I’ve recently been involved in extensive discussions with an avowed Atheist which has brought something interesting and saddening to light. Many Christians participate in this forum and have had their beliefs challenged or outright disputed by this man but, rather than addressing the fallacies or misrepresentations of his arguments, I’m alarmed to find that most either respond in a repeated confirmation of their faith or avoid him altogether. No one seems able or willing to confront him and his statements.
Sorry folks but this is not what Peter was thinking when he wrote “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”
While tolerance of opposing views is important in our civil society, it is more important to have the preparation and ability to address a challenge to your faith that is rooted in the false premise of Atheism. As you have probably noticed, the ‘new atheism’ has been making quite a name for itself in the past couple of years. Harris, Dawkins, and Hutchins are names that have entered the cultural milieu as supposed authorities carrying the truth. They are actively proselytizing for their worldview and the majority of Christianity is unprepared to confront it. They are evangelizing and Christians are content to let it go on without challenge.
No more. We’re going to build muscle and trim fat and confront these falsehoods and point out the logical fallacies that the atheist must rely on make his points.
We’re going to fight for the heart of our king…
UPDATE:
Robert, participating in our dialog below, proposed the discussion of a Hebrew verse Isaiah 45:7. Here is the verse in the original language:
LOVE | ACCEPT | FORGIVE 
Excellent. I always enjoy people who engage in debates and controversies more than those who seek to block them out or ignore them. Whatever anyone thinks about the evangelical message and core theology, it seems pretty clear that it’s a call to engage and transform society, not retreat from it.
Great post. I’ve been engaging the new atheists for a few months now, and I have really enjoyed my discussions with many of them. They reject lukewarm Christianity.
One note — logical debates may convince these atheists that we believers do indeed have a brain, but they will never convince them to believe. Faith by nature cannot be proven, nor can a supernatural God whose evidence exists outside of the physical world. We can show the effects of Him, but in the end they must choose to believe.
Amen! I can’t stand broke wristed christians who don’t know the word well enough to witness to athiests.They are often unprepaired because they don’t study the word for themselves. They wait on the pastor to tell them what God is saying on sunday.But God wants to reviel this heart to us directly not second handedly from the pastor.
“They reject lukewarm Christianity.”
We reject boiling hot Christianity too, to be fair. (Or freezing cold Christianity…not sure which direction that analogy was going. 🙂 )
Good luck.
^_^
Maybe Christians should try learning something from atheists instead of confronting them.
I guess I should have been more clear about “rejecting lukewarm Christianity.” This IS what I have learned from atheists. morsec0de, I can’t speak for you, but from the conversations I’ve had with atheists, it’s the lukewarm Christianity that has turned them away. The lack of true power, the failure to serve the needy, the failure to bring comfort to the hurting, the lack of real love in their everyday lives and actions, the judgmental self-righteous hypocrisy. Boiling hot Christianity is the opposite, it’s why sinners were comfortable around Jesus and the religious leaders were not.
Just to be clear, I’ve ‘turned away’ from all Christianity. Luke warm, boiling hot or any other temperature.
That being said, I completely support doing good deeds, whether your motives are religious or secular. I just don’t view things such as “serving the needy” or “bringing comfort to the hurting” to be specifically Christian things, nor do they need Christianity to be accomplished.
While it’s laudable that Christians perform good deeds, their motivations are questionable; God commanded them to. In essence, Christians are merely following orders. How noble is that?
In any case, what turns this atheist off from Christianity is not so much Christian actions, which are not any better than non-Christians, but the very poor case for it. It’s about as likely to be true as Scientology. The Problem of Evil alone disproves the Christian God, in my opinion.
In any case, I’d be interested in learning what the “false premises of Atheism” are.
bobxxx – Interesting assertion, I would assume then that you would make the same statement regarding Atheists learning something from Christians? In order for learning to occur, that is to have ideas formed from the concepts of another, one must understand and generally accept the core premise of the teacher.
che – thanks for the well wishing. Didn’t you mean to say good probability or chance since luck implies an external force from which good or bad is distributed? ;-}
Robert – your question is excellent (how noble is that) but the surrounding context reveals an incomplete theological frame of reference. Where, precisely are Christians command to perform good deeds? Is this a biblical reference? Could it be perhaps, that good deeds derive from the divine influence within ones life?
