No Sensible Person is an Atheist
The Bible tells us that atheists are fools (Ps.14:1). Strong words. Jay Adams explains why these words are fitting. . .
“An agnostic? Well, I can see how this is at least a tenable position for an unbeliever. After all, Paul wrote about the impossibility of such persons to understand or welcome the things of the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians). If your eyes are closed and you admit it, as the agnostic in a sense does, so be it. That’s respectable. But an atheist? Now, he’s a different kind of cat. Who can make such an untenable boast as that there is no God? The Psalmist answers, “The fool has said in his heart ‘there is no God’” (Psalm 14:1).
Why is an atheist a fool?
In answer, let me simply suggest one reason: no one knows enough to be an atheist.
If, for instance, God is a spirit, how would you be able to ascertain His whereabouts or non-whereabouts? You can’t see or feel a spirit. As of late, even with all of our electronic marvels, I haven’t yet seen a spirit-detector for sale. How can he know that there is no God?
Secondly, supposing he was able to go everywhere in search of God, how would he know that God wasn’t just one jump ahead of (or behind) him? To make the affirmation with any reasonable basis for it, he would have had to be everywhere at the same time to discover that God wasn’t there. But, of course, that would mean he is omnipresent and omniscient (and probably omnipotent) to be able to be there. But then, if he were all of these, he’d be God—and hardly be an atheist.
Now, I don’t want to let the agnostics off too easily. There are two kinds of agnostics. One doesn’t know, and one who doesn’t care. I don’t have much respect for the second. He doesn’t care enough to find out so he can tell his children whether there is or not. Shame on him. The other kind doesn’t know, but it troubles him immeasurably. He should keep on seeking: “Seek and ye shall find.” There’s hope for him.”
Leave a Reply
You seem not to understand what an atheist is.
To be an atheist, one merely must not believe in gods. One not need claim that no gods exist.
The universe gives every indication that there is no deity behind it. If the god you happen to believe in designed it in that way and prefers to hide, then you are welcome to believe it. But I refuse to believe things without good evidence that they exist.
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Rom.1:20).
Your quote is clearly wrong. Sorry.
I respect your right to be an atheist, but, don’t you sometimes wonder if there is a God? What if there really is a Heaven and Hell and what would it cost you to keep an open mind to the possiblity? Also, what would it cost you to “not” believe in God. Remeber, to believe without “evidence” is called FAITH.
Better to believe in a God and be wrong than to “not” believe and be wrong and thus cast into Hell for all eternity.
God bless you
“but, don’t you sometimes wonder if there is a God?”
Sure. I wonder lots of things. I wonder if time travel will one day be possible and I wonder if extra terrestrials exist. I just don’t put much stock in my wonderings.
“What if there really is a Heaven and Hell and what would it cost you to keep an open mind to the possiblity?”
I’m plenty open minded. I just know what it would take to convince me. Evidence. Not rhetoric, not dubious scripture, not appeals to emotion. Evidence.
“Also, what would it cost you to “not” believe in God. Remeber, to believe without “evidence” is called FAITH.”
Believing without evidence is faith. Not believing because there is no evidence is rational.
“Better to believe in a God and be wrong than to “not” believe and be wrong and thus cast into Hell for all eternity.”
I disagree. If there is no god and I spend my life dedicated to it, I’ve just wasted a lot of time I could have devoted to other more worthwhile pursuits. If there is a god and he wants to send me to hell just because I didn’t believe he existed, explain to me why I would want to worship such a capricious being?
You should add a third category of agnosticism hyperbole to cover those of us that neither know nor care.
Mr. Morsec0de has bigger problems than wasting time and having a lack of evidence. He is not consistent everytime he makes any kind of definitive statement. Clearly he has a value system that is arbitrary. But what is worse is that more than likely his value system is based on others that he emulates from newspapers, family, friends, television, etc. These are his priests. He is expressly religious but doesn’t know why. He conforms to a set of values and absolutes that he cannot give an account for. So his situation is worse than he realizes because he makes commitments to ideas, values, absolutes and cannot give an inch of evidence for why he does it.
The fear of the Lord is the begining of knowledge.
Mr. Freethought, it is ironic that you think you are free when your views portray just the opposite. But surely you care or else you wouldn’t comment. You care deeply.
“He is not consistent everytime he makes any kind of definitive statement.”
Examples?
“Clearly he has a value system that is arbitrary.”
Not arbitrary at all. Based on objective harm and benefit along with pragmatism and a healthy dose of empathy.
“But what is worse is that more than likely his value system is based on others that he emulates from newspapers, family, friends, television, etc. These are his priests.”
Don’t have any priests, thanks.
“He is expressly religious but doesn’t know why.”
Sorry, not religious either. You’re getting a lot wrong.
“He conforms to a set of values and absolutes that he cannot give an account for.”
