When I say atheists can’t answer these questions, I mean they can’t answer them smoothly, persuasively, coherently, or popularly. Of course, any question can receive a stumbling word salad from the person questioned. But these questions completely defy the system because it is false.
- Why are some things always bad? Why is there a category of badness, evil, or wickedness?
- Where do the laws of logic come from?
- How can we call people, nature, music, or virtues beautiful without a Great Beauty? Why beauty, if no Beauty?
- Where did the first material come from?
- Why do all (or nearly all) men believe in god, gods, or the God?
- Why are atheist social experiments always violent, authoritarian, and cruel like Russia’s or China’s communism?
- If atheism is true, then why can’t it produce as many good actions as Christianity?
- How can there be truth without God? What does meaning mean without a Personal, Absolute, Logical Word?
- Where are the inspiring historical examples of atheists who sacrificed themselves to serve an honorable cause like Corrie Ten Boom in World War II, Jim Elliot in Ecuador, Paul Carlson in the Congo, and the thousands of defenseless missionary martyrs like them?
- Why are the great works of beauty in sculpture, orchestra, architecture, and literature all created by theists and mostly from a culture steeped in the Trinity?
Atheism is bankrupt. It does not have a good historical record to receive the investment of your soul. Better to hear the words of the wise Man who said, “Strive to enter at the narrow gate because many will try to enter, but will not be able.”
1 we get our ideas of what’s good and bad from the culture we grew up in. Some people pretend that their morals actually come from a holy book, but te amount of mental gymnastics they have to pull to make verses like exodus 21 not say what it very obviously says shows that none of that is true.
2 logic is a system of thought invented by humans. it comes from the brain.
3 beauty is in the eye of the beholder. to claim there is any sort of objectivity to it is utter nonsense.
4 don’t know. if you think it was your god, prove it.
5 don’t know don’t care. just because many people believe something doesn’t mean it’s true.
6 communists like Stalin and Mao just replaced religion with another set of dogmas that could not be questioned. their regimes are functionally identical to theocracies. I also find it curious that you fail to mention Western Europe, which which has some of the highest standards of living in the world while being among the least religious places in the world.
7 if christianity produces so many good actions, why are atheists heavily underrepresented in the prison population? Not that this is relevant; someone’s behaviour doesn’t show in any way whether what they believe is true.
8 truth is that which accurately reflects reality. please explain why god needs to exist for something to accurately reflect reality.
9 i’m sure if i went looking, i could find inspiring examples of atheists. but i’m not going to because it doesn’t matter. whether or not someone did good or heroic things says nothing about whether the things they believed are true. don’t conflate goodness with truth.
10 because that’s where the money was. Artists need to eat.
You scored, Ashley. Your answer to #6 is devastating to atheism.
how is stating that communism is basically a religion devastating to atheists? you’re aware that the vast majority of atheists are not communists right?
WordPress sent your reply to spam, Ashley. Sorry! But I fished it out. I’ll try to fix that.
Stalin replaced religion with a set of dogmas–in other words a religion. How could men live without a set of dogmas? That set is a religion. If an atheist replaces Christian dogmas with her own, then she is actually replacing one religion with another.
A set of dogmas, guiding principles, ultimate loves, these are the core ideas behind a religion. So, in this sense, no one can live without these. If it offends you to call this a religion, I don’t mind not using the term.
But let us be clear: Christians are guided by a set of dogmas that transcend themselves. Stalin was too. And all atheists are because there are no other ways to live.
By acknowledging that Stalin had to replace dogmas with dogmas, I am saying that is a good example of what all atheists–and all men–must do at all times in order to make decisions or order their world.
Thank you for your patience and replies. I don’t want to be tedious, but feel free to push back if you’d like.
it’s true that i have a set of principles i try to live by, most notably the golden rule. (no, the golden rule does not hail from christianity; it existed well before the bible was written and is mentioned in some form in virtually every moral code ever written). If you want to call this a religion, cool. Not how i would use that word, but you do you.
The big difference however is that religions have some authoritative source on what’s good and bad whereas i use my own judgement. Religions will say things like homosexuality is bad or eating pork is bad for no other reason than because an ancient book says so. Even though these things do not harm anyone in any conceivable way. Communism is a lot like this in that anything that resembles a free market is bad regardless of how these communist policies actually affect the lives of the people.
Would your own judgment then count as your final standard, your highest authority? Would your preferences then count as your set of dogmas?
I call it religion because it bears the marks of religion.
1. Ultimate Trust: Your trust your own judgment about what to do when you feel guilty, how to face death, and how to make moral judgments.
