Home > Apologetics > There is no such thing as an Atheist

There is no such thing as an Atheist

I know, I know, you are saying to yourself that the writer of this blog is completely delusional because you the reader are an atheist and therefore there is at least one atheist in the world.

In my response, I would tell you that you are no atheist. First to be an atheist, you would have to have all knowledge. You see the word ‘atheism’ basically means ‘no God.’ Of course, you knew this, right. But what you do not seem to be able to comprehend is that you can’t state that there is no God, unless you are omniscient or all knowing. By stating that there is no God, then you are trying to convince the rest of us, that you are God.

Secondly if there is no God, then why do you live as if one exists? You get up every day and go to work. You feed your family, pay your bills, and even run to the doctor when you are sick. If there is no God, then you have no basis for doing these things. You are living as if life has meaning, yet no meaning exist according to your own world view.

Thirdly if there is no God, then why are you living according to my world view? In other words you try to treat other humans with respect. You do not go out and run people over for the heck of it. You do not rob others. You do not rape other people’s kids. Finally when these things are done to you, you cry foul or you want the perpetrator arrested. Why? If there is no God, then every man has a right to do what is right in his own eyes. Therefore you are robbing from my world view in order to live your life and are inconsistent with what you claim to know.

I leave you with an article entitled “Why the Atheist doesn’t Exist

“There can be no such things as an atheist. This is why: Let’s imagine that you are a professing atheist. Here are two questions for you to answer: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches ofHawaii? We can safely assume that you don’t. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully-grown male Tibetan yak? Probably not. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there are some things that you don’t know. It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think they know everything.”

Read the rest here.

Advertisements
  1. April 17, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    Not sure why theists feel like they can make their own definitions to words that already have definitions. Just make new words, it’s better that way.

    • April 17, 2012 at 12:52 pm

      Have I redefined ‘atheism’? I believe those who are propagating the ‘new atheism’ has redefined it and rightly so because they lost ground with the full atheistic belief. In other words atheist could not prove atheism and were being defeated in every debate and so atheist redefined atheism and not I.

      • April 17, 2012 at 2:16 pm

        Atheism doesn’t require proof. Belief is basically an opinion question. I don’t believe there is a god, I don’t claim certain knowledge, but I think atheism is a more informed opinion than theism. You probably claim certain knowledge and are projecting.

        If your definition of atheist means someone who knows there is no God, then I agree. That person doesn’t exist. People who know there is a God don’t exist either. It’s unknowable.

      • April 17, 2012 at 4:11 pm

        “Atheism doesn”t require proof.”

        Ummmm. Atheism has no evidence for its position you mean. What you must do is account for the existence of the universe, life, morality, meaning, and everything there is in order for your world view to be consistent. This is because you are borrowing from my worldview in the way you live your life.

        As for theism: All evidence points to the existence of a Creator. You see anything that has a beginning must have a cause. This universe had a beginning, therefore it had a cause.

        Creation itself testifies of a Creator: Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

        The fact that you are over here shows that you believe he exist. You feel guilty for denying his existence, so you want to lash out one more time and try to disprove him. What do you do with your guilt by the way? You know when your alone and you sin and you feel like someone else is watching. You feel guilty because the one watching is the one whom you sinned against.

        His word says, The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God…Psalms 14:1

      • April 18, 2012 at 8:21 am

        Absolutely everything you just said is wrong, you’ll likely realize it one day.

      • April 18, 2012 at 8:49 am

        I know that it will be quite the opposite, for God has highly exalted Christ Jesus and given him a name above every name. So at the name of Jesus every knee will bow and call him LORD to the glory of the Father.

        There are no atheist in Hell.

  2. April 17, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    I appreciate you comment ‘nota scientist’ but as we verified yesterday, your not an atheist.

    • April 17, 2012 at 1:30 pm

      I want to mention that I moderated ‘notascientist’s’ comment.

      It’s not that I mind comments, its just that it shouldn’t take one 5 hours to try to explain the basis for what they believe within their world view.

      You see I do believe life is meaningful and has purpose, therefore my time is valuable.

      To be fair: On this post ‘notascientist’ said that I misdefined the word atheism. He said that because I said the word ‘atheism’ means no God, then I had the definition wrong.

      He stated that it meant ‘the belief that there is no God’ Fair enough, I will grant that the word ‘atheism’ means ‘the belief that there is no God’ but I will also say that I was merely breaking the word down—-

      ‘a’—without—+ theos—-god

      This is from Webster’s New World Dictionary copyrighted 1969.

      So the belief that there is no God still means there is no God to the atheist.

      • April 20, 2012 at 11:37 am

        I can see that your definition of atheism has been pretty much torn apart: “a-” meaning ‘without’ and “-theos” meaning ‘belief in God’. Let me demonstrate the importance of the different; if you continue to assert that theos means God, then if you claim to be a theist you are claiming to be a God.