To further contrast thousands of years of historical and archeological evidence for the development of Judaism and Christianity with completely unsubstantiated (by any discoverable measure) claims of thetan invasion is absurd. This level of dialog is the kind of show stopper argument that I referred to. Why engage it? As to the problem of evil, again, let’s discuss this theologically rather than simply making a statement that it disproves the existence of God. Isn’t it possible that evil is a human characteristic?
The false premises of Atheism are legion and I shall be examining them in detail in future posts. I suppose we start with the core premise that there is no God. I say false, you may say True.
Discuss
morse – you offer a thoughtful challenge but it begs the question: what is the motivation for doing good for others? Simple creatures would be motivated by the contest for resources needed for survival. If you got in my way for the last banana, we’d rumble without remorse.
Perhaps a discussion of the prisoner problem is in order?
Anna – I’m always interested in the motivation for Atheism. Let’s see what we discover as the dialog unfolds.
Doulos, you ask,
Yes, it is. Matthew 25:35-46. The interesting thing here is the consequences for failing to follow the command. Jesus apparently understood very well that fear has always been an effective motivater.
So God is influencing organizations like Hamas?
No one disputes the development of Judaism and Christianity as a historical fact; rather, the question is whether their extraordinary claims are any more substantiated than other religious beliefs, like Scientology’s.
Well, the claim that “there is no God” would be more along the lines of a conclusion rather than a premise, no?
In any case, careful with the strawmen. Virtually every atheist I know defines their atheism as “a lack of a belief in a god.” They don’t outright reject its existence, just that the evidence is insufficient to justify a belief in it. It’s similar to your belief with regards to unicorns.
Sorry, meant to address this also:
Possible? Sure, anything’s possible. But Isaiah 45:7 makes clear God creates evil.
“But Isaiah 45:7 makes clear God creates evil.” Interesting that you link to the modern NIV translation. I suppose you meant to link to the KJV to make your point. The incorrect early translation of the KJV has been well researched and is recognized by a majority of modern scholars.
I inserted the Hebrew verse for your examination in the original post. Is there a word I missed? Do you refer to RA (transliterated since I can’t post hebrew characters here)? We have to be very careful to pull a single verse out of its context and state unequivocally that “this make clear” that God does or is anything.
Robert, I’m pleased that you selected the Matthew 25 passage as it is one of my favorites and the one on which I’ve modeled my ministry. Unfortunately, I can’t read this as an imperative as we would read something like Luke 10:37 where he explicitly says “Go and do…”. Mt 25 is spoken in the context of judgment, explaining the lives of those who are transformed by the spirit and who exhibit Christlike behavior and those who do not. Feeding the hungry and visiting the imprisoned do make one a follower of Christ. The follower of Christ will do those things.
A better verse to make your point would be James 2:14 where St James says “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?” Except that says the same thing as we looked at above.
What response can I give to your non-sequitur “So God is influencing organizations like Hamas?” Perhaps if you list all of the good works of Hamas we can start from there.
As to your definition, I’d say you’re splitting hairs. The word itself comes from Greek, the prefix A being the negation of remainder of the word theos – without god. Maybe I’m naive but isn’t rejecting belief in God the same as saying that he doesn’t exist. If you accept the existence of God and simply choose not to recognize his status you are simply a non-believer or a pragmatic atheist. The practical atheist may even accept his existence and then live as though he doesn’t. The avowed atheist states that there is no God or gods.
I will state clearly for the record, I do not believe in unicorns. 🙂
Doulos:
“what is the motivation for doing good for others?”
It promotes a society in which people will do good for me, reciprocally, should I need it in the future.
And it makes me feel good. That’s empathy for you.
“Simple creatures would be motivated by the contest for resources needed for survival.”
You have to study social animals, of which humans are the best known example. These species have ‘discovered’ that living and working together provides an environment that leads to more and better survival for most if not all members.
“If you got in my way for the last banana, we’d rumble without remorse.”
Perhaps. Or I would take it and split it with you, allowing both of us to live slightly longer, thus doubling the possibility that one of us will find or procure another source of nourishment.
But regardless, “fighting over the last banana” is not an accurate metaphor for the normal state of affairs for your average species.
Perhaps you meant didn’t link?