2. Final Authority: How can I tell what is true or false–the questions of how to know are very clearly seen when we look at political debates. But whatever your ultimate authority is sounds very much like god. This authority tells you what is good or bad, true or false, beautiful or ugly.
3. Always Personal. You get to decide loves and hates because you are a person, but if you are the final Person, then you are again like god.
It seems to me that atheism has these ultimate loves which I see in my soul when I worship. So in these ways, atheism is very religious even if atheism in other ways is very irreligious.
Perhaps you don’t find these persuasive. I can understand.
1 true, i do trust my own moral judgments and my judgments on how to make things right when i feel guilty for something. Wouldn’t say i have ultimate trust in myself though; i second-guess myself all the time lol. Not sure what you mean about how to face death; death happens regardless of any judgments we make.
2 i decide what is good or bad according to my moral compass. same as for everyone else. you also decide yourself what is good and bad. the difference is that you then cherry-pick parts of your book that agree with you while pulling mental gymnastics to make the inconvenient parts of your book not say what they really say.
My authority on what’s true isn’t me, it’s reality. The truth is true regardless of how i feel about it. I can use my fallible senses to try and determine what’s true or false, but i most definitely am not any sort of authority on what’s true. reality itself is that authority.
As for beauty, that’s in the eye of the beholder. to claim there is any sort of objective or ultimate standard of what’s pretty is utter nonsense.
3 i do not understand what you mean here with the final person.
I do indeed not find this persuasive. i do not see myself as some kind of god, or some ultimate arbiter of what’s objectively good or bad. The idea of something being objectively good or bad is silly anyway. Good and bad are value judgments based on opinion. even if an all powerful being exists who created the universe, what that being thinks is right or wrong is still that being’s subjective opinion.
1. Actually TWO questions here… so we’re off to a flyer.
Also, they’re leading questions. More like rhetorical statements. You assume I agree with your… TWO… premises. `
1 (a) Well… I’m not a philosopher… but I suggest some thing’s are “always bad” because they’re inimical to wellness and best interests… without the possibility of any good outcome.
Ex. Jeffrey Dahmer kidnapped people, not to perform medical experiments on them with a view to curing cancer… which still would have been presumptious of him!… but rather, so he could eat them. Pure self-interest. One-hundred percent bad. No redeeming features.
(Yeah, okay… the nazis put people to medical experiments. Was that okay? Another time, maybe….)
Tying a rock to a puppy and kicking it into a lake is “always bad” because it causes suffering… we know that because, as sentient beings we can empathise with the victim… and no good can possibly come of it. (Except that it provides fodder for contemplation. *****…!)
1(b) You assert ‘categories’. Do you mean, like, murder is worse than stealing a paperclip? You tell me. Would you rather get murdered or be out one paperclip? When a judge retires to consider their verdict, it’s to take into account mitigating factors or aggravating ones. So, yeah, let’s take individual cases on their own merits rather than bust out that ***** cookie-cutter.
2 (Actually question 3) They’re a part of the make-up of the universe. I suppose. And as inescapable. You simply can’t have a universe with three-sided squares in it. Those ‘laws’, for want of a better, were ‘discovered’. Observed. Geometric shapes don’t care what humans think.
3 Another TWO questions. (?!)
3 (a) You seem to be suggesting that there needs to be a benchmark. I don’t see why. Ask 1000 people which celebrity they’d *****, given half the chance, and the same handful of names will keep coming up (Elisha Cuthbert). Of course, what’s considered attractive in one culture may well not be in another. So these notions appear to be acculturated. (Elisha Cuthbert)
In terms of works of art… have you ever listened to a piece of music and gotten goosebumps? That’s what I look for. Something that hits on a visceral level. (Elisha Cuthbert) Can I explain that? No. But not because I tend toward a-theism. You can’t explain it either. You’re just going to say “god did it”… which is just a claim. In terms of the natural world… we haven’t been out of the jungle that long. It’s probably in our hard-wiring.
One for the Psychology Department, perhaps?
4 The lads and lad-ettes at the Hadron Collider are working on that one. Have you asked THEM? The reason I don’t have an answer for you is not that I tend toward a-theism but that I’m not an astro-physicist.
Was this really supposed to be a ‘gotcha-question’?
5 I submit that the propensity toward religiosity is, likewise, in our hard-wiring. Religious practice, back in the day, would have promoted tribality, social-cohesion and safety in numbers. All keys to survival.
And as I suggested… we haven’t been out of the jungle that long.
Similarly, there are present-day advantages.
* It means you needn’t waste time contemplating anyone else’s point of view.
* Swanning around like you’ve got a few answers is great for your otherwise crappy self-esteem.
