Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. Atheists tend to put a lot of stock in the emperical [sic] method and in logic. One cannot disprove God exists using the emperical [sic] method. You might reply: But I can’t disprove a giant purple frog on Mars controls the universe, either. Granted, one can never disprove any given thing exists. The atheistic position denying God’s existence, if based on the emperical [sic] method, is absurd. Why do I say that? In order to prove the assertion No God exists experimentally, one would need to comprehensively know all of reality. Comprehensive knowledge of reality is called omniscience. One would need to be omniscient in order to prove there is no God, but if one were omniscient one would, by definition, already be God! So, based on emperical [sic] methodology, the only one capable of disproving the existence of God would be God himself! But some would say you can indeed assert something does not exist if its existence is logically self contradictory, such as a square triangle. By definition it cannot exist. It is illogical for something to be a square and to also be a triangle. Again, granted, but this line of reasoning assumes logic and real meaning exist and are our basis for knowledge –something an atheist has no right to assert! The existence of God is not only logically possible, it is philosophically essential. (We’ll get to that more later below.) One cannot prove logic exists unless one first presupposes a God in whom reason and meaning are transcendentally rooted, otherwise these categories are mere philosphical [sic] prejuduces [sic]. Atheism is inherently self-contradictory. The evidence for the existence of God is there for all to see, only we refuse to see it. King David wrote: The fool says in his heart there is no God. (Psalm 14:1) In other words, Atheism is irrational. Apart from God there is no basis for truth or ethics.
— Fred Klett, CHAIM (Christians Announcing Israel’s Messiah): A Reformed Ministry to Jewish People, The Absurdity of Atheism
Fred, Fred, Fred. Learn to spell, mate.
I see he’s adopted the usual tactic of the apologist, claiming he once was an atheist. I don’t think so.
Fred makes a sharp point in demonstrating how a dull man reveals his blunted brain by opening his mouth; in fact, I have to say that after listening to his almost nonsensical words, he even begins to look oddly clownish: The power of words! You go git those atheists, Freddy. You are the real thing.
That spelling error was corrected long ago! Here is a more recent link: https://chaim.org/atheism
Fred, you’re still flogging the same strawman. Most atheists don’t say “There are no gods”; they tend to say “I don’t believe that gods exist.” Huge difference.
People who are unconvinced of something don’t have to prove anything. Their skepticism is sufficient, and if you want to convince them you have to do it on their terms rather than your own.
It’s still bullshit with or without the spelling errors.
This was posted a year ago, so not that long ago.
My updated version also addresses that. Actually Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s organization did indeed say there is no God nor can there be. (have they modified this position?) So there are hard atheists and soft atheists. The “soft atheist” position, you are espousing, I think, should just be called agnosticism. If you don’t agree then please tell me how it’s different from agnosticism.
Ah, the atheist/agnostic tactic.
I’m not sure if you know the philosophical distinction, but essentially it’s based on the difference between knowledge (gnostic) and belief. Regardless of the philosophical position the reality, it seems to me, is that a genuine agnostic will always be an atheist, in the sense that an agnostic is looking for evidence that god exists and, as long as he hasn’t found it (if he had he wouldn’t be agnostic any longer), he doesn’t positively believe it. My impression is that people who insist that they’re agnostic but not atheist are, actually, believers. I don’t disagree that there are ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ atheists, but it’s enough for these discussions to limit ourselves to soft, or what I call ‘passive’, atheists.
Madalyn Murray O’Hair speaks for herself, not all atheists. Here is what she said:
Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any.
I agree with her statement. It is a reflection of everything we currently know about deities. I suppose you are hung up on the phrase “nor can there be any.” If Madalyn was still alive, I would ask her about this.
