times from atheists, but it's interesting to note that, when it comes to logic, atheists do EXACTLY what they accuse Christians of doing. Atheists attempt to force the Christians to provide more information than atheists typically require to believe in something's existence.
For example, I was listening to a live debate in which they were debating over the existence of God, I heard an atheist gave the example of a car sitting in a parking lot, he said, "If I ask the question, 'How did the car get here,' and the Christian says, 'GM made it,' that doesn't answer the question." He's absolutely right; it does not answer the question of HOW the car got there, but the problem is, HOW the car ended up in the parking lot is not a prerequisite to believe that GM exists, which means the atheist's question of "how" is irrelevant to the topic of God's existence, and it's a logical fallacy known as a red herring.
Christian presents argument X.
Atheist introduces argument Z.
Argument X is abandoned.
Politicians use this kind of red herring diversion all the time, and so do atheists. To give an example of how red herrings are used, let's look at a sample conversation between a citizen and a politician:
CITIZEN: "Sir, you made a statement claiming that our sales tax needs to be increased. I would like to know why you believe this."
POLITICIAN: "That is an excellent question. Have you always been a person who asks intelligent questions?"
CITIZEN: "Uh... I suppose."
POLITICIAN: "Well, all I can say is that we need more citizens like you."
Often, this tactic is employed when someone doesn't have an answer for a particular argument or question. We could address the question of "How did God create a cow?" but that has nothing to do with the question, "DID God create the cow?" The knowledge of a HOW something happened is not a prerequisite to believe that it did happen, and evidence of this can be seen in the atheist's obsession with the hilariously vague Big Bang model; they believe the Big Bang happened, but have no answers for how it could have happened in the first place.
(Read "The Big Dud Theory" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
For example, when I do live teachings, I use a program called "Skype" to talk over long distances; so let's say we took two laptops, with satellite connection, and demonstrated a Skype session to a simple tribal culture in the African jungle who had never seen anything like it before. These tribal people would not be able to explain HOW it worked, so according to the atheist's way of thinking, therefore, the tribal people could logically say Skype doesn't exist.
When the atheist sees the car in the parking lot, he doesn't automatically conclude that GM doesn't exist. That makes no sense whatsoever, and such an argument would abandon all logic and reasoning, but they want Christians to think in this illogical manner by looking at the world and concluding there was no creator to it.
The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
-2 Timothy 2:23
This is because the Christian God of the Bible is the only God that displays consistent logical thought and does not contradict Himself, meaning that He created our minds to reflect logical thinking, and He provided evidence (via His Word) of His consistency and perfection. The gods of other world religions (which are more accurately known as false pagan religions because they deny the truth) do not offer consistency with the laws of logic, they deny reason, and they are far from perfection, meaning that those false gods reflect a personality which cannot fully understand truth, and therefore cannot lead anyone to truth.
For example, Hindus believe in what they call "Maya" or "Illusion," which is the idea that everything that is experienced is an illusion (i.e. it's not real). So for someone to say that they worked hard, bought property, built a home, and had a family, according to Hinduism, that is simply an illusion. This flat-out denies all reason and knowledge (i.e. you can't know anything for sure), and even if they want to believe in a "god," they can never know if that god is real or reasonable at all because they presuppositionally believe that everything they perceive is illusion, and therefore there is no logical path to truth because the laws of logic cannot exist in such a belief.
(See The Heart of Hinduism, "Maya: Illusion," retrieved Mar 16, 2017, [iskconeducationalservices.org/HoH/concepts/105.htm])
Hinduism gets worse when we consider that they believe in an all-poweful "god" called Brahman, who is claimed to be one with all things. For example, one of the most highly revered sages of Hinduism is Vashistha, who wrote the following about Brahman:
I am blood, I am flesh, I am bone, I am body, I am consciousness. I am the mind also, I am Brahman."
-Swami Venkatesananda & Christopher K. Chappel, The Concise Yoga Vasistha, SUNY Press, 2010, p. 272, ISBN: 9781438422855
Since Brahman is one with all things and all things are illusion, then Brahman is also illusion, and a Hindu can't argue with me because his consciousness is also part of Brahman which is also illusion. Their religion literally teaches them that they believe in something completely delusional, yet they continue to believe it, which means they are just as circular as atheists.