I quote the KJV here because 1) ra’ is translated as “evil” two-thirds of the times it is used elsewhere in the Bible, in such verses as
Genesis 2:17 – tree of good and ra’ (evil)
Deuteronomy 1:35 – ra’ (evil) generation
Judges 2:11 – the children of Israel did ra’ (evil)
1 Kings 16:30 – King Ahab did ra’ (evil)
and 2) Jews – you know, the people who wrote Isaiah – prefer that translation too.
The NIV translates ra’ as calamity, a translation you presumably agree with. I’m curious how this helps your case, since it suggests that every calamity to befall humanity has a divine origin.
Earthquake that kills hundreds? God did it.
Tsunami that kills thousands? God did it.
Holocaust that kills millions? God did it.
I guess we can take comfort in the fact that God hasn’t wiped out all life on earth, again. At least for now.
I guess I don’t follow. To be judged “Christlike,” one must have performed certain acts in life: feed the hungry, take in strangers, cloth the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned, etc. Otherwise, you’ll be eternally punished. Heaven if you do these things. Hell if you don’t. If that’s not an imperative, I don’t know what one is.
The link I provided lists their good works.
Not at all. As I explained, atheists generally believe that there’s insufficient evidence to justify theism. This is quite different from making the positive claim that “there are no god(s)”.
When you say you don’t believe in unicorns, are you saying, categorically, that none exist?
Any other alleged false premises of atheism?
Robert, I realize this is all mythology to you, but I assume that since you are quoting scripture then you don’t mind rehashing the origin of evil. In context, Isaiah 45:7 tells me that God is essentially saying “the buck stops here.” Before anything else existed, there was only God. He created the angels and gave them free will, and from them Lucifer became proud and evil began. In this sense God is responsible for creating what eventually became evil, because He created the angel that began it.
In the Garden of Eden, the serpant told Eve that she could become like God if she ate the fruit. How like God? With the knowledge of good and evil. Nothing is hidden from His sight, not even the plans of the evil one. He can protect us, and the He can also allow us to experience evil in our own lives. In this second sense He has control over the evil realm.
Ha! If that’s to be our definition of ‘luck’, then yes, I certainly misspoke. ^_^
Perhaps ‘Fortuitous probability!’ would have been more fitting?
😀
Robert, your interpretation of Christianity is flawed with this assumption:
“I guess I don’t follow. To be judged “Christlike,” one must have performed certain acts in life: feed the hungry, take in strangers, cloth the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned, etc. Otherwise, you’ll be eternally punished.”
One is ‘Christlike’ the moment that you enter into the necessary relationship with the Lord. This is not a works based relationship as you want to imply. Whether I do another act of compassion for the rest of my days is irrelevant. Judgment is based solely on my righteous/non-righteous standing. By your logic, the relationship is not necessary; do good things apart from Christ = heaven, do not do good things apart from Christ = perdition.
When you state that “atheists generally believe that there’s insufficient evidence to justify theism. This is quite different from making the positive claim that “there are no god(s)”.” it seems to me that you’re guilty of over generalizing the atheistic worldview. Show me the atheist who leaves open the possibility of a God and I believe we’ll be staring at an agnostic. As I am neither, I’m open to the nuanced categorization that you left out of my earlier quote.
As to unicorns, you may find your answers in Job 39:10, Psalm 22:21, Numbers 24:8, and Deuteronomy 33:17. Of course, you will need to go back to the King James for this translation. Modern translations use a different word, somewhat akin to the way Cod became Sea Bass.
Robert, unless I don’t understand your statement (” Perhaps you meant didn’t link?”) I meant what I wrote. Your link leads to the NIV which has translated ra’ correctly.
The following sentence in which you say “I quote the KJV here because 1) ra’ is translated as “evil” two-thirds of the times it is used elsewhere in the Bible, in such verses as…” is of more interest in examining your hermeneutical method. As I’m sure you are aware, words often have a wide semantic range that allows them to be used in many contexts. Let’s look at the word ‘bad’:
“That’s bad.” said by my teenager = that’s cool
“That’s bad.” said by my wife = the milk has gone sour
“That’s bad.” said by my neighbor = the dog has dug under the fence
And so on. Should we automatically assume that the majority usage of any word confirms our interpretation in every case?
The context of (Second) Isaiah 45 is the restoration of Israel. For God to state that He is the creator of evil would contradict His character as he had revealed himself in all of the preceding text. For God to state that he is the author of disaster in the context of this text make much more sense as the preceding thousand pages are rife with calamities that He had visited as judgment on various peoples. Every calamity? Why resort to hyperbole for which you or I have no evidence? Every student knows to read a test question with ALL or NEVER very carefully.
