I once read an article about a 1,000-pound man who died in such a way that the walls of his house had to be knocked out and his body removed with a forklift. The obesity isn’t what struck me. Nor was it what was found in his bedroom—fast-food. The room was riddled with McDonald’s and Burger King wrappers among other things like bags of chips and snack food. No. All those things seemed, at least in my mind, to be obvious contributors to the severe obesity. What surprised me was the cause of death—malnutrition.

I remember thinking, how is this man malnourished? Certainly, he had all the nourishment he needed; it must be all the other garbage surrounding the nourishment behind the untimely demise. Alas, that just wasn’t the case. As it turns out, just because something provides energy, fills the belly, and gives the illusion of provision, none of those must be true simply because it comes packaged in a box labeled ‘food’.

atheism burger king whopperBurger King has done well to combat the processed meat age of the late 1970’s/1980’s. In fact, their market takeover of the fast-food industry was in no small part due to the appeal to “Have it your way” advertising which, “aimed to contrast Burger King’s flexibility with McDonald’s famous rigidity.”[i] What’s interesting about this strategy, nothing became ‘heathier’ only more smoke and mirrors; pay no attention to the nutrition, have it your way.

This thought came screaming to me, front of mind, as I read this snippet on atheist.org:

“However, if schools allow Bibles or any other religious literature to be distributed, they are required to allow the distribution of all religious or outside materials, including atheist literature.”

I can’t even count the number of times I’ve debated and reasoned with atheists who adamantly and passionately insists that atheism in not a religion. It’s not a religion, unless, of course, it appears to have benefits. The more and more I looked at atheism the more and more I see a handful of options made to order.

“Today I’ll have my morality include…stealing is wrong with a side of a problem of evil.”

It’s inconsistent. On the surface, these look and feel like solid arguments, worthy of building a worldview upon. But they are filled with contradiction. Tell me, atheist, when you chose that stealing should be immoral for you, did you also choose for me or, am I free to steal from you? I promise to do it under the cover of darkness so as to not be caught. Is that wrong? By what standard? Tell me, atheist, how is evil a problem if morality is subjective?

atheism hypocricy“Today I’d like I didn’t choose to be an atheist and a small cup of there is no evidence for God.

More inconsistencies! Every argument, every appeal, every aspect of atheism is a superficial argument. It’s covered in a wrapper labeled “worldview” but inside is emptiness, un-thoughtful, meaninglessness. Tell me, atheist, what do you make of the trees and the rocks and the seas? Do you have evidence of them erupting from the depths of nothingness or did you formulate an opinion based on what you know and choose the one you wanted, the one that felt right to you? Tell me, atheist, are you so whimsical that your worldview is mere happenstance? Does your worldview have such control that it chooses you and you have no choice in the matter at all? Tell me, atheist, what evidence to you have for a godless universe? Tell me, again, how you appeal to science—the study of order, repeatability, and structure—to draw the conclusion of evolution—random, non-repeated, mutations. Your worldview is hypocrisy.

inconsistant atheismThe more and more I examine atheism, the more and more the inconsistencies surface, the more and more atheists continue to ‘have it their way’ is the more and more I foresee the demise of the worldview. Atheism is unhealthy, it has no substance, and it only offers the illusion of nourishment. How fitting, and somewhat ironic, that Burger King and atheists are ultimately selling flame-broiled products.

Perhaps it’s time.

Perhaps it’s time, my atheist friends, we stop having it our way and start looking for nutrients that do not lead to death. Wide is the path to destruction, but narrow is the gate that leads to life. This imagery provided by Jesus implies that the narrow road is not one to stumble across but one to seek and find. IT’s easy to run through the drive-through and pick up a whopper and some fries. It’s just as easy to pretend I don’t need God to live a life free of problems. The problem is, eventually, you need nutrients not just food. The problem is, eventually, you need Jesus and not just atheism.

Respectfully written. Would you like to know more?

