This was compiled by a former atheist who is now a Christian.  Very accurate from my experience debating atheists online.

 

How to be an Atheist:

 

1)  Dismiss everything in the Bible because men wrote it.


2)  Believe and quote other writings of men to prove that the Bible is wrong.


3)  Completely ignore the inconsistency between steps 1 & 2.


4)  Call yourself a “freethinker” and “open minded” but don’t practice such virtues when it comes to Christianity.


5)  Try to laugh out loud every time a Christian makes a statement about what they believe even if you don’t think it’s really that funny. This helps avoid a “serious” conversation.


6)  Always bring up Zeus, Allah, and Santa Claus to prove that if you must believe in one God then you have to believe in all of them otherwise it’s just not fair.


7)  When referring to the Bible use the word “myth” as often as possible and call believers whatever names you want because the goal is to frustrate the Christian so that his sinful nature comes out and he gets angry and then you can call him a hypocrite.


8)  Set your own moral standards very very very low so that you’ll never look like a hypocrite yourself. The lower the better.


9)  Never answer a question directly but quickly change the subject to make a completely different point. If you’re asked why you keep changing the subject just repeat this step as necessary.


10)  Be as argumentative, sarcastic and verbal as possible – there is no need to make sense or use logic in your arguments – just keep arguing.


11)  Use words like “strawman,” “ad hominem,” “fallacy,” “red herring” and non sequiturs” against every argument whether you understand those terms or not.


12)  Claim that atheism is rooted in “common sense” even though less than 10% of the human population claim to be atheists.


13)  Reject all notions of faith even though you must put your faith in pilots, cars, food, doctors, evolution, and the next chair that you sit in.


14)  Always ask for evidence for God but never accept anything presented to you. At the end of a discussion remind them that all you needed was some evidence for God.


15)  Quote only the Bible verses that make God look mean and unfair.


16)  Talk about being a good person remembering that you are allowed to define good however you would like because there is no objective moral standard.


17)  Say that you have read the Bible and that you understand what it teaches whether this is true or not.


18)  Only pick on Christians – you don’t want to get killed in a Jihad. However, be sure to say that there is no difference between Radical Muslims and Fundamentalist Christians.


19)  Always use the crusades to make the point above.


20)  Remember that you are looking for faults in other worldviews not trying to defend your own – do not try to prove atheism! Remember, it’s much easier to destroy than build up.


21)  Make the claim that you only have one life and don’t want to waste it on religion.


22)  If your conscience begins to bother you because of moral guilt you can numb it with drugs, alcohol, sex, or pride. You can give up the first three but never give up your pride.


 

 

Advertisements
Comments
  1. I really liked 11. The self-irony is quite funny.

    Like

    • scmike2 says:

      Glad you liked it! Looks like you’re also a big fan of #10 and #20 too! 😀

      Like

      • Well, it’s difficult to find points that I have actually seen a noticeable number of atheists doing (for example, I never saw someone do 1, all atheists simply look at the bible and take is as another human book, with good and bad parts). But of course, I have also seen some Christians do some of that stuff, so probably that list could also have the title “How to be a human – albeit not a nice one”. For example, it looks like you really are a fan of #10 and #5 yourself and sorry, that doesn’t make you look like a nice person. Have you noticed that there is not ONE argument in the whole list – only prejudices and personal attacks, especially when you try to apply them to commenters?

        Other points are difficult to like because somehow they sound like having been written by a Christian, so very… “from the outside”, if you get me. Doesn’t sound like an atheist, but more like what a Christian thinks about atheists.

        To be quite honest, normally, I tend to assume the best. But it’s hard in this case, as the whole thing really sounds like being written by a Christian who either never was an atheist or an atheist who never once spent a second to think about atheism (and was an asshole). Claiming to have been a skeptic is a well known tactic to promote nonsense, so I am a little bit suspicious here, sorry.

        Anyway, it shows nicely that Christians don’t want to understand atheists. They have these image of atheists in their minds and can’t seem to change it. But, of course, there are enough atheists out there who make that pretty hard by being ***** about it.

        We can discuss about any point, if you want to, but there are probably better things to talk about than prejudices. One could easily make the same (or even worse) list for Christians by taking some extreme Christians as an example. But what for? Where would it lead to? It wouldn’t be funny and wouldn’t help anyone…

        Like

        • scmike2 says:

          I appreciate your comments, Atomic Mutant (minus the profanity, of course). What you may not realize, though, is that prejudice is unavoidable with regards to this issue. I assume from the get go that God exists and that the Bible is His inspired Word, while you assume that God does not exist and arbitrarily reject the truth of the Bible. It is from these assumptions (or presuppositions) that we both interpret the world around us and form our conclusions about any evidence presented to us. The question then becomes: which of our worldviews can be rationally defended?
          I submit to you that atheism cannot be, as it ends in absurdity. If you continue following this discussion, I trust that fact will be made plain. In the meantime, you can look at a recent similar discussion here:

          https://christianammunition.com/2014/05/07/questions-for-the-evolutionist/#comments

          and here:

          http://agnophilo.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/questions-for-the-evolutionist/#comments

          for a sneak peek of the absurdity that is sure to come (and it ain’t pretty)!

          Like

          • eyeontheuniverse says:

            “arbitrarily reject the truth of the Bible.”

            I think your assumption that the rejection is “arbitrary” is rather presumptuous here. Do you think he/she just flipped a coin to decide?

