Honest Discussion

Big Bang

Unlike many Christian Apologists, who can be very aggressive, argumentative and judgmental, this Christian lady just seemed to have an honest confusion and curiosity about non-believers. She seemed genuinely bewildered that non-believers’ actions, attitudes and opinions didn’t match what she had been brainwashed to expect. Of course, I felt that she was wrong about some of her assumptions, and blinded by her pre-suppositions, about others – so here we are again.

Why can’t the atheist accept what he can’t see for himself—at least when it comes to God. He can’t see gravity, but believes in it; can’t see black holes, but (most) would agree they exist.

When it comes to God, however, inferring His existence from the effect He has on life (which is how we know about gravity and black holes) is insufficient evidence.

The Atheist can see gravity’s direct effect, from dropping a pen, to black holes pulling stars into them, and there is a scientific explanation for all of it. The effects of God’s presence are only obvious to those who presuppose His existence, and every example offered has a natural explanation.

Some, of course, believe they have come to the only rational, intelligent conclusion possible, but that presupposes that the human mind can know all that is or is not in the vast cosmos.

You do not have to know everything, to have an opinion on one subject, even if it seems to be of cosmic proportions. Despite appearances, the argument is not usually about the existence of God, but rather, about the lack of convincing evidence for your definition.

Despite that uncertainty, atheists are certain God is not there. Life maybe; God absolutely not.

Despite that claim, the profound majority of Atheists do not believe that, nor do most of them claim that He does not exist. A small, vocal minority does, but there are ignorant, arrogant fools on both sides of the Bible.

I have reason to believe that the people holding to a strict 6 24-hour day for creation, are wrong.


This is what is known as ‘cherry picking’ your arguments

So, you don’t believe what the Bible clearly says, but you want Atheists to believe it??! 🙄

(1)Steve, do you never ask the philosophical questions science cannot answer? Why are we here? Where are we going? What purpose does life serve? (2)Why do we think there’s a right and a wrong? You clearly do think there’s right/wrong as you demonstrate in this comment. (3) Where did your sense of truth come from? (4) Of morality? There are two things followers of the Bible have that those who reject God and the Bible do not have: a standard to go by and motivation to follow the standard. On and on. Science has nothing to say to these things.

(1) Damn, the woman wants infinity explained in a single comment. Of course, science can’t answer philosophical questions. So what??! Despite what she, and others, believes, neither can Religion. For Atheists to honestly say “I don’t know.” is not a mark of weakness. Steve and many others, have asked these questions. A surprising number of Atheists were once preachers/priests/ministers, or students in Seminary Colleges. Isaac Asimov once called the Bible “the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”

(2) There is no right and wrong. What is right for me, is wrong for you. Evolution has taught us to consider outwards: self, family, clan, village, state, nation, world – and each level at a lower intensity. The greatest good for the greatest number. Do unto others what you would have done unto you. A little empathy, compassion, and consideration for others, helps to assure that the human species survives.

(3) “Sense of Truth” is like being a little bit pregnant – it either is, or it isn’t – and if it is, is should be provable. A claim that your religion, or your Holy Book, gives that to you, is quickly disproved by the existence of other religions, and other Holy Books, making the same claim.

(4) Morality is an invention of men who want to get paid to make you feel good that you are following their orders. Atheists, and other non-Christians, all have standards, and motivation to follow them. They just might not be exactly the same as yours, but there is no proof that your morals are the only/correct ones.

Her presupposition is that even Atheists believe in God, but reject Him, where most Atheists honestly do not believe that any such supernatural entity exists.

Science is merely the best methodology to investigate and explain reality. Just because many Atheists embrace and use it, does not mean that they do not also have Philosophical ways of explaining and dealing with these “Moral Problems.” It is not a panacea, as religion claims to be. It is just an effective one of many tools.

14 thoughts on “Honest Discussion

  1. 1jaded1 says:

    Atheists believe in God but reject him? Wow.


    • Archon's Den says:

      Atheists are amateurs at the rejecting thing. I recently watched a conversation where a young male believer wanted to know why unbelievers wouldn’t just accept the Bible story of the resurrection of Christ.
      One podcast host explained that the tales were written from oral history, 50 to 100 years after it was claimed to have happened, and then asked if he understood ‘The Telephone Game.’
      Well yes, but that was just a game that you played in elementary school. This was important stuff in the real world. Nobody would get that wrong. 😳
      He admitted that we couldn’t go back in time to observe what happened. The moderator said, Then, the Universe was created so that we are unable to confirm or disprove – Whose fault is that?
      Without a fraction of a second’s delay, he answered, The Atheists! 👿

      Liked by 2 people

    • interesting perspective isn’t it?


  2. jim- says:

    Why can’t the atheist accept what he can’t see for himself?” Why, conformity is a bitch. It’s not only what we can’t see for ourselves, but we have to believe what she can’t see for herself either.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Daniel Digby says:

    The woman wants infinity explained in a single comment? Then let’s do it. Just because the idea of infinity isn’t part of science doesn’t mean it can’t be defined. In mathematics, it is defined by the axiom of infinity (https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Infinity,_axiom_of). The idea was first published by Peano, then incorporated into set theory by Zermelo. The idea is simple: for a set containing whole numbers, if there is a last number, the set is finite; otherwise, it’s infinite. There are also infinitely many orders of infinity in both the ordinal and cardinal numbers.