[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_advertising

18 COMMENTS

    • Thanks for changing the title before you copy/pasted my article. Maybe next time, link it back from your site so your followers have a chance to read the entirety not just the highlights you saw as most condemning. Can I ask, your bio says former pastor; why the change of heart?

        • Thanks for pointing that out. It didn’t really address why your post was just my post out of context, but I thank you for giving your readers a chance to go to the source. I’ll check out your link and interact with you there, if that’s ok.

    • Hi Neil,

      Thanks for taking the time to read my post. I’m sorry you felt it was so bad. If I may be a little bold, I find it humorous that you took the time to write an ignorant, weak and unsupported claim as a response to my perceived ignorant, weak and unsupported claim. Was that on purpose? 😉

      To allow for dialog, I need to be a little honest. The materialistic view is my least favorite worldview. Saying things like (I’m pulling this from your referenced post/link), “There is no evidence there is anything other than the physical universe or that life came about as the result of anything other than physical processes…” is akin to building a metal detector with plastic parts and then using it to support the claim, only metal exists. Of course only physical things have been found! We are using a tool that tests ONLY physical things. And then when we find them, we use our non-physical minds to think through the results. Talk about silliness.

      You know that the real humdinger of this chat we have started is? In order for me to play, I have to accept your terms. You get to say things like, “other than the Bible, show me…”; you can say, “Using only scientists who write for secular magazines, prove to me…”.

      Neil, thank you for reading. You are welcome here and welcome to share your thoughts any time. It’s my hope you find this to be a place to challenge your worldview in ways that make you ask questions–not just pass out unsupported assertions.

      Can I address anything specifically from my post?

    • Hi Tony! I love your–err, your friends’–question. There is a quite a difference between the interpretation differences of Christianity and the foundational differences in atheism. For example, did God create the earth 4,000 years ago or 6 billion years ago? While many Christians will take a hard stand (and even accuse the other view holders as non-Christian in extreme circumstances), the foundation–God is creator–is still the view. In fact, both groups will even use the same text–the Bible–to support their claim. In this case, the view holder is starting with an external standard and will necessarily garner some errors in translation. The more you interpret, the great the chance and degree of errors–we do the best we can while still holding on to the core tenets (God created the world, Adam sinned first, Jesus the Son of God, he died on a cross as payment of sin, etc.). Moreover, we know from the offset that if God exists, he necessarily must be beyond total comprehension. If we got it all right, all the time, his knowledge wouldn’t surpass ours it would be the sum of our knowledge.

      When we consider the foundational differences of atheism, there is zero consistency. For example, some believe in spirits, others only in material things. Some atheists believe that life has meaning and things like morals drive humanity while others think of the human race as floating space dust. In fact, not all atheists even believe their is no god. Some atheists use this as a term to say they do not believe there is enough evidence for god. There is no foundation and therefore no reason to take the worldview seriously. The worldview is mushed up garbage with no substance–not even trying to substantiate itself. IMO

      Hope that helps 🙂

  1. Hi, Roger,

    While there are certainly atheists who, individually, espouse inconsistencies in their personal philosophy, I’m not sure that this can be extended to atheism, as a whole. One can similarly point to the fact that there are individual Christians with inconsistent personal philosophies, but certainly you would not say that these people stand as an indictment of Christianity, as a whole!

    The only foundation for atheism– indeed, the only question addressed by the term– is unbelief in deity. This is why there exists such a wide variation between different people who happen to be atheists. This is also why atheism is not, in and of itself, a worldview. It is certainly an element of a worldview, but it does not encapsulate the whole of any worldview.

    Are there any inconsistencies to which you can point which are inherent to atheism? Something which is necessarily implicit in the simple fact that a person doesn’t believe deity exists? I am asking this question honestly. As an atheist who desires to believe things which are true, and to rid himself of false beliefs, if any logical inconsistencies inherent to atheism could be demonstrated, I would immediately cease to be an atheist.

    Thanks for your time, and hope everything has been going well for you!

    • Hi BP. It has been a while. Things are well on my end. I hope the festive season is bringing merriment to you as well.