I already pointed out how I account for my values. I don’t know of any absolutes I hold to, inasmuch as an absolute can’t also be situational.
“So his situation is worse than he realizes because he makes commitments to ideas, values, absolutes and cannot give an inch of evidence for why he does it.”
Just explained this. Nice of you to assert things you don’t know, though.
“The fear of the Lord is the begining of knowledge.”
I don’t fear things that I have no good reason to believe exist.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
So much of this debate has to do with one’s starting point.
God has given plenty of evidence of His existence through the witness of creation, the human conscience, and especially the death and resurrection of His Son. If we start there, believing what God has revealed, we see and understand.
But if we start with ourselves, refusing to believe, we neither see nor understand. God does not look kindly on this, because even though His existence is clear from what He has made, the truth of it is being suppressed in unrighteousness (Rom.1:18,19).
God calls those who say there is no God fools (Rom.14:1), because they have opted to base their lives on the perspective of finite men – whose lives are a vapor – as opposed to the eternal Creator of heaven and earth.
“God has given plenty of evidence of His existence through the witness of creation, the human conscience, and especially the death and resurrection of His Son.”
Except that isn’t evidence.
The first is just a bald assertion.
The second can be explained quite easily by understanding biological and social evolution.
And the third is significantly less convincing than when people claim to have been abducted by aliens.
The rest of what you wrote is unimpressive, as it amounts to a simple threat from something you still have failed to show exists.
“Not arbitrary at all. Based on objective harm and benefit along with pragmatism and a healthy dose of empathy.”
How do you define objective harm and benefit? When you say it is objective that sounds universal and absolute. But worse is that it is actually relative, so your version is no better or more justifiable than the next guys version. Everything is up for grabs.
“I already pointed out how I account for my values. I don’t know of any absolutes I hold to, inasmuch as an absolute can’t also be situational.”
Well you seem to be holding to the absolute that there is no God, even though you can’t prove that he does not exist. So you’re inconsistent and irrational.
Oh, by the way, you guys all sound alike. You all go to the same churches and listen to the same ministers. Right, right, “when you dismiss all the other gods, yada, yada, yada.” Please don’t hit me with the gap stuff. But I do enjoy you and I am sure you would be fun to share a few pints with. At least you are trying to make sense of it.
“How do you define objective harm and benefit?”
I don’t. The scientific method and medical science does so.
“When you say it is objective that sounds universal and absolute.”
So what if it sounds that way? The question is, is it? Not really. As close as humans can get, probably.
“But worse is that it is actually relative, so your version is no better or more justifiable than the next guys version. Everything is up for grabs.”
Sure it’s better. Demonstrably so, provided we value the same things. Like life. If you and I value life, I can demonstrate which morality is superior based on how well they keep to that value.
If you don’t value life, I don’t particularly care about your opinion.
“Well you seem to be holding to the absolute that there is no God,”
No I don’t.
I hold to the position that I don’t believe the claims of people who say there are gods. When they bring forth good, scientific evidence I’ll be more than happy to reevaluate my position.
“Oh, by the way, you guys all sound alike.”
And you sound like every Christian apologist out there.
“I don’t. The scientific method and medical science does so.”
So “they”, whoever “they” are, tell you what is objective (true) and what is not? What is the scientific method and medical science? Is it uniform? Does it change?
“So what if it sounds that way? The question is, is it? Not really. As close as humans can get, probably.”
How do you know that it is as close as humans can get? Who told you that?
“Sure it’s better. Demonstrably so, provided we value the same things. Like life. If you and I value life, I can demonstrate which morality is superior based on how well they keep to that value.”
There you go with your absolutes again and life according to YOU. So one is better than another and you can prove it? Laughable. How in the world are you going to demonstrate the superior morality when you haven’t even seen them all never mind lived in every time period that has ever existed to judge the right one? Are you omniscient?
“If you don’t value life, I don’t particularly care about your opinion.”
Nor does the guy who doesn’t care about life, so who cares. Everything is indifferent and it is up for grabs. Try building a culture let alone a city on that.
“No I don’t.
I hold to the position that I don’t believe the claims of people who say there are gods. When they bring forth good, scientific evidence I’ll be more than happy to reevaluate my position.”
You are presupposing that there is no god until someone gives you evidence. So according to logic therefore you do not believe there is a god. Or, in other words, it is unavoidable the reality that you say there absolutely is not a god because there is no evidence. Unless you want to start coming into the agnostic camp that is where you are. If you are in the agnostic camp we have to meet in another room.
“And you sound like every Christian apologist out there.”
Yes, that’s because I am called by God to do so and am completely unabashed about it. I confess my religion. You don’t. You can’t avoid it even though you try. I relish in it and seek to convince you to be set free from your bondage. You think that you exist in some neutral space that isn’t there. You are bowing to your deity right now and submitting. Your deity controls you and steers you away from the living God who gives life.