Taoism (or Daoism) is an ancient Chinese religion that undermines reason, since it claims the Tao (i.e. "道" or "the teaching of the Way") to be the source of all things. The "Tao" is not a living conscious entity with intelligence, and thus, Taoists worship something that is lesser than mankind because mankind has reason and intelligence. (It's really quite similar to Evolutionism since evolutionists worship a "mysterious force" that drives evolutionary development.)
Catholicism is another good example of a religion that undermines reason, and despite what most of the world wants to believe, Catholicism has nothing to do with the Christian God of the Bible. The Catholic Church was started by the Roman High Priest (i.e. Emporer Constantine) in 325 A.D., and their belief system contradicts the teachings of the Bible in many ways, meaning that they believe their "god" accepts beliefs that contradict His Word, which would then make their god a liar.
(Read "Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
God is not a man, that he should lie;
For example, the Bible says there is only one mediator between God and men, and that's Christ:
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
-1 Timothy 2:5
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Thus, if Catholics make the argument that their god (or goddess rather) created the laws of logic, and that they are reflection of his character, then the law of non-contradiction is no longer a valid law of logic since their god contradicts himself openly and allows for contradiction. Since contradiction is part of the nature of the Catholic god's character, then they are in the same position as atheists, they can know nothing for certain because there's no way to know what things he lies about what what he doesn't. This also helps us understand why, of the atheists I've talked to, about 90% of them were former Catholics; atheists have held on to the same circularity as Catholics, but abandoned their traditions because they rightfully (and logically) concluded they were a ridiculous waste of time, money, and energy.
The only worldviews that can compete with the Christian God of the Bible are those that rely on the Christian God of the Bible for their foundation. For instance, Islam relies on the Christian God of the Bible since the basis of their doctrine (as Muhammad taught) is based on the foundation of the book of Genesis. Another example is Mormons, who also rely on the basis of the Old Testament, and New Testament, Scriptures. Once we affirm that a religion is using the basis of God's Word for their foundation, it's easy to pick apart their contradictions, just as I did very quickly with Catholicism.
There are many numerous religions throughout the world, but these are just a few examples to demonstrate the impossibility of the contrary: No other worldview outside of the born-again Christian God of the Bible can account for logical laws, and thus, no other worldview can account for science and morals either. They live their lives using the Christian worldview that can justify logic, reason, and morality, but they hold that truth in unrighteousness, and lie about that truth both to themselves and others.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
(Read "Presuppositional Apologietcs Requires The KJB" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
Atheists can't make that claim unless they give a justification for logic, because the laws of logic are required to make that claim, however, atheists are (once again) hypocrites because they are guilty of the very accusations they're making. For example, no college or professional institution I've ever known about has ever questioned the writings of Plato, but the earliest copy of Plato's writings were found at Patmos monestery in 895 A.D., which was purchased by Edward Daniel Clarke in 1801, and resides in Oxford Bodleian Library today, and those writings were said to have been written 350 years before Christ; thus, atheists are relying on "old" and "outdated" writings for their philosophical beliefs, and they have no idea if Plato actually wrote any of this or if "some monk" made up the whole thing.
(See Jeremy Norman, "The Oldest Surviving Manuscript of Plato's Tetralogies," HistoryofInformation.com, retrieved Mar 17, 2017, [historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=1880])
Atheists commonly take an extreme to claim that someone else could have authored the writings more recently, but it's interesting they never take the other extreme to claim that the author could have written these things BEFORE the timeline. Certainly, both are possible from an atheistic perspective, just as it's possible that the documentation about the Roman Empire's history could have been made up before or after the events, and documentation about the American revolution could have been made up too; yet, atheists rely on those documents without any of the extreme scrutiny they put on the Bible.