      Thanks for bringing up this point. I knew writing this that there would be (and rightfully so) pushback around the various denominations of Christianity. I wrote a 12 page paper in college and barely touched denominationism so I doubt I’ll scratch the itch, so-to-speak, but I’ll give a snippet and maybe spur some dialog.

      First, I define two differences between the inconsistency of atheism and Christian denominations. One, Christians are never (regardless of denomination) attempting to meet a self-focused standard. That is not to say Christianity doesn’t have some degree of self-reflection or that some denominations (mainly in the prosperity gospel) that harness positive thinking and look for the “What can I get out of it” mentality. It is to say, however, that Christianity is a worldview that God exists. With this in mind, it should be expected to see many different attempts to understand God. Biblically speaking we read this from the prophet Isaiah (55:8-9) “His ways are not our ways, his thoughts are not our thoughts” (para). Atheism, by contrast, is self-revealed. It’s certainly nice when your view lines up with those of another atheist, but if they don’t there is no outside standard to draw upon to determine accuracy.

      I’m thinking of an example concerning spirits. Many atheists are materialist and would denounce spirits as impossible. Other atheists may embrace the spirit world with no conflict with their atheism. But even if you apply it to your point, atheism is unbelief in deity, is a term to your standard and not all atheists. Some would call atheism a belief in no deity. Others just use the term to say they do not believe in the Christian God but another god (or goddess) may still exist.

      These points are mostly superficial and really just articulated to think differently about the foundation of the worldview. But the second difference I see is to your point, atheism is not a worldview. I agree. I don’t think it is a worldview, in the same way I don’t think Burger King offers any nutrients. Atheism gives the allure that God isn’t needed, but routinely draws on God-required circumstances to make those conclusions. Have you read my post, https://clearlens.org/if-god-would-show-off/ ? In there I reference Frank Tureks book, “Stealing From God”, and point out the inconsistencies you are looking for. Some examples are: science isn’t possible if everything is random (like evolution, the big bang, etc), reasoning isn’t possible if the mind is the same as the brain (and the mind isn’t possible if materialism is true), information (DNA) is problematic in and of itself–which came first?

      With all that said, I submit to you that while atheism denounces a cosmic deity, it simultaneously affirms a human deity–the individual, or community (another inconsistency *wink*) is the supreme being. I posit, atheism is intrinsically contradictory.

      How did I do? Thanks for your thoughts. I do value your insight.

      • Christianity is a worldview that God exists. With this in mind, it should be expected to see many different attempts to understand God.

        Then, your claim is that Christianity cannot be considered inconsistent for the disparate views of reality held by individual Christians because it should be expected to see such disparate views?

        Should it not also be expected to see disparate views between people whose only commonality is that they self-describe as “atheist?”

        Others just use the term to say they do not believe in the Christian God but another god (or goddess) may still exist.

        When I use the term “atheist,” I am responsible for defining the manner in which I am utilizing that term. I am not, however, responsible for the myriad other possible ways in which the term might be utilized by other people. If I am consistent in my definition and use of the phrase, it is unreasonable to then claim that my position is necessarily inconsistent simply because another person uses the same word in a completely different manner.

        For the sake of a thought experiment, let’s presume for a moment that your personal understanding of Christianity is entirely self-consistent. Would the fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses call themselves “Christian” but deny the divinity of Jesus imply that Christianity, as a whole, is therefore inconsistent? Would the fact that Oneness Pentecostals call themselves “Christian” while rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity imply such a thing? Certainly not! What these denominations mean by the word “Christian” is different than what you mean by the word “Christian.” To claim that their views of Christianity bear any implication on yours would be to commit a Fallacy of Equivocation.