    To determine if any other sets are infinite, use the Schroeder-Bernstein theorem to compare them to the ordinals (or cardinals).

    The idea of ordinal numbers is that for any number, there is always a next one, and if there isn’t a last ordinal in a set of ordinals, the entire set becomes the next ordinal. The Burali-Forti paradox is that there can’t be a set containing all ordinal numbers because that would mean that the set contains a last number,which is impossible since there is always a next number. The way out of the paradox is that anything containing all the ordinals is not a set, so it can’t be extended to the next ordinal. (Collections of that type are called proper classes.)

    I’ve simplified the explanations to avoid the formal logic required for a rigorous mathematical discussion. These concepts don’t extend to the physical world, but they are logically consistent.

    Why didn’t she ask about eschatology, where physics provides a definitive answer? Who is this person, since I obviously missed the blog with her comments? And who is Steve?


    • Archon's Den says:

      Thank you for simplifying that. I understand a bit better now. The reason I didn’t even try to explain, is that her concept of Infinity goes back to her childhood trips with her parents, and an infinity of, Are we there yet? 😉
      Her comprehension of difficult topics seemed halted somewhere between doorknobs, and ice cubes. Steve was a hypothetical Atheist who couldn’t raise her understanding with a bottle-jack. Sadly, he is no longer with us. His mother was a Higgs boson (of the Arkansas Higgs), and he suffered nuclear decay into a hotel bellboy. 😆

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Dear Archon’s Den,
    Thanks for this post. I would like to explore your statements made in answer (2). First, you said, “There is no right and wrong.” If I embraced your worldview, I would agree with you. There is no right and wrong. You followed up by saying,
    “Evolution has taught us to consider outwards: self, family, clan, village, state, nation, world – and each level at a lower intensity. The greatest good for the greatest number. Do unto others what you would have done unto you. A little empathy, compassion, and consideration for others, helps to assure that the human species survives.”
    Since, in your words, “What is right for me, is wrong for you,” what if I decide that I don’t care at all about family, clan, or humanity surviving, but my value is to get whatever I can for myself? I think what is right for me is raping and killing you and stealing all your stuff. Are you saying there is nothing inherently wrong with these acts? You may have decided that you prefer to live by the standard, “Do unto others what you would have done to you.” And the majority may decide to live by that standard. They may put me in jail for rape, murder, and theft. But could they actually say that what I did is wrong? In the worldview where there is no right and wrong, rape is equal to baking cookies. There is nothing that has moral value over another thing. Is that what you are saying?


    • Daniel Digby says:

      There’s certainly nothing wrong with a little murder, rape, and pillaging if God tells you to do it. Look at Joshua and Jerico. Although God forbade pillaging that time, He ordered all of Jericho to be killed, even unto their asses — with the sole exception of their prostitutes.

      So yes, there is nothing inherently wrong with rape, provided God tells you it’s okay. Rape is the moral equivalent of baking cookies if God tells you to capture enemy virgins. Biblical Scripture is the ultimate guide to moral behavior.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Daniel Digby says:

    Although I had always thought that rejecting the notion that there is a god along with all that implies (like heaven, hell, reincarnation, soul, resurrection, sin, angels, and jinn) might qualify one for being an atheist, I later found out that I’ve just been deluding myself. This isn’t to say that there is no wisdom in Scripture — Sura 17:36, for instance. The nearest translation might be “You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.”

    Using that admonition, I came to realize that depending on observation and reason are folly, and that there are far Greater Authorities than I. In studying for his role as an atheist in God’s Not Dead, Kevin “This ain’t Jim Beam” Sorbo became the world’s foremost expert on atheism. As it turns out, the character he plays in the movie nails what all atheists believe, and I just never knew that what’s depicted in the movie was what I and every other atheist believe.

    First, all atheists secretly believe in God, even if She doesn’t exist. He’s absolutely right. How could I have turned my back on Vishnu and Kokopelli. (And I can’t leave out the possibility of Hercules.)

    Next, back when I was teaching, I required all my students to write “God is dead” on a sheet of paper, sign it, and turn it in. (If God doesn’t exist, She’s certainly not alive.) Later, when one of my students refused to sign his paper and challenged me to a debate, I was delighted.

    Then he started trapping me with all those tricky questions: If God is dead, who created the universe? If man descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? If there isn’t an absolute objective standard of morals, why aren’t you standing on the corner shooting people? Since the theory of evolution includes the Big Bang, the creation of Earth, and the creation of life, Why didn’t Darwin talk about any of this in his books? Since the Kalam argument takes almost a minute to refute, how can you say that the Christian god of the Bible is dead? How can you say that I can’t know God when I feel Her burning in my breast? …And he kept peppering me with these questions that no one can answer.

    I was completely devastated by the overwhelming power of his logic. He later found out that I was just mad at God for not giving me a Rolls Royce. And that’s the reason anyone becomes an atheist — they’re just mad at God and they’re pouting. Boy, did Kevin ever put me in my place.

    Face it. You’re just mad at some non-existent God. What a masterful job of picking apart of all of my claims. I’ll bet you’re ashamed that you ever thought that you’re an atheist.

    Liked by 2 people

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 )

Connecting to %s