In addition, the Bible is no ordinary book; it is a perfect book written by the Perfect God through inspired, meaning that God did the writing while men moved the pen with their hand. This book is not like any other book, but atheists tend to treat it like any other book because they first pressupose that Perfect God doesn't exist, so they claim the Bible has errors because some monk in a monestary somewhere made it up, and yet, they never provide any evidence of their claim as I did with Plato's writings. (i.e. Who is this elusive monk, and where did he create the Bible?)
Commonly, I've heard the claim by atheists that historians don't take the Bible seriously, which is ludicious and laughable by anyone that know what they're talking about. For example, TIME Magazine, one of the biggest proponents against the Bible, wrote an article called "The Bible: The Believers Gain" in which they analyzed the studies of scientific, textual, and historical critics over the past 200 years:
"The breadth, sophistication and diversity of all this biblical investigation are impressive, but it begs a question: Has it made the Bible more credible or less? Literalists who feel the ground move when a verse is challenged would have to say that credibility has suffered. Doubt has been sown, faith is in jeapordy. But believers who expect something else from the Bible may well conclude that its credibility has been enhanced. After more than two centures of facing the heaviest scientific guns that could be brought to bear, the Bible has survived--and is perhaps the better for the siege.
Even on the critics' own terms--historical fact--the Scriptures seem more acceptable now than they did when the rationalists began the attack."
-TIME, "The Bible: The Believer's Gain," Dec 30, 1974, retrieved Mar 17, 2017, [content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909023,00.html]
These types of arguments are made solely on conjecture (i.e. a claim without any knowledge) because the New Testament has verified copies as early as 50 years after they were written (as opposed to the 1250 years of Plato's writings), and numerous other copies that have verified it, on top of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which verified all of them all over again, which means we have more documented verification for the Bible than any other book in history. Atheists don't have the information they need to make their claims, they don't have any evidence to back up their accusations, and most of them have never studied the Bible long enough to find out what it says. They have a biased presupposition that the Bible is not what it claims to be, and so without evidence, without research, without knowledge, they profess it to be false, and then foolishly believe their argument is somehow sophisticaled and logical.
(Read "Why I Use The King James Bible" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
No, atheists can be moral and logical. The problem is that they have no justification for morals and logic in the atheistic worldview; or in other words, they speak with their mouths against the Christian God of the Bible, but rely on the Christian God of the Bible to operate in their daily lives.
There is an extreme amount of inconsistency and hypocrisy if you analyze the life of an atheist in comparison to what they teach. Atheists will argue that man is no different than an animal, like a monkey, that has no dignity (i.e. honor and respect of one's own kind), but then turn around and attend funerals which show dignity to the deceased person, which is something animals do not do; when asked about why, they typically answer with some sort of evolutionary response, which is not only a naturalistic fallacy, it doesn't answer the question because all that says is "Things are just that way."
The atheist will insist that mankind is just a conglomorate of chemicals that were brought together by random chance over billions of years, but they will turn around and kiss their spouses and children as if there is such a thing as "love." Atheists live by faith according to these immaterial concepts they cannot justify, which means they are total hypocrites because, if they truly believed in their atheistic worldview, they would relinquish defending such fanciful concepts like "love," but they instead choose to believe in them, which means they're borrowing the Christian worldview, the only worldview that can account for such things, to live their lives, while they openly mock that same worldview.
For example, atheists commonly argue that open, free sex is a moral action, and atheist author Adam Lee defends prostitution for women who choose that career path. This is done because sexual intercourse is viewed by atheists as nothing more than a fun thing to do on a Saturday night:
"[R]ational, consenting adults should be able to engage in any kind of economic transaction they see fit, including the exchange of sex for money. If entered into freely,
I see no reason why such an exchange should be degrading to either party."
-Adam Lee, "On The Morality Of: Prostitution," Patheos, Nov 26, 2007, [patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2007/11/prostitution]
Yet, these same atheists who argue in favor of fulfilling sexual desires with willing partners will (in total hypocrisy) condemn child molestation (even in cases of mutual consent) or necrophilia (i.e. sexual intercourse with a corpse). Richard Dawkins, one of the most famous atheists in the world, has been blasted by other atheists for saying that "mild pedophilia" doesn't cause "lasting harm." Atheists will defend abortion, but turn around and attack Dawkins when says that children with Down syndrome should be aborted, and that the parents should "try again." In the atheistic worldview, they have no basis to argue against him, yet, they argue against him by passionately defending (usually with the fallacy of appeal to emotion) morals they can't justify in the first place.
