A Stunning Challenge to Atheists from Answers in Genesis

[Falvlun]

So if someone tells me multiple times that there is no God, or that certain things would be true if there is no God, I should believe it because it is multiple times?

No. You should believe that that is what they believe. We're not asking you to believe that atheists are correct. We are asking you to be honest about what they claim to believe.

Just like there is no requirement for you to claim that blue is your favorite color. However, if someone asks you what my favorite color is, you can't tell them that it is purple simply because that's what you think it should be.

 

[Man of Faith]

No. You should believe that that is what they believe. We're not asking you to believe that atheists are correct. We are asking you to be honest about what they claim to believe.

Just like there is no requirement for you to claim that blue is your favorite color. However, if someone asks you what my favorite color is, you can't tell them that it is purple simply because that's what you think it should be.

But I can certainly point out the inconsistencies that I see between what they believe and what they should believe if their position is true? For example I get this all the time from atheists, if God designed the human body, then…pick your poison…we should have two airways…etc… If there is no God then there should be no absolute morality, that is backed up by many atheists, now if an atheist says that they accept absolute morality then that is an inconsistency with their position.

 

[Kerr]

ATHEISTS . . .

● "Are you tired of all the evil associated with the philosophy of atheism—Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and so on?​

Actually no, since I do not associate the actions of tyrants with atheism. Or theism for that matter.

● Do you feel conflicted about the fact that atheism has no basis in morality (i.e., no absolute right and wrong; no good, no bad?)

Nope. Atheism doesnt have anything to do with morality.

● Are you tired of the fact that atheism (which is based in materialism, a popular worldview today) has no basis for logic and reasoning?

Not sure what the author meant by "for logic and reasoning". Going to assume it was supposed to be "in logic and reasoning". I dont know, I dont consider the beliefs in gods very logical. From my perspective, that is. Thats the thing about logic, people consider different things logical.

● Do you feel like you need a weekend to recoup, even though a weekend is really meaningless in an atheistic worldview—since animals, like bees, don’t take a day of rest or have a weekend? So why should atheists?

Either the author is a troll or I think this text is just really sad. I have a weekend to recoup (or rather, I would if I had a job), and yes, it does matter in my worldview, even if I am an atheist.

● Do you feel conflicted about proselytizing the faith of atheism, since if atheism were true then who cares about proselytizing?

If by proselytizing he means respectfully debate the matter with people sometimes, then no, I actually quite enjoy it. If its just to tell people what to believe or convert them or shuffle my beliefs down their throats... I dont do that.

● Are you weary of looking for evidence that contradicts the Bible’s account of creation and finding none?

Honestly, I havent tried, mainly because I am not that interested in that particular topic.
​

For professing atheists, these questions can be overwhelming to make sense of within their worldview. And further, within an atheistic worldview, atheists must view themselves as God.

Will you repent and receive Christ as your Lord and Savior today so that you will join Christ in the resurrection from the dead; I invite you personally to become an ex-atheist, join the ranks of the saved through Jesus Christ, and become a new creation as we continue to advance with the gospel in peace that only God can provide."
source

I have to decline that invite, partly because the author strikes me as ignorant and partly because the argument has not been very convincing.
​

The line starts at the far right.

In any case, one can only stand in awe at these silly straw-men. But maybe I've missed something here, so anyone who feels these are reasonable challenges please step forward and 'splain.




BTW, here's the author of the above, mechanical engineer cum atheist saviour Bodie Hodge. (I'm always curious as to what these people look like)

​

He looks a bit... full of himself. But that might be because I dont like his text . I am biased that way.

 

[Falvlun]

But I can certainly point out the inconsistencies that I see between what they believe and what they should believe if their position is true? For example I get this all the time from atheists, if God designed the human body, then…pick your poison…we should have two airways…etc… If there is no God then there should be no absolute morality, that is backed up by many atheists, now if an atheist says that they accept absolute morality then that is an inconsistency with their position.

Sure, that's certainly fair to do. I think part of the frustration though, is that you've pointed out this inconsistency before, have had it explained to you, and then bring it up again back at square one. Continually misrepresenting the atheist position, in order for you to make it easier to argue against, is exactly what a strawman is. It is understandable if it is from ignorance or lack of familiarity, but you no longer can claim those.


But I will briefly go over your criticism one more time:
You seem to believe that if there is no absolute morality, then that means that there can be no form of morality at all. This is manifestly not the case: After all, as you say, atheists often don't recognize the existence of an absolute morality, and despite your claims, atheists by and large still behave morally. They do not act as if anything and everything were morally permissible.

Many atheists attribute the existence of morality to both evolutionary and cultural means. Just because it is believed that morality did not come from God, does not make it any less useful, practical, or ingrained to follow. There are logical, as well as nature/nurture, reasons for morality to exist and for us to maintain it.