        The same goes for “atheism.” If I use the phrase to mean “non-belief in the existence of deity,” then it would be an equivocation fallacy to claim that the views of a person who defines that word entirely differently imply anything, at all, about my position.

        science isn’t possible if everything is random (like evolution, the big bang, etc)

        Nothing about atheism requires that “everything is random.” Nor, mind you, does anything about biological evolution theory or Big Bang theory require that “everything is random.” Nor are biological evolution or the Big Bang concepts inherent to atheism– in fact, there are quite a number of Christians who completely accept both pieces of science.

        reasoning isn’t possible if the mind is the same as the brain (and the mind isn’t possible if materialism is true)

        I’ve seen these claims many, many times before, but I’ve yet to see them ever convincingly argued. Let’s suppose for a moment that the mind is a product of purely natural mechanisms. Why would that imply that the apparent reasoning produced by the mind cannot be trusted? I’ve seen bald assertions that this is the case, but I’ve never seen any good arguments to support those assertions.

        information (DNA) is problematic in and of itself

        DNA is not information. DNA is a chemical molecule. Information can be drawn from DNA, just as information can be drawn from literally anything. The fact that there is information “in” DNA is no more relevant to ultimate reality than the fact that there is information “in” a rain puddle or a pile of sand or a four-hundred year old hurricane on Jupiter.

        With all that said, I submit to you that while atheism denounces a cosmic deity, it simultaneously affirms a human deity–the individual, or community (another inconsistency *wink*) is the supreme being. I posit, atheism is intrinsically contradictory.

        This would seemingly require you to redefine “deity” in a manner which is completely different than the word we had been using, up to this point, which would make it another fallacy of equivocation.

        Imagine I said, “I don’t believe in ghosts,” and another person countered, “You might reject supernatural ghosts, but you affirm the ghost of a late relative which is your memory! So, actually, you do believe in ghosts!” It is fairly obvious that their argument is invalid, right? This sort of bait-and-switch in claiming that atheists believe in a “human deity” is no different.

        Rather than make generalizations or pronouncements about atheism as a whole, you would probably be much better served by focusing in on some particular arguments which are made by individuals, and showing why those particular arguments are wrong. For example, you might read my blog and notice that I have made the claim that it is unreasonable to conclude, on the basis of historical evidence alone, that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. If you think my claim is wrong, you might look to some of the reasoning I offer for it in order to show where I am mistaken. By responding to things which I have actually said, you will avoid making Straw Man arguments, you will avoid overgeneralizing, and you will deal directly with something which I actually believe. I try to follow this pattern in my own work, whether I am critiquing theists or atheists.

        • Then, your claim is that Christianity cannot be considered inconsistent

          I actually did not say that. I said differences are expected. However, there is still an objective source (God) to learn from and about. While the starting point may be scattered, and some may stop learning at that point (giving the impression of inconsistency), that is not the final resting place of the worldview.

          “When I use the term “atheist,” I am responsible for defining the manner in which I am utilizing that term.”

          Agree, but disagree. Let me share a story. About 3 years into my first 4 year army contract (a time when I was looking forward to getting out of the service), a buddy and I came up with a way to stay positive over that year; we changed our definition of a “month” to, “the exact number of days until our Army contract was up”. So, whenever someone would ask, “How long until you get out?” We could easily, and excitedly say, “1 month!”, even if we had 365 days.

          By your view, I’m the only one who needs to account for my definition, but that proved false in my situation. After a literal month of service and I was still responding with “1 month to go”, the gig was up.

          At some point, the word either means something universally or it means nothing. IMO

          “Nor are biological evolution or the Big Bang concepts inherent to atheism”

          I’m not sure I agree with that. While the idea that atheism somehow equals biological evolution certainly is not true, the fundamental principal, there is no god, necessitates life as godless. Therefore, things like order, purpose, and other properties we see now could not have existed in the beginning–that requires outside intelligence. But that takes us to a first cause argument and away from the topic at hand.

          “The fact that there is information “in” DNA is no more relevant to ultimate reality than the fact that there is information “in” a rain puddle or a pile of sand or a four-hundred year old hurricane on Jupiter.”