            Like

            • scmike2 says:

              Hi eyeontheuniverse! By arbitrarily rejecting the truth of the Bible, I simply meant that they did so with no logical reason. In fact, they would have had to do so DESPITE logical reasons, as one cannot account for abstract, invariant, universals such as the laws of logic apart from the Bible.

              Like

              • eyeontheuniverse says:

                Clearly that’s not the case, since numerous other religions account for universals in a similar way, with the bible only one of such documents to do so. Even, then, if you accept that a religion (and not necessarily a theistic one) is needed (for the sake of argument) it would not have to be the bible, and rejections would therefore not eliminate that possibility. Rejection of the bible is rarely if ever “arbitrary”. People may have good or bad reasons for rejecting it, but they have reasons.

                As an aside, please note that “arbitrary” and “illogical” do not mean the same thing. But in this case the decision is neither arbitrary no, at least on the argument you provided, illogical.

                Like

                • scmike2 says:

                  And those various other religions are free to have their day to debate and to be refuted. Right now, let’s deal with the respective positions that you and I actually hold to. What is your rational (non-illogical) reason for rejecting the Bible?

                  Like

          • You randomly chose one religion (or, more likely, had it chosen for you by being born in a random part of the world) by think atheism is absurd? Interesting.

            Ironically, the questions for the evolutionist are just the usual stuff, a wild mixture of not understanding evolution (and other topics) and believing that “We don’t know” must somehow imply “God”. Hint: It doesn’t.

            But, please continue. Perhaps there’s something new lurking there.

            Like

            • scmike2 says:

              Hey again, A.M.! Unfortunately, you haven’t provided any rational objection here—just an emotional ‘knee jerk’ reaction to the Christian position. If you have something rational you’d like to put forth, posit it and I will address it. Take care!

              Like

          • Ok, I read the “discussion”. You really did prove something. Unfortunately it’s not what you think it is. Bye.

            Like

  2. Interesting list. Unfortunately, it seems woefully inadequate, since none of the 22 points is applicable to me, yet I am absolutely an atheist.

    If you’ll allow, I have a much shorter, and far more adequate guide to How To Be An Atheist:
    1. Don’t believe that any gods exist.

    That’s it. Nothing else is necessary! While I’ll absolutely grant that a number of the points you’ve listed apply to atheists that I have known, none of them are required to be an atheist. In fact, many of these points are just as apropos of the average Christian as they are of any atheist.

    Like

    • scmike2 says:

      Hey Boxing Pythagoras, it’s nice to meet you! Regarding your comments:

      You said: “Interesting list. Unfortunately, it seems woefully inadequate, since none of the 22 points is applicable to me, yet I am absolutely an atheist.”

      I know it’s too early to draw too many conclusions given our limited interaction thus far, but based on your comments I would say that #10B definitely applies and I’m leaning towards #20 as well at this point, but we can wait and see on that one.

      You alluded to the existence of ‘absolutes’ in your comment. What I would like to know is: how do you logically justify the existence of absolutes (i.e. certainty) in a worldview which denies the God of the Bible?

      Like

      • As far as #10 goes, I’ll grant that I am often verbose, but I have no intention of being either as argumentative or as sarcastic as I can be. I also rather strive for my positions to be as sensical and logically consistent as possible.

        In terms of #20, I tend not to oppose any worldview, as a whole. Rather, I prefer to respond to specific claims with which I have been addressed. To that end, when someone inquires as to any of the positive claims which I have made, I do my best to offer a defense of my position.

        With that in mind, I’ll address your question. Whether or not one affirms the existence of deities, the question of “certainty,” in an epistemological sense, is a difficult one. Personally, I assert some things tautologically, and I attempt to build as much upon deductive reasoning from those initial definitions as is possible. Once deduction fails, I’ll utilize inductive reasoning, but I do not claim to know anything built upon inductive reasoning with absolute certainty. I might have overwhelming confidence in such a position, but I would not claim absolute certainty that the position reflects reality.

        Thank you for your reply and your time!

        Like

        • scmike2 says:

          First of all, I appreciate the civil tone and cordial nature of your comments. Very refreshing! Regarding your comments:

          You said: “I also rather strive for my positions to be as sensical and logically consistent as possible.”

          But…

          Then you said: “I do not claim to know anything built upon inductive reasoning with absolute certainty.”

          And

          “I might have overwhelming confidence in such a position, but I would not claim absolute certainty that the position reflects reality.”

          Are you absolutely certain that you do not and would not do these things? If yes, you are refuted. If no, you are refuted (since the opposite of these assertions could be true for all you know).

          You see, B.P., atheism is a demonstrably false position in that it cannot account for (and, in fact, undermines) the very preconditions of intellibility (i.e. truth, logic, morality, the certainty of knowledge, etc.) used to make sense of the world around us or to even hold this very discussion. As such, the atheist is forced into the ‘intellectually schizophrenic’ position of both affirming these things and denying them at the same time (see above), since they (you) are attempting to deny the only possible source for those concepts—the God of the Bible.

          I mean no disrespect to you here, but only hope to expose the internal inconsistency of your position in hopes that you will honestly think through these issues and ultimately come to repentance for denying the God that you know exists (see Romans 1:18-23). Take care!

          Like

          • Thanks, again, for your replies! I do make an effort to be as cordial as possible in these types of conversations. If, at any point, I make a statement which seems out of line or offensive, please let me know so that I can apologize and correct myself.