By the way, why link to OutreachJudaism.org as being representative of all Jews? Do you honestly believe that they represent the best of Jewish scholarship? The discussion they are having in the article you link has to do with Satan, an angel whose free will rebellion causes his judgment. God did create Satan, therefore what? Did he create him as an automaton? Satan, free will and evil are very, very large discussions. Should I link to a singularly focused, contentious, minority view scholar as evidence of my arguments?
We do take comfort that God hasn’t wiped out life as of yet. Restoration was the core topic of second Isaiah and the message of Christ. It’s never too late (until the fire “next time”) to explore it.
Anna, thanks for the contribution. Good analysis of Isaiah 45.
I understand this is your view, but clearly other Christians disagree. What’s more, this attitude appears to fly in the face of James 2 and many other scriptures.
Well not quite. Agnosticism is typically understood as the position that we cannot know whether God exists or not. The question is unanswerable. This page offers some good explanations for the difference between atheism and agnosticism.
That’s very odd. My link is this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2045:7;&version=9;
This brings up the KJV of the passage in my browser.
Unfortunately, your examples are colloquialisms, while there’s nothing to suggest that ra’ in Isaiah 45 is being used colloquially.
No, it would merely contradict some interpretations of Christian theology, like yours. The fact of the matter is, God as the creator of evil logically flows from two simple premises:
P1) God is the creator of all that exists.
P2) Evil exists.
C) God is the creator of evil.
Because every other Jewish website I can find translates ra’ as evil too. See here and here, for example.
It’s odd that Christians are essentially telling Jews they’ve misinterpreted their own holy books.
I’ll ask again, what are the other alleged false premises of atheism?
Have you ever met anyone who was converted from atheism because someone convinced them? I never have. Even respectful atheists are totally unmoved by a reasoned argument. I have met someone who turned to God because a testimony touched their heart–after thinking about it a few years. We can’t argue with someone’s testimony or with inner strength that defies explanation. When up against a vital testimony, thinking people begin to think–and then they might be open to dialogue–not argument or convincing but undeniable lived-out reality.
While I appreciate the links, you [nor the links] still have not challenged the point that I made. I’ll state it again: Salvation is not contingent upon good works. You might want to search on Romans 1:17. Did you read the sermon notes for James 2 that you linked to? The author clearly makes the point that good works are a product [in Christian life] of salvation. So how does this contradict what I wrote?
As to defining Atheism Robert, I suppose that I have to allow you to define it for yourself. You said earlier:
“Virtually every atheist I know defines their atheism as “a lack of a belief in a god.” They don’t outright reject its existence, just that the evidence is insufficient to justify a belief in it.”
Other atheists would differ with you [Camus, Nietzsche], but let’s work from your definition. A lack of belief based upon the deficit of evidence. If you don’t outright deny the existence of God based upon the evidence then aren’t you simply saying that based on this same evidence, you cannot know for certain so you don’t believe? Doesn’t this place your feet firmly in both the camp of the agnostic as well as the atheist? I believe the link you offered says just that.
In addition to the other issues that we have been addressing Robert, you’ve asked “I’ll ask again, what are the other alleged false premises of atheism?” a number of times as indicated by the adverb. If you care to read through the rest of my posts you’ll note that I address weightier issues systematically and this is no different. Each will come on its own.
I think you’re absolutely right Solveig. Reason is the claimed underpinning of atheism and they believe that they have it on their side of the argument. The life lived is far more powerful.
Robert, I think the link issue may have to do with a profile or cookie issue. I followed you link from another machine and it too brought me to the NIV. I haven’t researched it but I checked Preferences at the web site and mine is set to NIV. Perhaps yours is KJV? Someday we’ll look into the mechanics of this but it’s good to know for now.
I’ll grant that you are correct grammatically and syntactically concerning the example I provided but it was sufficient for the point I made. I’ll go one step further and grant that ra’ can be translated as evil for the sake of our discussion. [Sidebar: I pulled out my incomplete but useful Webster’s which provides 12 definitions for evil so the one you want to use is up for grabs.] I think that any good Hebrew lexicon, even BDB, will demonstrate that ra’ is an inclusive word with a wide semantic range. Since you make this theological assertion:
For God to state that He is the creator of evil would contradict His character as he had revealed himself in all of the preceding text.