          The problem is that the information in DNA is not just acting on environmental conditions; DNA is completing tasks. We can watch DNA as it rejects bad pieces/parts. In fact, there is even redundancy in the system so these “chemical reactions” can verify the correct coding. When was the last time you saw a puddle ensure it was the right consistency of hydrogen and oxygen?

          “Rather than make generalizations or pronouncements about atheism as a whole, you would probably be much better served by focusing in on some particular arguments…”

          First, thank you for calling me out on this point. My intent was not to bait and switch, the way I wrote it and the way you read it were different–that’s my fault.

          But, to address your point here, I think this is the problem I have with most atheists (this is a generalization and I freely admit Christians and all of humanity can be guilty of this at some points). In logic, if I say:

          P1: All cars are red
          P2: Anything red is a remarkable display of technology
          C: All cars are a remarkable display of technology

          It can be really, really easy to refute P1 and P2. Logically, the statement P1 and P2 are false, therefore C is false can be a true statement. But, I think we can both agree that all cars are a remarkable display of technology.

          This is what I see most atheists doing (at least the vocal ones on twitter *smile*). They reasonably conclude that Jesus did not rise from the dead because of some counter-point; no one has ever risen from the dead, for example. In so doing, they reject early manuscripts, they reject changed lives, they reject every piece of evidence submitted and conclude, “you have no evidence.”

          All that to say, it is not enough to simply reject individual pieces of evidence, sometimes the whole of the situation requires a look, too. If I reject God on the basis that I can’t test him in a lab, I still have to account for the first cause, the appearance of design, mind/body/soul, the formation of life, the life and times of Jesus, the resurrection, the prophesies, etc, etc, etc.

          That’s why atheism is a worldview. Anytime you reject God, you need to change your entire view of the world to substantiate a world without Him.

          Hope that helps clarify the thought behind the post. I appreciate you taking the time to engage in dialog.

          • I actually did not say that. I said differences are expected.

            So, then, I’ll have to ask again: should it not also be expected to see disparate views between people whose only commonality is that they self-describe as “atheist?”

            There is still an objective source (reality) to learn from and about. While the starting point may be scattered, and some may stop learning at that point, that is not the final resting place of all atheists.

            At some point, the word either means something universally or it means nothing. IMO

            There is no such thing as a word with universal meaning. If I were to use the word ορθογωνιοις in conversation, most people today would have absolutely no idea what I was talking about. If I used that word in speaking with someone very experienced in Ancient Greek, they might have an inkling of what I mean. If I use that word when talking to someone who knows Ancient Greek and who has a keen interest in the History of Mathematics, they may understand my meaning perfectly.

            Similarly, if I say the word 秀策, most people would have no idea what I meant. If I said 秀策 to someone who speaks Japanese, they might know that I am mentioning a person’s name. If I say 秀策 to someone who plays Go, they’ll recognize that I’m referring to a particularly famous master of the game.

            Even if we restrict ourselves to English, a single word can take on numerous different meanings. I can lace up the boot on my foot. I can boot up my computer. I can boot an unwanted guest out of my house. I can store things in the boot of my car. I can prevent a car from moving by locking it with a boot. A Marine recruiter can be pleased with the progress of a boot. I can get a boot out of going to the amusement park.

            Words are given meaning by the speaker, and communication is fostered when the listener shares that meaning. If speaker and listener ascribe two different meanings to a single word, communication breaks down. However, it can be restored when the speaker clarifies what he means by use of that word.

            Therefore, things like order, purpose, and other properties we see now could not have existed in the beginning–that requires outside intelligence.

            Why would “order” require “outside intelligence?” I can see no reason that this should be the case.

            When was the last time you saw a puddle ensure it was the right consistency of hydrogen and oxygen?

            Every time. And for the exact same reason that DNA is able to self-correct in places. These are chemical reactions acting according to well-understood laws of physics. The water in a puddle always contains twice as many hydrogen atoms as oxygen because that is the manner in which those atoms can bond in order to form molecules. DNA is no different. The nucleobases of DNA adhere to the same laws of physics which guide water molecules. Bonds can occur in certain ways, but not in others. The electromagnetic forces between the nuclei of each of the molecules atoms are what lies behind this. So, again, there is no more relevance to ultimate reality in the fact that DNA conveys information than there is in the fact that a rain puddle similarly conveys information.