            My own motivations are not knowledge to which I’ve come by inductive reasoning. Such positions are necessarily tautological. However, I think I do understand the point you are making (and please correct me if I’m incorrect). If the vast majority of our knowledge is gained through inductive means, how is it reasonable to utilize that knowledge to inform other positions?

            I have never been convinced by arguments that the God of the Bible is the only possible source for concepts like logic and truth. The idea that a natural universe is logical, by its nature, is certainly no less cogent than the idea that a personal deity is logical, by its nature. I see no reason why it is necessary to invoke a deity to account for logic.

            I certainly find no offense in your attempting to show holes in my logic. In fact, I would ask you for nothing less! Nor do I take offense by your insistence on claiming that I know your deity exists, when I actually do not know this. I do believe that I am a better judge of my own mind than a Hellenic Jew who died nearly 2000 years ago on the other side of the world, but I also understand that you believe that Paul was writing under the direction of an omniscient entity. Still, for the sake of conversation, I do hope you’ll address my positions as I present them, rather than as they are asserted by an ancient Greek epistle.

            Like

            • scmike2 says:

              Thanks again for your response, B.P.!

              You said: “I think I do understand the point you are making (and please correct me if I’m incorrect). If the vast majority of our knowledge is gained through inductive means, how is it reasonable to utilize that knowledge to inform other positions?”

              Not quite. The point is, if you can’t know anything for certain, then you have no foundation upon which to rest ANY of the knowledge claims you are making, since everything you claim to be true could in fact be completely false. The certainty of knowledge is undeniable and that’s really what this discussion will ultimately boil down to: which of us can rationally justify the existence of the preconditions of intelligibilty we are using to hold this discussion right now within our respective worldviews? I hold God and His Word as my ultimate authority, which means that, as a Christian, I can rationally account for the existence of certainty in that God (Who knows everything) has revealed some things to mankind such that we can be certain of them. As I have pointed out to other atheists in the past (and even recently), it would take sheer intellectual dishonesty to deny that an omnipotent, omniscient God could do this.

              Also, abstract, universal, invariant concepts such as truth, logic, etc. are reconciled in the Christian worldview as they are a reflection of the abstract, universal, invariant character and nature of God (by the impossibility of the contrary). On the other hand, as an atheist, you are left with only your senses and reasoning as your ultimate authority and must appeal to them alone as the basis for everything you claim to know. The question ultimately then becomes: how do you know that your senses and reasoning are themselves reliable and are providing you with reliable information? Given your earlier admission, the answer is: you can’t (since you have adopted the position that you can’t be certain of anything). As such, your position leads to the absurd conclusion that you can’t know anything and might not even exist for all you know. Surely you can see a problem with that, no?

              You said: “I have never been convinced by arguments that the God of the Bible is the only possible source for concepts like logic and truth.”

              Truth does not equal persuasion, B.P. For all I know, you could be convinced by arguments that are false.

              You said: “The idea that a natural universe is logical, by its nature, is certainly no less cogent than the idea that a personal deity is logical, by its nature. I see no reason why it is necessary to invoke a deity to account for logic.”

              Actually, it’s a huge problem if you can’t know anything for certain, as you could never know what the nature of the universe actually is. You couldn’t be certain that logic has held in the unobserved past, that it will hold in the unobserved future, or that it necessarily applies to anything (including this discussion) that you have never personally observed. Not to mention (as I mentioned above) you could never know for certain that any of your observations or conclusions themselves are reliable. You are forced to accept all of these things purely on blind faith alone. Of course, believing things on blind faith is but one form of irrationality.

              You said: “Nor do I take offense by your insistence on claiming that I know your deity exists, when I actually do not know this.”

              Pardon my inquisitiveness, but are you certain that you do not know this, or could the opposite actually be true?

              You said: “I do believe that I am a better judge of my own mind than a Hellenic Jew who died nearly 2000 years ago on the other side of the world, but I also understand that you believe that Paul was writing under the direction of an omniscient entity.

              A couple of things here: 1) Not that I agree with your irreverent reference to Jesus Christ, but how are you a good judge of anything if you can’t know anything for certain? Following that rationale, every assessment you make could turn out to be completely incorrect (including the one above). Where I come from, that’s the very opposite of good judgment. (2) I don’t believe that Paul was writing under Divine inspiration– I know it for certain, by the impossibility of the contrary.

              You said: “Still, for the sake of conversation, I do hope you’ll address my positions as I present them, rather than as they are asserted by an ancient Greek epistle.”

              Neutrality (with regards to the issue of God’s existence) is a myth. One either acknowledges that God exists as the basis for their (and all) human reasoning, or they don’t. I have access to a Divine, objective Revelation from God which reveals for certain that your position is false. At this point, all I can do is (hopefully) gently attempt to expose the internal inconsistencies within your worldview in hopes that you will come to acknowledge that truth too and repent. I am not interested in coddling anyone into Hell.

              Like

              • eyeontheuniverse says:

                “how are you a good judge of anything if you can’t know anything for certain? Following that rationale, every assessment you make could turn out to be completely incorrect (including the one above). Where I come from, that’s the very opposite of good judgment. ”

                Accepting that you cannot know anything for certain and taking as an working premise the validity of induction, we are working on estimated probabilities. I think you would agree that it is reasonable to take actions based on the probability, in your estimation, of the action being correct. You can argue that ultimately you cannot calculate probability, but even then you cannot call it “bad” judgement, as you have not provided an alternate probability. We are really talking about working within a world in which a limited set of premises are accepted as true. you simply accept a few additional premises.