No, it would merely contradict some interpretations of Christian theology, like yours.
why not support it. I know you would like to represent my theology as a minority view (as your anti-missionary link would also like to affirm) but I don’t believe you’ll be able to do so. In the intramural debate between Calvinists and Arminians, Calvin’s determinism would state that a man who shoots his family was directed by God to do so. The reason that the debate among Christians exists is that this assertion makes God the author of evil contrary to his revealed character.
God cannot do anything contrary to His character. The aspects of His character include perfect holiness and goodness. For Him to be the author of evil would contradict these characteristics. Does God create things that are capable of acting contrary to His perfect will? I guess humanity would be the prime example. God created humanity as moral agents with the ability to choose for good or evil. He did not (again, as your anti missionary link asserts) create evil so that humanity would choose for good. Using your logical construct:
P1) God is the creator of all that exists.
P2) Evil exists.
C) God is the creator of evil.
This depends on whether you view evil as a thing/substance or the description of a moral choice contrary to what is right. How about this:
P1) Smith and Wesson build a 44 Magnum
P2) The 44 Mag is used to kill someone
C) Smith and Wesson is responsible for the murder.
The gun can be used for good or evil. It can be used to provide food or protection or it can be used kill in anger. Neither is separate from the moral agent who operates the weapon. In either case, the manufacturer is morally neutral.
You or I are not going to be able to resolve the theological problem of evil in this dialog. The issue of evil is one of the most challenging intellectual problems that theism faces and though I know what I understand and believe, if evidence to the contrary is developed I suppose I would have to reevaluate my positions. If you have that evidence, present it. On the other hand, one of the fundamentals of argument is that two parties must be talking from the same set of words and principles. You insist on taking a single statement out of the larger context of Isaiah and then the Bible and state that it makes your point. I am stating that we must interpret all statements in their immediate, larger, and total context through the theology that derives from the entire Bible. The question then that we must ask is theologically, does the entire Bible reveal God to be the creator of something contrary to His character?
Following your argument then, it is God’s hand that “… seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” Psalm 137:9. I wouldn’t believe in God the baby killer either.
I’m not challenging that point because it’s not the topic of our discussion.
The issue is about commandments. You may feel that your salvation is not dependent on following them; other Christians clearly disagree. But the question remains, what has your god commanded you to do in this life?
Many Christians regard verses like Mt. 25 as constitutiting obligatory acts. Sure, you may disagree with them that your salvation depends on the performance of these acts, but that’s a seperate question from the one whether they are commandments.
No, because I leave open the possibility that further evidence could come to light which would convince me that a god exists. Thus, in contrast to the agnostic, it seems to me the question of God’s existence is possibly knowable.
Now I know that some atheists consider themselves “agnostic atheists,” but I don’t regard myself as one currently.
I apologize if you feel I’m trying to represent your theology as a minority view; actually, I believe yours is the majority. What I meant was that a) Christians themselves disagree whether God is the author of evil; and b) your view is contradicted by Judaic theology.
God, according to the Bible, destroyed all life on the planet, save for a chosen few. If Hitler and Stalin are called indescribably evil for killing millions, how much more evil is God for killing tens or hundreds of millions?
This is but one example of divine slaughter. While you’ll say those people weren’t innocent, there are plenty of other examples in which innocents are killed.
Replace the word “evil” in my argument with the word “good.” How does your response look as a result?
“This depends on whether you view [good] as a thing/substance or the description of a moral choice contrary to what is [wrong].”
Is this correct too?
The funny thing is, we actually haven’t been discussing the problem of evil, though it’s been an interesting discussion nonetheless. The PoE refers instead to the incompatibility between an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent deity with the existence of evil and suffering.
Then it seems you haven’t read the Bible.
Hey Warren you can take The School of Hard Knox off your blogroll and add http://newpuritans.wordpress.com
Its what I wanted the “School” to always be but I never had the dedicated posters to do it. I think I have them now.
My wife is really into apologetics and addressing the “new atheism”. She has been reading “The God Delussion” and posting as she goes. You may find some of her apologetical arguments to be useful!
peace
Andy
Brother Andy – I just trolled through my Akismet cache of viagra and weight loss spam and found your comment. I’m looking forward to getting by and checking out your new site. Added it to the roll today.