            That’s why atheism is a worldview.

            Again, atheism is not “a” worldview. There are numerous worldviews which incorporate atheism. My worldview is very different from that of the “vocal Twitter atheists” to whom you have referred. And both of those worldviews are very different from a Zen Buddhist’s worldview, which is itself very different from a Raelian’s worldview. Et cetera, et cetera. One need not be a Naturalist to be an atheist. One need not place any value in the sciences to be an atheist. One need not share any particular set of ethics to be an atheist. The only thing which atheists share in common is the rejection of the claim that deity exists.

  2. 1) It’s not a religion, unless, of course, it appears to have benefits.

    *****ME*****
    Think about it: the worst insult you can think of is to compare us to you. What does that say about you?

    2) ***YOU***
    The more and more I looked at atheism the more and more I see a handful of options made to order.

    “Today I’ll have my morality include…stealing is wrong with a side of a problem of evil.”

    It’s inconsistent. On the surface, these look and feel like solid arguments, worthy of building a worldview upon. But they are filled with contradiction. Tell me, atheist, when you chose that stealing should be immoral for you, did you also choose for me or, am I free to steal from you? I promise to do it under the cover of darkness so as to not be caught.

    *****ME*****
    It says more about you than us that this would even occur to you.

    3) ***YOU***
    Is that wrong? By what standard? Tell me, atheist, how is evil a problem if morality is subjective?

    atheism hypocricy“Today I’d like I didn’t choose to be an atheist and a small cup of there is no evidence for God.”

    More inconsistencies! Every argument, every appeal, every aspect of atheism is a superficial argument.

    *****ME*****
    It’s a lack of belief in a god or gods. How many aspects can there be?

    4) ***YOU***
    It’s covered in a wrapper labeled “worldview”

    *****ME*****
    Only you guys call it that. We don’t. There is no “Atheist Worldview”.

    5) ***YOU***
    but inside is emptiness, un-thoughtful, meaninglessness. Tell me, atheist, what do you make of the trees and the rocks and the seas?

    *****ME*****
    They’re… things.

    6) ***YOU***
    Do you have evidence of them erupting from the depths of nothingness or did you formulate an opinion based on what you know and choose the one you wanted, the one that felt right to you?

    *****ME*****
    You are so scientifically illiterate, I’m not even sure which field of Science you’re getting wrong.
    7) ***YOU***
    Tell me, atheist, are you so whimsical that your worldview is mere happenstance? Does your worldview have such control that it chooses you and you have no choice in the matter at all?

    *****ME*****
    You lost me.

    8) ***YOU***
    Tell me, atheist, what evidence to you have for a godless universe?

    *****ME*****
    We could go on and on about that!

    9) ***YOU***
    Tell me, again, how you appeal to science—the study of order, repeatability, and structure—to draw the conclusion of evolution—random, non-repeated, mutations.

    *****ME*****
    That sentence is so awkwardly worded I’m not sure where exactly your mistake was.

    10) ***YOU***
    Your worldview is hypocrisy.

    *****ME*****
    How so?

    11) ***YOU***

    inconsistant atheismThe more and more I examine atheism, the more and more the inconsistencies surface,

    *****ME*****
    I don’t know, because you’re not making much sense, but i think this is what you’re getting at:

    Atheism itself simply refers to the subject we DO NOT believe. What we DO believe varies a lot, because we are unique human being with brains and are able to think for ourselves and have various political and philosophical opinions.

    A “Worldview” is when you get ALL of your religious, political and philosophical beliefs from a single thing because you’re a brainwashed puppet. We don’t have that, and therefore we are “inconsistent in your worldview”

    If that is what you mean, well, good!