                Like

                • scmike2 says:

                  You said: “‘Accepting that you cannot know anything for certain and taking as an working premise the validity of induction, we are working on estimated probabilities.””

                  Is this something that you are certain of though, or only probably so (in which case it could very well be completely false)?

                  You said: “”I think you would agree that it is reasonable to take actions based on the probability, in your estimation, of the action being correct.””

                  Indeed, however I have a rational justification for proceeding with the assumption that the senses and reasoning I use to form and act upon any ‘estimation’ are themselves basically reliable, as well as a rational justification for accepting the validity of probability in the first place since I acknowledge the truth of the Bible. As such, I know that my senses and reasoning are a precious gift from God and that the future will most likely resemble the past based upon His promises in Genesis (and elsewhere) to uphold and sustain His creation in such a manner that mankind can ‘subdue it and have dominion over it’.

                  I am curious, though. Apart from Divine Revelation, what logical basis do YOU have for trusting your senses and reasoning or expecting the future to resemble the past in any way?

                  You said: “”You can argue that ultimately you cannot calculate probability, but even then you cannot call it “bad” judgement, as you have not provided an alternate probability. We are really talking about working within a world in which a limited set of premises are accepted as true. you simply accept a few additional premises.””

                  However, if one assumes the (self-defeating) position that they can’t be certain of anything, then they are forced to admit that each of their claims could be completely false such that the opposite is true. This would leave one with zero basis for any of the knowledge claims they make regarding probability (or otherwise), and would reduce their entire position to one of blind faith. I trust you are not going to adopt such an irrational position?

                  Like

                  • eyeontheuniverse says:

                    “However, if one assumes the (self-defeating) position that they can’t be certain of anything, then they are forced to admit that each of their claims could be completely false such that the opposite is true. This would leave one with zero basis for any of the knowledge claims they make regarding probability (or otherwise), and would reduce their entire position to one of blind faith. I trust you are not going to adopt such an irrational position?”

                    “blind faith” assumes certainty, which is something I am not claiming to have. I think one of the major differences here is a personal inclination toward living with various levels of uncertainty. Some people are more comfortable with this. In a world in which absolute certainty is not possible, it can at the very least *not* be argued that it is irrational to work without it…because there simply is no choice. The adaptive response accepts (tentatively) induction (and other premises) and functions in an “as if” mode until something occurs to indicate a flaw in the premise. I have lived quite well and happily this way for a number of decades.

                    Like

                    • scmike2 says:

                      You said: “blind faith” assumes certainty, which is something I am not claiming to have.”

                      Are you certain that you are not claiming this, or could the opposite be possible. Let me know.

                      Like

              • Another great round of questions! Thank you!

                Allow me to clarify, as I think some of my position has not been conveyed adequately. I did not say that I “can’t know anything for certain.” I said that knowledge which has been acquired inductively cannot be known with absolute certainty. The implications of this are twofold: 1) knowledge acquired by other means may absolutely certain, and 2) knowledge need not be absolutely certain in order for it to have pragmatic utility. I do have absolute certainty that a triangle has three sides. I do not have absolute certainty that any of my students will show up to their class, tonight, but I plan to be there to teach based on my confidence that they will show up.

                Whether or not one affirms a deity, one is left to his senses and reasoning as the only methods for discerning reality. Even if logic and truth are representative of the abstract, universal, invariant nature of a deity, the question becomes, “How do you know that this is so?” You are dependent upon your own senses and reasoning to demonstrate this position, since you are not God and cannot know God’s nature absolutely. The goal then becomes attempting to generate greater and greater confidence in the data presented by our senses and reasoning in order to construct pragmatic, though uncertain, knowledge.

                You are correct to assert that persuasion is not equivalent to truth. However, whether or not an entity is true, in order to believe that it is true, a person must be persuaded. In a dialogue, especially, this persuasive argument is necessary– otherwise, it might as well be a monologue.

                I do apologize if anything I stated sounded like an irreverent reference toward Jesus of Nazareth, and I assure you that was not my intention. When I said, “a Hellenic Jew who died nearly 2000 years ago,” I was referring to Paul, the author of Romans. However, as to your question, the very nature of judgment implies uncertainty. After all, if a conclusion could be made with concrete certainty, there would be no need to judge anything. For example, a person does not “judge” that 2+2=4, but rather deduces this position. On the other hand, the guilt of a person on trial for murder cannot be deduced with absolute certainty, and must be judged. The fact that this judgment has some non-zero potential for error does not mean that the judgment is bad. Judgment only becomes bad when its potential for error exceeds its potential for accuracy.

                Why do you think that it would be impossible for Paul to be writing without divine inspiration?

                You claim to have divine, objective revelation from a deity. However, even if it is true, you have not given me a reason to accept this claim. I have no way of differentiating your claim of divine revelation from that of a Mormon or a Muslim or a Rastafarian or a Wiccan. You stated that your goal was to expose the internal inconsistency in my logic. If that is so, whether or not neutrality with regards to God’s existence is a myth, you must show an inconsistency in my positions as I present them. Showing that my positions are inconsistent with your worldview, at best, only reveals an external inconsistency– not an internal one.

                Thank you again, for your time!

                Like

                • scmike2 says:

                  Hey again, B.P.! Regarding your comments:

                  You said: “”Allow me to clarify, as I think some of my position has not been conveyed adequately. I did not say that I “can’t know anything for certain.” I said that knowledge which has been acquired inductively cannot be known with absolute certainty.””