        I am without a belief in God. I don’t need to know everything to believe that. And belief is certainly different from gnosticism (knowledge), which is the confusion you’re making. I address that in my blog here: http://wp.me/p1AzQ4-62
        That said, if you can prove one logical contradiction in the God concept you can know God doesn’t exist; logic contradictions cannot exist.

        But the thing that gets to me about this post isn’t that you’re making up the meaning of words so that you can condescend to atheists (by the way, about an issue that is nearly always the first thing atheists that a willing to debate are faced with… so we tend to spot it pretty quick). The thing you do that actually gets under my skin is your point 2 and 3, which both boil down to nihilism. Apparently you can see how this wonderful opportunity you have to be alive is worth anything if it wasn’t God that gave you the opportunity.

        Why do I act like my life has meaning? Because I am alive, I didn’t have the right to be alive, and this is the only chance I’ve got to experience anything at all; death is certainly not either preferable or better at creating opportunities.
        Why don’t I rape and murder and eat babies? Because it’s wrong, and I find it hard to believe you genuinely feel you need a God to set you straight on morality. I’m actually scared of you as a human being if you think you need God to set you straight on morality; if you can’t figure out for yourself your moral ideas are subject to hijacking by anything (including the evils of the Old Testament).

        Come to think of it, the alternative question is why don’t theists go to war with non-believers, take non-believers virgin girls (Numbers 31 – Moses versus the Midianites), keep slaves and hunt witches (by which, as history teaches, meant spinsters or ugly ladies)?

      • April 20, 2012 at 3:30 pm

        My friend I thank you for your comment.

        This much said, I want to state that the first paragraph is utterly nonsense.

        First you claim that if I define a word, then I am calling myself that word. This is nonsense seeing that in order for myself to claim to be a god by calling myself a theist, I would have to put a qualifying noun in front of the term ‘theos’; such as ‘I am a theos.’

        I can’t understand why atheist are ashamed to use a word that describes themselves. Again ‘a’ means ‘without’ and ‘theos’ means ‘God’ and then when one puts the suffix ‘ism’ to a word it becomes a system of thought.

        Now to quote from an encyclopedia “Atheism is divided into
        positive or dogmatic, which absolutely declares that there is no God.”

        You actually admit later in your comment: “that I am not making up words to describe you”; which is as you say, would be the first thing that atheist recognize when debating with theist.

        This much said I will say that the encyclopedic definition I gave above was one used during the days of Friedrich Nietzche. He, my friend, was a more consistent atheist, than all those of whom I have had the pleasure of speaking with through this blog. (I didn’t say that his so-called consistency warranted the proof that atheism is true. I said he was more consistent than those who claim to be atheist now.)

        Why do I say that Friedrich Nietzche was more consistent? Because you said:

        “Why do I act like my life has meaning? Because I am alive, I didn’t have the right to be alive, and this is the only chance I’ve got to experience anything at all; death is certainly not either preferable or better at creating opportunities.”

        Nietzche had little patience with philosophers who removed God from their belief sytems, yet retained belief in Christian moral values and meaning and purpose to life. So he was more consistent in his views.

        The reason you claim that you do not need to give a rational account of where meaning and purpose come from, where moral values come from, or where this universe comes from is because you are a product of postmodernism. Postmodernism would argue that there is no absolute truth. Yet the statement itself can’t be true if that be the case because it is a statement about truth. Most Postmodernist argue that morality comes from society, yet this just pushes the question of where morality came from, back a step. If morality came from society, and societies are made up of persons, then actually you are back at square one and this being that each individual makes up morality. Yet even if a group of persons makes up morality, then one society couldn’t tell another society that they are wrong, seeing that each society could just make it up for themselves. Therefore you couldn’t call another society (the Jews) wrong as you do at the bottom of your comment here because their morals might be different than your society.

        Finally you claim that you are scared of me because I can’t find moral values by myself, yet you use my worldview to define moral values. This is nonsense to say the least. If you are going to define moral values, then show us what the foundational principles are to include moral values within your world view is to begin with. If we are all heading to meaningless and nothingness, then there really isn’t a purpose in being moral. The reason you can’t see this is because you are borrowing meaning and purpose from my worldview.

        Morality is something that is transcedent and comes from out side us. Everyone recognizes that it is wrong to do certain things because God has written on our hearts that it is wrong to do certain things.

        Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

        Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

        and

        Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

        Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

        You see the law of God is something that is written on your heart. You surpress this law when you deny him.

        If you are going to be a consistent atheist, then develop a world view that does not include morality because this is the ultimate result of a system that doesn’t include God or a judgment. You claiming that you can actualize meaning for yourself does not prove meaning in life. Your neighbor could come and steal from you and you couldn’t appeal to nothing outside yourself (such as the police) because that thief would just be making meaning for his life.

        As for God telling the Jews to kill the inhabitants of Canaan: God has the right to judge individuals for their sins. Thus he can command the Jews and also the government to take life for committing certain crimes. You see God even ordained the government to be a force in the world against evildoers.