(See Katie McDonough, "Richard Dawkins defends 'mild pedophilia' says it does not cause 'lasting harm'," SALON, Sept 10, 2013, retrieved Mar 17, 2017, [http://bit.ly/1bjKLVF]; See also Kimberly Winston, "Noted atheist stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Nov 22, 2014, retrieved Mar 17, 2017, [http://bit.ly/2mXqrsS])
Atheists condemn others for violating logical laws, yet the premise of their belief in atheism is based on violation of those logical laws. Atheists condemn others for violating moral principles, yet they have nothing but their opinion to defend why everyone should follow those moral principles, and even worse, there is a huge, rampant disagreement among atheists about what is right and wrong. Atheists have no clue what is truly right and wrong; most of them just operate by their personal feelings, which they hypocritically turn around and condemn religous people for doing. Again, I'm not arguing that atheists cannot be moral or logical, but they are hypocrites that don't live the way they claim to believe, because if they truly believed in atheism, they would relinquish using laws of logic and laws of morality; they cling desperately to them because they know that without the consistency provided by the Christian God of the Bible, there would be no reason work, speak, or even get out of bed in the morning.
A good analogy of this would be to consider if an atheist said "Oxygen does not exist." The atheist would have to breathe in and use oxygen in order to make the statement in the first place. The atheist would be so willingly blind that he would use it daily for his survival, but because he can't feel it, see it, or hear it, he would deny oxygen's existence, and even be so absurd as to condemn anyone who acknowledges oxygen. Just as a man would foolishly deny the existence of the very thing he relies on for the operations of his daily life, so too does the atheist foolishly deny that he is breathing God's air, and that he relies on God for the operations of his daily life; thoughts, reasoning, logic, morals, love, science, justice, and much more.
It's not uncommon to hear an atheist make this argument, but usually when they do, they've lost most of their audience because many people don't know what a convention is, nor do they know what the atheist means by what he's saying. Let's simplify this so we can understand it clearly:
convention (n): an agreement, a custom of rules
(See 'convention', Random House Dictionary, 2017, [www.dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)
If the laws of logic are conventional, then an atheist can say "that might be your convention, but it's not mine," or "that might be your logic, but it's not mine." No one in the world approaches the laws of logic in that way, it defies every application of logic by philosophers throughout history, and no one lives like that; so for the atheist to claim convention as the foundation for the laws of logic is the same as throwing up his hands and saying "I have no answer."
As I stated earlier, this is the atheist removing the method of providing evidence for what is trying to be proved before the conversation begins, so they can claim no evidence exists. They're asking Christians to prove the supernatural without using the supernatural. I would counter this by telling the atheist that I first want him to prove the laws of logic exist, but he can't use the laws of logic to do it.
To help further understand the problem with atheist thinking on this point, let me once again quote from atheist Gordon Stein, who said the following during a live debate:
Supernatural explanations are not allowed in science. The theist is hard put to document his claims for the existence of the supernatural if he is in effect forbidden from evoking the supernatural as a part of his explanation. Of course, this is entirely fair; as it would be begging the question to use what has to be proved as a part of the explanation."
-Gordon Stein, "The Great Debate: Does God Exist?" University of California, Irvine, 1985, p. 4, retrieved Mar 1, 2017, [andynaselli.com/wp-content/uploads/Bahnsen-Stein_Transcript.pdf]
The problem is that Stein has not proven his claim to naturalism because he can't even justify the laws of logic to know if an argument is "fair," if an argument is "begging the question," or if an argument is "allowed." He immediately turns a blind eye to the supernatural without even first justifying the natural, and thus the atheist pulls the rug out from under himself, which is why I said at the beginning that the atheist doesn't have a leg to stand on.