                  I get what you’re saying here. However, this is just a knowledge claim about knowledge. I am sure that you would agree that we should provide rational justification for the claims we make and not just arbitrarily posit them, no? What I want to know is how you can be absolutely certain of anything (including this very claim) in a worldview without God?

                  You said: “”The implications of this are twofold: 1) knowledge acquired by other means may absolutely certain, and 2) knowledge need not be absolutely certain in order for it to have pragmatic utility. I do have absolute certainty that a triangle has three sides. I do not have absolute certainty that any of my students will show up to their class, tonight, but I plan to be there to teach based on my confidence that they will show up.””

                  Again, my question to you regarding each of these claims would be: how do you know any of the above for certain to be true absent omniscience or revelation from same?

                  You said: “”Whether or not one affirms a deity, one is left to his senses and reasoning as the only methods for discerning reality.””

                  This assumes that an omniscient, omnipotent God could not reveal some things to us directly and completely apart from our senses and reasoning such that we could know them for certain to be true. In fact, that is my logical justification for proceeding with the assumption that my senses and reasoning are basically reliable. What I would like to know is: on what basis do you assume that your senses and reasoning are basically reliable and are providing you with valid information in your worldview without God?

                  You said: “”Even if logic and truth are representative of the abstract, universal, invariant nature of a deity, the question becomes, “How do you know that this is so?” You are dependent upon your own senses and reasoning to demonstrate this position, since you are not God and cannot know God’s nature absolutely.””

                  Again, this assumes that God could not reveal things to human beings about Himself (such as the reality of His character and nature) such that we can know them with certainty. It would take sheer intellectual dishonesty to deny this possibility. As such, the Christian worldview provides the only rational basis for the existence of abstract, universal, invariants (by the impossibility of the contrary). Whether or not you agree with this is irrelevent at this point, though, as I would like to know your worldview’s justification for the existence of abstract, universal, invariants apart from God so we can compare.

                  You said: “”The goal then becomes attempting to generate greater and greater confidence in the data presented by our senses and reasoning in order to construct pragmatic, though uncertain, knowledge.””

                  Unfortunately, B.P., what you are referring to here is not ‘knowledge’, but ‘belief’. Knowledge is certain by definition as it is justified, true belief. If you know something to be true, it cannot be false, as something cannot be both true and not true at the same time and in the same way. If you dispute this point, feel free to tell me something that you know to be true which could also be false at the same time.

                  You said: “”You are correct to assert that persuasion is not equivalent to truth. However, whether or not an entity is true, in order to believe that it is true, a person must be persuaded. In a dialogue, especially, this persuasive argument is necessary– otherwise, it might as well be a monologue.””

                  Perhaps I should clarify my position at this point, as it seems I have not done so. My position is consistent with the Biblical one that you know that God exists, but are indeed suppressing that truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to Him (again, see Romans 1:18-23 on this). Since the Bible is my ultimate authority and I know for certain that it is true (as do you), I argue FROM that position and demonstrate its truth by exposing the internal inconsistencies within the contrary position (i.e. yours). When atheists appeal objectively to things like knowledge, truth, logic, morality, etc., they are in fact demonstrating the falsity of their position, as they are appealing to concepts that could not possibly exist apart from God. As such, they are actually borrowing concepts that can only be made sense of in the Christian worldview in order to argue against the Christian worldview. Of course, such as position is hopelessly self-defeating and absurd.

                  You said: “”I do apologize if anything I stated sounded like an irreverent reference toward Jesus of Nazareth, and I assure you that was not my intention. When I said, “a Hellenic Jew who died nearly 2000 years ago,” I was referring to Paul, the author of Romans.””

                  My apologies. Nevertheless, arbitrarily dismissing the Bible is ultimately an act of irreverence towards the Lord, B.P. When one does so, it is NOT for rational reasons, but IN SPITE of them. Whatever your reasons are, I hope that you repent of them and quickly.

                  You said: “”However, as to your question, the very nature of judgment implies uncertainty. After all, if a conclusion could be made with concrete certainty, there would be no need to judge anything. For example, a person does not “judge” that 2+2=4, but rather deduces this position. On the other hand, the guilt of a person on trial for murder cannot be deduced with absolute certainty, and must be judged. The fact that this judgment has some non-zero potential for error does not mean that the judgment is bad. Judgment only becomes bad when its potential for error exceeds its potential for accuracy.””

                  Hmmm, these claims sound a little dubious to me. Perhaps I should wait until I have your justification for how you can be certain of these (or any) things before addressing them. After all, if you have no certain basis upon which to rest these claims, that would reduce them to mere ‘opinions’ and would therefore put them in the realm of blind faith. I do care about your opinions, but for the sake of this discussion, I am really only interested in what you know and HOW you claim to know it.

                  You said: “”Why do you think that it would be impossible for Paul to be writing without divine inspiration?””

                  Because the contrary ends in absurdity. If the Bible is not true, you lose all rational basis for any of the preconditions of intelligibility (including the ones we are using to hold this very discussion).

                  You said: “”You claim to have divine, objective revelation from a deity. However, even if it is true, you have not given me a reason to accept this claim.””