Lastly, an atheist could believe that absolute morality does exist, but just that it does not originate from God. Perhaps the atheist believes that morality is a law of nature, written into the fabric of the universe, just like 2+2=4.

 

[Man of Faith]

Sure, that's certainly fair to do. I think part of the frustration though, is that you've pointed out this inconsistency before, have had it explained to you, and then bring it up again back at square one. Continually misrepresenting the atheist position, in order for you to make it easier to argue against, is exactly what a strawman is. It is understandable if it is from ignorance or lack of familiarity, but you no longer can claim those.


But I will briefly go over your criticism one more time:
You seem to believe that if there is no absolute morality, then that means that there can be no form of morality at all. This is manifestly not the case: After all, as you say, atheists often don't recognize the existence of an absolute morality, and despite your claims, atheists by and large still behave morally. They do not act as if anything and everything were morally permissible.

Many atheists attribute the existence of morality to both evolutionary and cultural means. Just because it is believed that morality did not come from God, does not make it any less useful, practical, or ingrained to follow. There are logical, as well as nature/nurture, reasons for morality to exist and for us to maintain it.

Lastly, an atheist could believe that absolute morality does exist, but just that it does not originate from God. Perhaps the atheist believes that morality is a law of nature, written into the fabric of the universe, just like 2+2=4.

I’m not going to defend my position if I am in the wrong or sound hostile or bullying with my posts. Of course I’m not perfect and will apologize if need to. And I apologize if I misrepresent people’s positions. What I hope to do in the future is not misrepresent peoples positions, but argue against those positions while being respectful. I admit it doesn’t always come out that way because of my short posts and sarcasm that I try to fight against. I will certainly take your advice to heart. This is a great forum and it is moderately fairly and I will take my lumps as I get them and learn from them and hopefully continue on.

Let me point out that I think that some of the same things happen on both sides, for example how many posts have there been stating that “if there is a loving God….no hell….”, or "Christians hate gays….”, even though both of those have been explained many times before by Christians and can be considered as 'misrepresentations' of the Christian position. I don’t accept the position, at least right now, that there could be absolute morality without God, or that morality comes from nature, so I must be able to argue against that somehow. My position is, if there is no God then there isn’t any foundation for any morality, what so ever and it is merely an illusion of the mind, or it is left over from the Christian environment and hasn’t been eliminated yet as we move forward to a more secular society.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I do agree that gross overgeneralizitions and misrepresentations of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc, exist. Both in the real word and often in these forums.

And they are as guilty of hypocrisy as those who do the same to Atheists.

 

[Ingledsva]

...

My position is, if there is no God then there isn’t any foundation for any morality, what so ever and it is merely an illusion of the mind, or it is left over from the Christian environment and hasn’t been eliminated yet as we move forward to a more secular society.

How do you figure moral ideas/laws, etc, can't arise naturally.

 

[McBell]

How do you figure moral ideas/laws, etc, can't arise naturally.

um...
Because doing so would mean god is not needed and some people have so much need for god they stick him anywhere they can?

 

[Skwim]

My position is, if there is no God then there isn’t any foundation for any morality, what so ever and it is merely an illusion of the mind, or it is left over from the Christian environment and hasn’t been eliminated yet as we move forward to a more secular society.

Then the 6,000,000 who practice Jainism and the millions upon millions of Buddhists who don't believe in god are amoral. This is interesting in that both of these religions are highly moral and ethical.

Might want to brush up on religions other than your own. Of course you can always stick with your wild claim that such morals and ethics are mere illusions.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

IMy position is, if there is no God then there isn’t any foundation for any morality

This would be a valid argument if everyone had the same morals.

But they do not.

or it is left over from the Christian environment and hasn’t been eliminated yet as we move forward to a more secular society.

What about those societies that do not come from a christian background? Are they inherently immoral?

 

[Ingledsva]

... I don’t accept the position, at least right now, that there could be absolute morality without God, or that morality comes from nature, so I must be able to argue against that somehow. My position is, if there is no God then there isn’t any foundation for any morality, what so ever and it is merely an illusion of the mind, or it is left over from the Christian environment and hasn’t been eliminated yet as we move forward to a more secular society.

Simply put - if Caveman Grog steals food from Caveman Borg - and Caveman Borg beats the you-know-what out of him - and then it happens again when he tries to steal from a third and forth caveman - both Grog and the other cavemen watching learn that stealing has consequences. Same with trying to steal Borg's mate, etc.

When they can speak these become teaching stories - when they can write they commit them to more permanent forms - hence ideas of morality and laws come about.

Also, as has been stated, these are not the same around the world.

Headhunter culture thinks It is perfectly moral and lawful for a headhunter to consume his enemy.