* You have a priest to provide you with a religious context for all the sexual activities you’ve always found unhealthy, unhygenic and innatural… and who will moreover, in many cases, PERSONALLY ASSIST YOU in overcoming those reservations.
Speaking of reservations, I’m off to lunch. (See what I did there? That’s called a “segue”.) Sadly, not with Elisha Cuthbert.
Catch you later for 6-10. (Although we’re actually up to question 8….)
Thank you, Ant, for a fuller reply than a tweet.
I would be content if all men would simply take time to think through questions like these. My hunch is that if humanity spent more time on topics like these, there would be fewer atheists. But apparently you disagree.
We’ll see in the final day.
Hi, Seth
Here to take a run at 6-10. So let’s start at the beginning 6. I mean 9. I mean 6….
6 Leading question. Presupposes (!) all “atheist social experiments” are violent and cruel. I’d venture you’re not altogether familiar with all “atheist social experiments”. You offer up all of TWO examples. So this is a brazen assertion on your part. For that matter, neither am I. So you MAY factually be correct, for all I know. But the claimant carries the burden of proof. Something I suspect you find to be an ongoing inconvenience.
Stalin was raised in a theological seminary (Russian Orthodox) and, I understand, actually studied for the priesthood. Makes you wonder where he got his ideas from. The bible’s endorsement of slavery would no doubt have offered up handy hints when it came to ‘staffing’ the gulags.
I suggest communism might be more aptly described as an ECONOMIC experiment. Any more intrinsically radical than capitalism? I submit the excesses and shortcomings of Stalin’s junta were in no way a reflection of Marxist economic theory.
As for Mao… seems to me he BECAME the ‘god’. As I proposed in 1-5, humans seem to be hard-wired for worship. You’ve no doubt heard the phrase “nature abhors a vacuum”. Take away religion, everyone has pictures of Mao on the bloody wall instead. All over the world… or at least in the ‘global north’… bedroom walls are festooned with pictures of athletes, pop-stars…. Seems like humans are at our happiest when we’re kissing arse.
While we’re on the topic… how about The Crusades for a social experiment…?
7 Again, a bald assertion on your part.
You’re going to have to flesh that claim out. (Ever heard of Medecins Sans Frontiere”?)
Moreover, whether or not “good actions” result from a doctrine in no way illustrates that the claims made are actually TRUE. This is what I’m chiefy interested in. Is this claim TRUE?
8 You seem to be suggesting there has to be some absolute benchmark. And furthermore, that that just so happens to be the bible. To be sure, christianity offers up an objective moral code. So does hinduism. So does buddhism. So do judaism, jainism, sikhism, confucianism… “Mein Kampf” offers up an objective morality. There are so many objective moralities that morality, perforce, must be subjective.
I stand by the comments I made in 1-5. I won’t belabour them.
The “without god” part of your question is neither here nor there. There’s no need to bring ‘gods’ into this. Sharpening our ability to filter bullshit would have the same effect. So the question becomes; “how can there be truth?” Truth is that which corresponds, or appears to correspond, with demonstrable reality. I can’t PROVE anything with 100% certainty. I don’t know for a fact I’m not dreaming this right now. “Prove” is actually a mathematical term that’s been appropriated. (Or MIS-appropriated!) The burden of proof in the real world is lower. Reasonable doubt.
What reason do I have to think this? Does it seem likely?
9 This is a re-hash of your “atheist social experiment” question.
(This time you offer all of THREE examples.)
Do you seriously doubt that a little research wouldn’t disclose a raft of selfless, heroic acts by people who don’t also happen to claim that the planet’s 6000 years old?
You’ve done yourself a real dis-service with this one.
My nigga, please….
10 Another brazen, bare-faced claim. Another point I choose not to belabour.
A-theism is neither “bankrupt”… ‘rupt’… or anything in between. It’s a response to a proposition. You’ve told me about this ‘god’ you believe in. I find the claims hinky, so you won’t be seeing me in your synagogue… or temple… or church.. or mosque on Friday… or Saturday… or Sunday….
The gods get a three-day weekend! As well as tax-exempt status. It’s a great racket….
You haven’t successfully illustrated that a “soul” exists. The bible is not a “good historical record”. (More of an ‘HYSTERICAL record’!) It’s full of inconsistencies, contradictions, factual innaccuracies… and crass absurdities. As such, it absolutely sinks under the weight of supposedly having been inspired by some form of supreme being. If that were the case, these problems simply woudn’t be there. It can’t carry that freight. So there’s no point in you quoting it to me. I don’t consider it an authoritative source.