                  Actually, the claim is that we BOTH have the same revelation. However, one of us acknowledges (i.e. submits) to it, while the other suppresses it. Subsequently, our presuppositions will ultimately determine what we will and will not accept as true, since they are the basis for which we interpret and form our conclusions about any evidence or arguments presented. As such (again), my sole responsibility here is to simply declare the truth to you and expose the internal inconsistencies within your worldview in hopes that you will come to see the folly of atheism and surrender to God through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. You see, B.P., one does not reason TO God as the foundation of their reasoning, they surrender to Him and reason FROM that position. Genuine conversion only comes through surrender to the God that you already know exists.

                  You said: “”I have no way of differentiating your claim of divine revelation from that of a Mormon or a Muslim or a Rastafarian or a Wiccan.””

                  Well, as a Christian, I just simply do an internal critique of their position and demonstrate the arbitrariness and internal inconsistency of it and their alleged ‘holy book’ in contrast to the objective truth and internal consistency of the Bible. However, if you as an atheist have no logical avenue to certainty in your own worldview, I can see where this would be a problem, as you would have no way of differentiating between anything at all (of course, you can’t and don’t live that way). I hope that you do not choose to adopt that self-defeating stance in your forthcoming responses.

                  Thank you again, as well!

                  Like

                  • It is not intellectually dishonest to deny that an omniscient, omnipotent deity could reveal truth to a person apart from that person’s senses and reasoning. I can make such a denial with intellectual honesty because I do not find “omnipotence” and “revelation of truth apart from sense and reason” to be cogent concepts. If you can provide me with cogent definitions for these ideas, I will gladly affirm this claim (provided the definitions still logically support the claim, of course).

                    That said, even were I to affirm the claim, its mere logical validity does not give us evidence one way or the other as to whether that deity actually exists, nor as to whether such a deity would perform such an action even if it does exist. So, even if I did not deny that an omniscient, omnipotent deity could reveal truth to a person apart from that person’s senses and reasoning, I would still deny the claim that such an entity exists.

                    As for my basis for certain knowledge, as I mentioned earlier, some knowledge is tautological, and therefore certain. Using the common example, it is certain that a bachelor is an unmarried man because this is the definition of “bachelor.” Combining basal premises can allow deduction of other, certain knowledge. For example, combining our previous definition with another tautology, the law of non-contradiction, we can deduce that any man who is married is not a bachelor.

                    On your continued insistence that I actually share your knowledge of divine revelation, I will simply reaffirm that I do not, and that it is counterproductive to your stated goal. If you have no actual interest in persuading me that the positions which I have presented are unsound, I will gladly remove myself from the conversation that you might discuss things amongst yourself. Obviously, if you truly believe that I already know your deity exists, but that I am lying to you in order to claim otherwise, there is no need for our dialogue.

                    Like

                    • scmike2 says:

                      Thanks again, B.P.!

                      You said: “”It is not intellectually dishonest to deny that an omniscient, omnipotent deity could reveal truth to a person apart from that person’s senses and reasoning.””

                      Sure it is, as you would be forced to concede the possibility since you could never prove that it is impossible (especially if you **ahem** hold to a worldview in which certainty is not possible). As such, the Christian worldview provides a logically sound avenue to certainty. Again, whether you agree with my justification or not is irrelevent at this point. I want you to posit your competing rational justification for how you know for certain that your senses and reasoning are basically realiable and are providing you with accurate information. We both believe our senses and reasoning are basically reliable, B.P, and I want to know on what logical basis you proceed with that assumption as an atheist. Well?

                      You said: “So, even if I did not deny that an omniscient, omnipotent deity could reveal truth to a person apart from that person’s senses and reasoning, I would still deny the claim that such an entity exists.”

                      But you would be doing so despite ANY rational justification whatsoever. That is the point, here—you arbitrarily deny the God of the Bible against your better judgment (and despite the irrational consequences) because you simply don’t want to acknowledge Him. Of course, dismissing something without ultimately having a logical rationale for doing so is the very epitome of an irrational position. I trust you can see that?

                      You said: “As for my basis for certain knowledge, as I mentioned earlier, some knowledge is tautological, and therefore certain. Using the common example, it is certain that a bachelor is an unmarried man because this is the definition of “bachelor.””

                      Well, the floor is yours…..how do you know that this definition applies universally outside of your limited experience and observations? How do you know that it won’t change or that it hasn’t changed since your last post such that ‘bachelor’ now means a married man with precisely 2 children or something else entirely? If you are intellectually honest, you are forced to concede that you don’t, in fact, know any of this to be true and certain. Absent Divine revelation from One who knows everything, you are forced to admit that everything you claim (including the validity of your senses and reasoning) could be completely false for all you know. Like it or not, B.P., the atheist has no ultimate objective foundation upon which to rest any of his or her claims since they can’t ultimately be certain that their senses and reasoning are even valid to begin with. Followed to its logical (read: ilogical) ends, this leads to consequences that you probably won’t want to accept (such as the possibility that you might not even exist for all you know, according to your worldview). Why trust such an obviously hopeless position just because you don’t LIKE the alternative?

                      Note: As for appealing to the Law of Non-Contradiction, this only works if you already knew that the law held universally in all places and at all times. I know that it does since laws of logic are a reflection of the absolute, universal character and nature of the sovereign God of the Bible. What basis do you have for expecting this law to apply outside of your limited observations of the universe (like in the unobserved past or the unobservable future for instance)? Blind faith? Remember, stating that the future will be like the past because the future has been like the past (in the past) is question begging (not to mention viciously circular).

                      You said: “On your continued insistence that I actually share your knowledge of divine revelation, I will simply reaffirm that I do not,”

                      Your actions here dictate otherwise, though, which again indicates an internally inconsistent (and therefore, false) position.