You seem not to understand the various shades of atheism. For example, Richard Dawkins is considered a hardcore atheist, yet he agnostic on the god question, as am I, as are many of the people who read this blog. We are, however, atheists when it comes to the Abrahamic Gods and other manmade deities. (All extant Gods come from the same place: human imagination.)Thus, I am agnostic when it comes to the existence of some sort of God, but atheistic in my day to day life. It is “possible” that some unknown deity exists and may yet someday make himself/herself/itself known to us. Possible, but unlikely. That’s why I don’t worry about such a beings existence and live day by day as an atheist. It’s all about probabilities. Look at the universe. Look at what modern science tells us. Look at what our own observations tell us. Is it probable that there is a God? No.
Let’s say you say YES, then, by all means, provide the bridge from A GOD to THE GOD — your peculiar version of the Christian deity. I have interacted with hundreds of Evangelical apologists over the past decade. I have yet to have one connect the dots. Creation? Conscience? Revelation? Nope, all of these can be explained apart from the existence of your God. At best, you end up with a deistic God, a creator who set everything in motion and said, there ya go boys and girls do with it what you will. And this still leaves us with the question of where that particular God came from.
No, Fred — that is not what agnosticism is.
I do not believe in gods; therefore, I am an atheist (of the soft variety).
I do not think it is possible to know if something is or is not a god; in fact, I believe it is impossible for a god-like being to know its true nature as well. I am a hard agnostic.
The term you are looking for is “agnostic atheist.” Someone who makes the positive assertion “There are no gods” is a gnostic atheist, hard atheist or strong atheist.
You are so eloquent! I bow to your great profundity!
By the way, I am a former atheist and former philosophical materialist. I was a natural sciences major at Johns Hopkins. I don’t understand how anybody can be an atheist without being a nihilist like I was.
You wrongly assume that your journey and experiences are the same for others. This seems to be a common problem with Evangelicals.
You weren’t an atheist/materialist for long; that is unless you entered Westminster Theological Seminary (1978, around age 25) as an atheist. ? I’m sure you didn’t. Westminster, being a Fundamentalist institution, doesn’t admit atheists. At what age were you converted? Were you actually an atheist or just someone indifferent towards religion? Often, believers speak of their “atheist” past, when in fact they were actually indifferent towards religion in general. Of course, saying you were an atheist before Jesus saved you sure makes for a better testimony, right? More than a few big name preachers lie about or distort their “atheist” past. Similar to these same preachers saying the former atheist Anthony Flew now believes in God. Sure, but not the Christian God. By not telling the whole truth about his change of mind, Evangelical apologists leave people with a false understanding about Flew.
I manage atheism without nihilism quite nicely, thank you.
You see, Fred, meaning isn’t something that actually requires a future, be it finite or eternal. Meaning can only be experienced in the present moment.
(Ever ask yourself what the purpose of eternal life is, by the way? There isn’t one. By definition it’s impossible to get to “the point of it all.”)
Evangelical eternal life doesn’t sound that interesting: spending day in, day out worshipping and praising a dead man. Sounds like a life sentence to me. 🙂 No thanks. Evangelicals say, eternity in heaven or hell — choose. I choose neither. The only heaven or hell any of experience is in this life. I’ve experienced both. Shit, I experienced a bit of hell today. Hoping for a bit of heaven tomorrow, with Ohio State thumping Wisconsin, followed by an awesome Polly-cooked dinner. ?
To quote a slightly altered Christian cliche: only one life twill soon be past and then you’re dead.
Here’s the advice I give on the ABOUT page:
If you had one piece of advice to give me, what would it be?
You have one life. There is no heaven or hell. There is no afterlife. You have one life, it’s yours, and what you do with it is what matters most. Love and forgive those who matter to you and ignore those who add nothing to your life. Life is too short to spend time trying to make nice with those who will never make nice with you. Determine who are the people in your life that matter and give your time and devotion to them. Live each and every day to its fullest. You never know when death might come calling. Don’t waste time trying to be a jack of all trades, master of none. Find one or two things you like to do and do them well. Too many people spend way too much time doing things they will never be good at.
Here’s the conclusion of the matter. It’s your life and you best get to living it. Some day, sooner than you think, it will be over. Don’t let your dying days be ones of regret over what might have been.
Somehow this got posted out of order