To be sure, I don’t know everything about every religion. No one does. There may be a religion out there that makes perfect sense, at least to me, and I know nothing of it. (Probably because its adherents have long-since been buggered to death by either christians or muslims, as seems to be the pattern. Where that lot are concerned, if the smallpox doesn’t get you, the syphilis will.)
First book on religion I read was the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Then I read The Book of the Tao. (That’s three weeks of my life I’ll never fucking get back.)
Then I took a run at The Bible. I made it up to, I think, Kings 2, at which point I concluded; “This is fuckin’ banana-balls…” (Get the Ray Comfort reference? Way to out yourself, Ray!) … and that was that. As you can imagine, I was going a bit septic on organised religion by this point but I flicked through the Q’uran nonetheless. I liked that part about how, when a muslim is trying to convert an ‘infidel’… and fails, he takes their ‘sins’ on himself. So now they’re both going to hell. Sure makes you want to talk to more muslims! That Ayeesha stuff was a bit dodgy. Doesn’t mean the claim isn’t TRUE, though. Plenty of scody crap is TRUE. But then came something about someone climbed onto a flying horse… and flew up and split the moon in half and… remember what I said about demonstrable reality?
My hunch is, if humanity spent more time contemplating this, there would be FEWER theists. Because it really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
P.S. There’s no reason to wait till “the final day”. That’s just passively kicking the can down the road. These issues are subject to inquiry. Let’s do it now.
Hello again, Seth.
Looking forward to my second installment being uploaded at your earliest convenience.
“We’ll see in the final day”, eh?
If I had a buck for every time I’ve been subjected to this refrain I could erase the national debt of a small, third-world country. Neither do I appreciate the implicit threat. And sooner or later, this is what it seems to come down to where ‘you guys’ are concerned. The passive-aggressive indercurrent of violent reprisal for having refused to join your club. I don’t respond well to threats. I think you’ll find that most people don’t. So you may want to re-think this tactic.
“Maybe he sells fear because he’s got nothing else to sell.” -Dayna Jurgens
Looking forward to my second installment.
Ant, I don’t know what is up with my WordPress comments feature. It refuses to announce when some comments come in. Thanks for your patience.
I’ll try to fix that, and give a reply later today.
Have a good day!
Ant, I’m not trying to teach you patience, but I’m grateful that you seem to be willing to take up when you have time. I just returned from the government office where our visas were rejected–high stress, but sorry to worry you with that.
Hey, you gave it a try to answer each one, so I thank you for your time. Any reader is welcome to evaluate our words and come to his own conclusion.
But your most intriguing line to me was:
“There may be a religion out there that makes perfect sense, at least to me, and I know nothing of it.”
Personally, I would be very glad if every man, woman, and child gave the heavy matters of life, death, invisible realities, souls, spirits, and the next life more time. So it sounds like you are not closed off to that, and I would only add some encouragement: What have you got to lose for pressing matters like that more and more?
I would say, God bless, but instead: I’ll look forward to hearing back if ever you have time or interest.
No worries, Seth. Technology, eh? Can’t live WITH it… well….
You appear to run an honest, forthright forum, anyway. I’ll give you that much.
‘God’ bless us all. Every… one….
Nice echo chamber here!
As a recovered christian who came to her senses as soon as she was able to remove herself from chritian brainwashing: none of your ʻquestions atheists cannot answerʻ have any actual intellectual content. And the word salad you use to ʻproveʻ your point lacks logic.
My life is infinitly better since i no longer am forced to worship narcissitic men – because thatʻs what modern mainstream christianity really is: a bunch of abusive narcs getting supply by absorbing all the worship and money their congregations pile on the imaginary charachters in their story. My granddaddy was a preacher, and we didnʻt get to not go to church EVER, iʻve read the whole bible more times than the VAST vast majority of christians ever have, and i can tell you there is no logic in that book. If you think there is, you have cognition problems.
Now to the rare person who actually tries to live a christ like life – cheewhoo! As an atheist i am often the most christ like person in the room – especially when iʻm around ʻavowedʻ christiansʻ busily judging and gossiping as they are prone to do. You have to turn your cheek to christians a lot hecause they are usually mean and selfish and unjustifiably self rightious.
Maybe a better tack than trying to ʻdebunkʻ atheists, (which isnʻt possible – just like proving god exists isnʻt possible) would be to do good works for those less fortunate than you and never mention religion, at all – exactly like many many avowed atheists do every day.
I’m very glad you were saved from worshipping narcissistic men. And it saddens me to hear again that so many false Christians in the service of Satan can yet again distract another from the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
It will be an intoxicating joy, and a sweet rest to look again and again at the glory of the infinite beauty in the Son of God. May you by degrees come to the same happy end.