                      You said: “If you have no actual interest in persuading me that the positions which I have presented are unsound, I will gladly remove myself from the conversation that you might discuss things amongst yourself. Obviously, if you truly believe that I already know your deity exists, but that I am lying to you in order to claim otherwise, there is no need for our dialogue.”

                      At this point, I wouldn’t say you’re lying, B.P. I think ‘self-deceived’ is the more appropriate term. Again, I have access to an objectively verifiable, internally consistent source of Divine revelation which makes sense of abstract, universal, invariants, comports with reality, and which tells me that your position is certainly false and completely arbitrary. While I value you being here and don’t want you to leave, if honestly exposing your professed atheism for what it really amounts to precludes us from further discussion, then so be it.

                      Thank you again for your time and the exposure of our respective worldviews.

                      Like

  3. “This was compiled by a former atheist who is now a Christian. ”

    Who? What’s her name? Where is the link that shows us the original source for this list? Or did you take it from a book? Which book?

    Like

    • scmike2 says:

      Um, actually it was a he and his name is Keith. Don’t happen to have the link handy right now, in fact. (Guess that would make it a true missing link, huh? Ha!)

      Like

      • I’m just curious because it would be interesting to know why this Keith was an atheist in the first place, and what caused him to change his mind. Because without knowing that, we know essentially nothing about the accuracy of this list. After all, one can easily be factually correct for the wrong reasons.

        Like

        • scmike2 says:

          Keith (like you) was a professing atheist. He (like you) knew that God existed all along, but was suppressing that truth to avoid accountability to Him (see Romans 1:18-23). He (like you, I hope) finally came to his senses and surrendered to the God he had been denying. Hope this helps!

          Liked by 1 person

  4. carmelitaspats666 says:

    LOL!!! This has got to be a joke. Nice one! I used to blog as a wide-eyed church lady (the overstuffed Betty Lou Binderbottom on Bud Light) and I actually had Christians who were “amazed” at my “spiritual maturity” and read my blog posts on Christian Domestic Discipline!!! LOL, LOL, LOL!!! I am atheist but I decided to blog as a fake Southern Baptist in desperate need of a tolerable haircut from a recent decade.

    I would submit your entire post to Landover Baptist Church:

    http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

    Like

  5. eyeontheuniverse says:

    I’m an atheist, and I’ve seen all of these. It really is a tiny portion of the world’s atheists here. It’s more like “How to be an 18 year old atheist in the US south who was raised by southern Baptists, is *** off, and only has half an education.” You’ll rarely find your average 40 year old atheist Bostonian even bothering to discuss the topic, and the typical world atheist, a 35 year old man in China, couldn’t care less.

    #12 Kills me, btw. Anyone I hear utter the silly words “common sense” is quickly deemed too confused for conversation. Maybe in you teens it’s worth explaining this stuff to people, but I’ll stick to conversations with reasonably educated grown-ups at this point in life.

    Like

  6. paul the slave says:

    My what ugliness, eh? The hatred and bitterness of the world never ceases to amaze me. Mike, I appreciate your fight and efforts to shine the light of God’s truth into the darkness. LIke cockroaches, they will flee from the light and fight for all their worth to snuff it out. They didn’t like Christ’s light so they crucified Him. You my friend are in good company!

    There are no such things as atheists, just rebellious people who CHOOSE to not believe in Him. They know better, but they want their own. They want their sin, lifestyle and selfish ways, and they will go to hell at the end of it cursing God to His face for His unfair judgment on THAT day.

    Like buckets full of holes, they show themselves fools by fighting against that which they do not believe exists. Imagine spending your entire life fighting against something you do not believe in? I don’t believe in leprechauns. Imagine the foolishness of searching for them, even though I believe they do not exist to prove their non-existence?!

    This is the so called atheist. Foolishness beyond comprehension.

    Like

    • eyeontheuniverse says:

      Non-god believers generally have very strict ethics, just different from your own. Few people can survive without an ethical system, and when you leave one, sociopaths aside, you just adopt or develop anther. Almost everyone lives with behaviors limited by belief.

      Like

      • scmike2 says:

        You said: Almost everyone lives with behaviors limited by belief.

        Yep, including murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and terrorists. How do you know that they didn’t evolve with the correct standard of ethics and you didn’t involve with the incorrect standard, given your worldview?

        Like

        • Correct according to whom?

          My morality and worldview puts a priority on the health and happiness of all people. Where conflicts arise, an attempt to bring the most health and happiness to the most people is what is desired. Murderers, rapists, etc, do not match with that.

          Like

          • scmike2 says:

            The question is: why SHOULD anyone else conform to your (arbirtrary) standard of morality if they don’t want to, NAS?

            A murderer or rapist could just as easily assert the opposite position to yours as a means of justifying their code of behavior as well. If morality can be arbitrarily stipulated, then anyone is free to stipulate their own, after all (including rapists, murderers, etc), and you have no logical complaint against their position absent an absolute, objective standard of morality. Like it or not, this is what atheism amounts to.

            Like

            • eyeontheuniverse says:

              You are misusing the word “arbitrary” again. Please note that it is very difficult to have a conversation when words are repeatedly misused in ways that do not correspond to standard English.

              For reference, from the OED:

              “Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system:”

              If a person chooses, for instance, to uphold a utilitarian ethics after reading Mill, weighing againsand developing a systematic framework, that ethics can hardly be considered “arbitrary”.

              Like

              • scmike2 says:

                Look again at your example, as it is the very epitome of acting on a personal whim. Couldn’t the same person also just as easily choose to abandon that system for another system and then another as they saw fit? Suppose they decided to propose their own system (just as Mill did on his own personal whim) which directly opposed his, and which stated that things like rape and murder were OK; if there were others willing to choose it also—how do you determine which system is correct in such a case?

                Do the individuals within the system get to decide or does the group get to decide based on its size? Absent an absolute overriding standard by which to gauge right and wrong behavior, there is no rational REASON to impose one’s personal behavioral preference upon another (individual or group). If I say “I like red’ and you say “yeah, but I prefer blue”, what is that to me?

                Like

                • eyeontheuniverse says:

                  If this is your definition of personal whim, everything is ultimately personal whim. Work hard to buy a house and support your family? Personal whim. Want to win the chess match so you strategize? Personal whim? Want to got to heaven and not hell so you follow god? Personal whim. You’ve just made the words whim and arbitrary completely meaningless.

                  Like

                  • scmike2 says:

                    You said: “”If this is your definition of personal whim, everything is ultimately personal whim.””

                    In your worldview it is!! In a purely accidental, evolutionary universe, there is ultimately no meaning to anything and no ultimate reason or purpose for anything. That’s the point.

                    Fortunately, you do not live that way, as you too know that there is indeed purpose to your life and the existence of all things since both we and it are created and upheld by a sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent God who has revealed Himself to us such that we can be certain of who He is. You continue to confirm that undeniable reality with everything you write, e.o.t.u.

                    Like

                    • eyeontheuniverse says:

                      You missed my point, I think. It is in your world view that, using your definitions, following God is a whim. It is a personal choice or preference of The godly rather than ungodly way. Using your, non standard, definitions, the decision is arbitrary because you made it out of a preference for following rather than rejecting god.

                      Like

                    • scmike2 says:

                      Unless of course, God is sovereign over that too. I do not deny that there are some difficult doctrines within Christianity (such as reconciling our will with God’s sovereignty), e.o.t.u.

                      However, that’s not the point here. The point is, apart from the God of the Bible, you have zero objective basis for anything you claim to know or anything you do. This makes your position purely subjective and arbitrary, and reduces it to one of blind faith. If you would answer the question I posed to you earlier, that fact would become crystal clear. Here it is again:

                      What is your rational (non-illogical) reason for rejecting the Bible?

                      Like

            • “The question is: why SHOULD anyone else conform to your (arbirtrary) standard of morality if they don’t want to, NAS?”

              Because it (hopefully) leaves the most people happy and healthy.

              “A murderer or rapist could just as easily assert the opposite position to yours as a means of justifying their code of behavior as well”

              They can. And if they want to live in a world or a culture in which rape and murder are moral, they are welcome to try and building that culture.

              I wonder how long such a culture would last?

              “and you have no logical complaint against their position”

              Pragmatism (I don’t want to die or get raped) and empathy (I imagine most other people also don’t want to die or get raped) are both quite logical complaints.

              Like

              • scmike2 says:

                You said: “Because it (hopefully) leaves the most people happy and healthy.”

                How do you know that leaving people happy and healthy is what we SHOULD be doing as opposed to not doing so?

                You said: “Pragmatism (I don’t want to die or get raped) and empathy (I imagine most other people also don’t want to die or get raped) are both quite logical complaints.”

                Actually, they are both quite subjective complaints with no binding authority whatsoever. The question is: why SHOULD anyone else care about your (or others’) personal preferences in a purely materialistic, evolutionary universe (especially if it is their personal preference to do you harm and they can get away with it)? After all, if people are just evolved bags of rearranged molecules, why not rearrange them a little more if someone feels like it, from a strictly atheistic standpoint? We wouldn’t punish a lion for killing and mutilating a gazelle, after all. Again, apart from an absolute standard of morality which necessarily applies to human behavior, you have no valid logical argument against any behavior and are, instead, reduced to appealing to your (purely subjective) personal preference/opinion in these matters.

                Like

      • paul the slave says:

        What’s your point? I have long since ceased in wasting my time arguing and discussing the finer points on why people like you have disregarded God.

        The fact is you are living in sin, and you are only alive because God has a lot of patience.

        The moral Law of God convicts you and one day (the day you know not), you will stand before that very God and give account for your life. Just because you can craft a well oiled argument does not make you right, it just makes you slippery.

        Our faith bears us out and we have the biblical proof to back it up. You disregard the Bible as the perfect word of God, because in your mind it releases you from any accountability and allows you to live the life you desire.

        Sorry to all of you…as the old addage goes, you can be sincere but you can also be sincerely wrong. One little tiny drop of poison in a pure glass of water still poisons it and makes it unfit to drink.

        Your actions, words and thoughts will be used to convict you one day and no amount of witty comebacks, arguments or reasonings will matter.

        The only thing that matters is the saving grace of the one and true God. Anything else will be nothing more than dung used to heat the fires of hell.

        Like

  7. I have seen ALL of these over and over, and #9 and 10 in technicolor. I had a self proclaimed atheist demand a public debate with me, and then in the second round he admitted that he had not read my prior post but then went on for SIX PAGES to tell me why I was wrong- about my position, which he has not read. And by the knee-jerk comments above, it looks like some readers saw themselves in this list. The human race is a funny thing. But by the grace of God go I.
    Keep up the good work, friend!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s