    12) ***YOU***
    the more and more atheists continue to ‘have it their way’ is the more and more I foresee the demise of the worldview.

    *****ME*****
    Good. Down with all ‘Worldviews”. Think for your damn self!

    13) ***YOU***
    Atheism is unhealthy, it has no substance, and it only offers the illusion of nourishment. How fitting, and somewhat ironic, that Burger King and atheists are ultimately selling flame-broiled products.

    Perhaps it’s time.

    Perhaps it’s time, my atheist friends, we stop having it our way and start looking for nutrients that do not lead to death.

    *****ME*****
    You’re actually about to try to convert us after insulting and strawmanning us, aren’t you?

    14) ***YOU***
    Wide is the path to destruction, but narrow is the gate that leads to life. This imagery provided by Jesus implies that the narrow road is not one to stumble across but one to seek and find. IT’s easy to run through the drive-through and pick up a whopper and some fries. It’s just as easy to pretend I don’t need God to live a life free of problems. The problem is, eventually, you need nutrients not just food. The problem is, eventually, you need Jesus and not just atheism.

    Respectfully written. Would you like to know more?

    *****ME*****
    You call that “respect”?

    • Hi Thoran,

      I edited your comments only to add reference numbers so we could talk through the issues you are having with my post. I hope that’s ok; I can remove them if you’d prefer. May I start with point 14–just to set the stage for the remainder of our discussion. I added, “respectfully written”, not because the points we not intended to be brash, but because the points were not meant to be personal. I didn’t have any one person in mind nor did I expect this post to all inclusive of every atheist. I wrote the post to get people, like yourself, to think through the entirety of the atheistic position. With that in mind, my comments will not carry the same tone. Discussions are one-on-one and necessitate a degree of personal nature I take seriously.

      –moving on–

      Point #1: Why is comparing you to me the worst thing possible? Can you explain what you mean by this?

      Point #2: Same question, what do you mean by this comment?

      Point #3: “It’s a lack of belief in god or gods”…to you. Every atheist has their own interpretation. See some comments below. It is up to the belief holder to establish what he/she means by their beliefs. With atheism specifically, the view is intrinsic to each person, never a community.

      Point #4: I’m actually writing on that next. I wrote a follow-up to this piece where I introduce my post next month will tackle atheism as a worldview. Will you read either of those and provide feedback? Your perspective only serves to help me better understand your position, and I thank you in advance. https://clearlens.org/atheism-is-a-firstworldproblem/

      Point #5: This made me laugh. Thanks (sincerely).

      Point #6: Ad hominems won’t get far here. If I am in error, please show me.

      Point #7: I’m calling you to thing through not just think to atheism

      Point #8: Please do! You will find me very cordial and willing to listen and interact.

      Point #9: Science replies on repeatability. It’s a common objection to miraculous events. A scientist may say “We’ve never been able to repeat a resurrection, therefore resurrections are not possible.” In stark contrast is evolution (and I use this as the speciation variety) “We’ve never seen a fish turn to a lizard, but we’re sure that’s how it must have happened”. In this way, things like evolution–which are not repeatable and have not been observed are acceptable because they fit a worldview whereas supernatural events are dismissed without a second thought. Does that clear up my position at least?

      Point #10: You must first be alive before you can denounce a life-giver.

      Point #11: So getting ALL (your emphasis) your beliefs from a single source is bad? Tell me, what source did you use beyond your brain? I’m sure you can say a collective of brains, but that would be false because you eliminate the brains you don’t already agree with (or at very least the ones that don’t compel you to follow their thinking).

      Point #12: Think for yourself? By whose authority can you tell me who to think for? 😉

      Point #13: Conversion is not forced, nor is it my intent at this level. My intent is to help think through atheism. There is far more to it than simply not believing in things like god. I think you’ll find my next post to be more in line with what you are looking for.

      –LAST–

      This is rather long for a comment section. Let’s pick one point from above and see if we can reconcile viewpoints. I’ll leave the choice to you. Thanks!!

Comments are closed.