        Now I must tell you that Christ is the only way to God. If you are going to stand before God and not have his wrath moved against you, then you must have Christ Jesus as your substitute. In other words, he must become your mediator between you and a holy God.

        One day you will stand before him and give an account. If your name is not in the Lamb’s book of life then there will be no hope for you.

        Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

      • April 21, 2012 at 1:34 am

        You said ‘theos’ means God (which you are right, it does) and that therefore ‘theist’ means God.
        It doesn’t. “Theism” means belief in God. “A-” means without.
        Examples:
        Polytheism means belief in many gods
        Polytheist means person who believes in many gods
        Monotheism means belief in one God
        Monotheist means person who believes in one God.

        However, if we take your meaning, this is what the same words mean:
        Polytheism means there are many gods
        Polytheist means a person who is many gods
        Monotheism means there is one god
        Monotheist means a person who is the one god

        This is why your definition is wrong; theism does not refer to ontological truths, but simply beliefs.
        What descriptive word would you use to describe someone who does not believe in any gods?
        Nietzsche (who I had the dis-pleasurable honour of studying at college) is almost without doubt a satirist. He could also be an absolute sociopath, but he seems sincerely morally lucid so that does seem doubtful. He’s not consistent; he’s consistent with what the theist assumes of atheist: nihilism and fatalism.
        Nietzsche seems to be every theistic philosopher’s favourite atheist philosopher, and that’s because things like Nietzsche’s madman did such a great job of linking atheism to nihilism. But that’s complete rejection of human nature.
        Not to mention the meaninglessness of investing all your meaning and morality in a God. It means your morality is derived from fear of hell and your purpose is about making God happy. My point is that’s not objective either.
        I would never argue that there is no absolute truth. I find that a phenomenally stupid comment; there is an ontological reality.
        Societal relativism is actually morally repulsive. Who are we not to say we know better how to make happy people than say the Taliban.
        We know (and science can inform, read The Moral Landscape) how to make people happier. We can objectively know that. So morality can be both empirical and objective.
        Your contention seems to be more about it being meaningful. And I say again: this is it! I derive morality and purpose from this life because I don’t get another one. Justice is a system upheld by human nature and what we want from our society.
        If Nietzsche is your idea of a consistent atheist (which evidently it is) you clearly hold no value at all in what it means to be a human, or a part of a society. And to that end I say–if you’re being sincere–I am a better person than you.

      • April 21, 2012 at 11:22 am

        I never said ‘theist’ or ‘theism’ means God. I said the word ‘theos’ means god. You actually said that I said ‘theos’ means belief in God. I never said that, so you are correcting youself.

        You might want to read the post and all answers before actually writing. I can’t find one place where bouts I said ‘theos’ means belief in god.

        I said in the original post “‘atheism’ basically means ‘no God.’”
        I said in my answer to notascientist “‘a’—without—+ theos—-god”
        Then in my response to you I said ” ‘a’ means ‘without’ and ‘theos’ means ‘God’ and then when one puts the suffix ‘ism’ to a word it becomes a system of thought.”

        You said in your first comment “I can see that your definition of atheism has been pretty much torn apart: “a-” meaning ‘without’ and “-theos” meaning ‘belief in God’.”

        Yet I never said the word ‘theos’ by itself was belief in god. The word literally means god. Again we have to put the qualifying suffix on it to make it a belief sytem.

      • April 21, 2012 at 11:29 am

        Also if there is no God, then us discussing whether there is no God would be fruitless.

        You keep telling me that it is logical to deny God’s existence, but never tell me why. You also are here to make your point that I shouldn’t speak against the belief of atheism; as though it would be illogical to hold the view of theism. Yet, I have received no arguments for the origins of the universe, morality, meaning and purpose, etc….. It seems that if someone were to affirm the non-existence of something 97 or so% of the population affirms; that that person ought to give a reason why 97 or so % is wrong for affirming that. It seems that the one making the denial ought to give us a reason for the existence of anything since they have denied the world view that has an explanation for the existence of everything.

      • April 21, 2012 at 11:35 am

        Finally you say, “If Nietzsche is your idea of a consistent atheist (which evidently it is) you clearly hold no value at all in what it means to be a human, or a part of a society. And to that end I say–if you’re being sincere–I am a better person than you.”

        Here you are wrong. I said Nietzche was more consistent with his atheism, than you are. This don’t mean that I hold Nietzche’s views or even live by them. I live by Christ Jesus’ views of morality and so do you.

  3. April 18, 2012 at 1:28 am

    Reblogged this on Scripture Alone.

    • April 18, 2012 at 3:34 am

      Thanks very much. Also thanks for following my blog. Feel free to reblog anything you like or to use anything off my web site you like. The link at the top of my blog will take you to my web site.

      God bless

      • April 18, 2012 at 6:25 am

        Thanks so much for the offer. God bless. To HIm alone be the glory.

      • April 18, 2012 at 7:31 am

        Your welcome.

  1. April 21, 2012 at 3:34 am

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: