Abstract

By embracing materialism, the atheist has destroyed the possibility of knowledge, as well as science and technology.

Keywords: atheism, worldview, Richard Dawkins, materialistic, knowledge, logic, irrational, God, law of non-contradiction, conventions

Atheists are “coming out of the closet” and becoming more vocal about their message that “there is no God.” Professor Richard Dawkins (Britain’s leading atheist) is encouraging those who share his views to express their opinion. Author of The God Delusion, Dawkins says he wants to “free children from being indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their community.”1 Will Christians be prepared to “give an answer” to the atheists’ claims?2

Materialistic atheism is one of the easiest worldviews to refute. A materialistic atheist believes that nature is all that there is. He believes that there is no transcendent God who oversees and maintains creation. Many atheists believe that their worldview is rational—and scientific. However, by embracing materialism, the atheist has destroyed the possibility of knowledge, as well as science and technology. In other words, if atheism were true, it would be impossible to prove anything!

Here’s Why

Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law of non-contradiction which says that you can’t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the statement “My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case that my car is in the parking lot” is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. But why is this law true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? The Christian can answer this question. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God’s. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory.

Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter—they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.

The materialistic atheist can’t have laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material—part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can’t stub your toe on a law of logic. Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist’s world, yet he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. The atheist’s view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his profession.

The debate over the existence of God is a bit like a debate over the existence of air.3 Can you imagine someone arguing that air doesn’t actually exist? He would offer seemingly excellent “proofs” against the existence of air, while simultaneously breathing air and expecting that we can hear his words as the sound is transmitted through the air. In order for us to hear and understand his claim, it would have to be wrong. Likewise, the atheist, in arguing that God does not exist must use laws of logic that only make sense if God does exist. In order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.

How Can the Atheist Respond?

The atheist might say, “Well, I can reason just fine, and I don’t believe in God.” But this is no different than the critic of air saying, “Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don’t believe in air.” This isn’t a rational response. Breathing requires air, not a profession of belief in air. Likewise, logical reasoning requires God, not a profession of belief in Him. Of course the atheist can reason; it’s because God has made his mind and given him access to the laws of logic—and that’s the point. It’s because God exists that reasoning is possible. The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.

The atheist might respond, “Laws of logic are conventions made up by man.” But conventions are (by definition) conventional. That is, we all agree to them and so they work—like driving on the right side of the road. But if laws of logic were conventional, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road). So, in some cultures it might be perfectly fine to contradict yourself. In some societies truth could be self-contradictory. Clearly that wouldn’t do. If laws of logic are just conventions, then they are not universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic were conventional, because the two opponents could simply pick different standards for reasoning. Each would be right according to his own arbitrary standard.

The atheist might respond, “Laws of logic are material—they are made of electro-chemical connections in the brain.” But then the laws of logic are not universal; they would not extend beyond the brain. In other words, we couldn’t argue that contradictions cannot occur on Mars, since no one’s brain is on Mars. In fact, if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical connections in the brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person because everyone has different connections in their brain.

Sometimes an atheist will attempt to answer with a more pragmatic response: “We use the laws of logic because they work.” Unfortunately for him, that isn’t the question. We all agree the laws of logic work; they work because they’re true. The question is why do they exist in the first place? How can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? How can non-material things like laws exist if the universe is material only?

As a last resort, the atheist may give up a strictly materialistic view and agree that there are immaterial, universal laws. This is a huge concession; after all, if a person is willing to concede that immaterial, universal, unchanging entities can exist, then he must consider the possibility that God exists. But this concession does not save the atheist’s position. He must still justify the laws of logic. Why do they exist? And what is the point of contact between the material physical world and the immaterial world of logic? In other words, why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? The atheist cannot answer these questions. His worldview cannot be justified; it is arbitrary and thus irrational.

Conclusions

Clearly, atheism is not a rational worldview. It is self-refuting because the atheist must first assume the opposite of what he is trying to prove in order to be able to prove anything. As Dr. Cornelius VanTil put it, “[A]theism presupposes theism.” Laws of logic require the existence of God—and not just any god, but the Christian God. Only the God of the truth and the transcendent can be the foundation for knowledge (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3). Since the God of Scripture is immaterial, sovereign, and beyond time, it makes sense to have laws of logic that are immaterial, universal, and unchanging. Since God has revealed Himself to man, we are able to know and use logic. Since God made the universe and since God made our minds, it makes sense that our minds would have an ability to study and understand the universe. But if the brain is simply the result of mindless evolutionary processes that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past, why should we trust its conclusions? If the universe and our minds are simply the results of time and chance, as the atheist contends, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe? How could science and technology be possible?

Rational thinking, science, and technology make sense in a Christian worldview. The Christian has a basis for these things; the atheist does not. This is not to say that atheists cannot be rational about some things. They can because they too are made in God’s image and have access to God’s laws of logic. But they have no rational basis for rationality within their own worldview. Likewise, atheists can be moral, but they have no basis for that morality according to what they claim to believe. An atheist is a walking bundle of contradictions. He reasons and does science, yet he denies the very God that makes reasoning and science possible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview is consistent and makes sense of human reasoning and experience.

Gotten from: https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheism-an-irrational-worldview/

Accepting ancient Jewish mythology, fiction and folklore is the rational worldview abi? Well done.

DoctorAlien

Both atheists and theist positions are irrational. The way forward is free thinking

You are assuming that atheists are materialistic but who is more materialistic than xtians and their prosperity gospel? Or the Catholic Church and their immense wealth?

Despite your verbosity, the thread is still vacuous. Be concise and succinct next time.

Saverin:
DoctorAlien

Both atheists and theist positions are irrational. The way forward is free thinking

It irritates me when a self-acclaimed agnostic claims the higher intellectual grounds by sitting on the fence.

So what do you think atheists(atleast majority of them) do?, think in a box?

An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of a God and rejects it, its as simple as that.

Learn your definitions well

donnffd:


An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of a God and rejects it, its as simple as that.

Learn your definitions well

Let's go with your definition of atheism and see how rational it

"An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of a God and rejects it, its as simple as that."

Let's use this definition with some entities that have been conferred that godhood status or deified or seen as a God . Let's go . Very simple and easy exercise


1."An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the universe and rejects it, its as simple as that."

2. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the Sun and rejects it, its as simple as that."

3. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the Moon and rejects it, its as simple as that."

4. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the First Cause and rejects it, its as simple as that."


Do you see how irrational your definition is ?

Now let me show how your definition is based on ignorance

Look at no 4 - the First Cause - do you know that there are atheists who admit the existence of the First Cause and that there are theists who reject the existence of the First Cause ?

So now , do you agree with the OP that your atheism is an irrational worldview ?

dalaman:
Accepting ancient Jewish mythology, fiction and folklore is the rational worldview abi? Well done.

A quick scrutiny will reveal that this is an ignorant statement made by someone who has an irrational worldview .


I'm sorry I hope I wont get killed by making the above statement

KingEbukasBlog:


Let's go with your definition of atheism and see how rational it

"An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of a God and rejects it, its as simple as that."

Let's use this definition with some entities that have been conferred that godhood status or deified or seen as a God . Let's go . Very simple and easy exercise


1."An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the universe and rejects it, its as simple as that."

2. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the Sun and rejects it, its as simple as that."

3. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the Moon and rejects it, its as simple as that."

4. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the First Cause and rejects it, its as simple as that."


Do you see how irrational your definition is ?

So, to you, an atheist rejects things that are actually there like the sun and the moon? Show me one atheist who is as you describe please!

donnffd:


It irritates me when a self-acclaimed agnostic claims the higher intellectual grounds by sitting on the fence.

So what do you think atheists(atleast majority of them) do?, think in a box?

An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of a God and rejects it, its as simple as that.

Learn your definitions well

So what do you think atheists(atleast majority of them) do?, think in a box?

Yes, they think in a box.

Without microscope nobody would say for sure that microbes exist but we see they impact on our environ. So open minded say microbes exist but we don't know their true nature.

God exist but we don't know for sure it true nature. we are working to develop "God's microscope"

KingEbukasBlog:


A quick scrutiny will reveal that this is an ignorant statement made by someone who has an irrational worldview .


I'm sorry I hope I wont get killed by making the above statement

So your worldview is rational because you believe in ancient Jewish mythology and folklore abi?

Why should you be killed when you aren't dealing with Moses, Joshua, Ezekiel and the other mass murders whom are the best friends of your God.

KingEbukasBlog:


Let's go with your definition of atheism and see how rational it

"An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of a God and rejects it, its as simple as that."

Let's use this definition with some entities that have been conferred that godhood status or deified or seen as a God . Let's go . Very simple and easy exercise


1."An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the universe and rejects it, its as simple as that."

2. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the Sun and rejects it, its as simple as that."

3. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the Moon and rejects it, its as simple as that."

4. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the First Cause and rejects it, its as simple as that."


Do you see how irrational your definition is ?

Now let me show how your definition is based on ignorance

Look at no 4 - the First Cause - do you know that there are atheists who admit the existence of the First Cause and that there are theists who reject the existence of the First Cause ?

So now , do you agree with the OP that your atheism is an irrational worldview ?

How does this prove that your God beliefs is nothing but holding unto ancient Jewish mythology, fiction and folklore ?

Saverin:




Yes, they think in a box.

Without microscope nobody would say for sure that microbes exist but we see they impact on our environ. So open minded say microbes exist but we don't know their true nature.

God exist but we don't know for sure it true nature. we are working to develop "God's microscope"

Then you are obviously a theist or a deist atleast...

@bolded....ding ding ding

WE SEE THE IMPACT ON OUR ENVIRONMENT....

now tell me, what physical impact have we seen of God's existence?

KingEbukasBlog:


Let's go with your definition of atheism and see how rational it

"An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of a God and rejects it, its as simple as that."

Let's use this definition with some entities that have been conferred that godhood status or deified or seen as a God . Let's go . Very simple and easy exercise


1."An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the universe and rejects it, its as simple as that."

2. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the Sun and rejects it, its as simple as that."

3. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the Moon and rejects it, its as simple as that."

4. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the First Cause and rejects it, its as simple as that."


Do you see how irrational your definition is ?

Now let me show how your definition is based on ignorance

Look at no 4 - the First Cause - do you know that there are atheists who admit the existence of the First Cause and that there are theists who reject the existence of the First Cause ?

So now , do you agree with the OP that your atheism is an irrational worldview ?

This guy you are bloody. In fact you are a precision trained assassin. In fact you cut with wicked slashes and impeccable accuracy.

KingEbukasBlog:


Let's go with your definition of atheism and see how rational it

"An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of a God and rejects it, its as simple as that."

Let's use this definition with some entities that have been conferred that godhood status or deified or seen as a God . Let's go . Very simple and easy exercise


1."An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the universe and rejects it, its as simple as that."

2. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the Sun and rejects it, its as simple as that."

3. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the Moon and rejects it, its as simple as that."

4. "An atheist is someone who doesnt see the evidence for the existence of the First Cause and rejects it, its as simple as that."


Do you see how irrational your definition is ?

Now let me show how your definition is based on ignorance

Look at no 4 - the First Cause - do you know that there are atheists who admit the existence of the First Cause and that there are theists who reject the existence of the First Cause ?

So now , do you agree with the OP that your atheism is an irrational worldview ?

I am sorry but your point here seems to be missing, i don't get it

Are you saying my definition is irrational or the belief is? which is it?

If its the former, than its either you don't understand what irrational means or you don't understand what definition means

If the latter is the case, then i am glad to treat it accordingly:

1. The Universe exists because we are in it, if there is someone who denies that fact, then that individual is either crazy or super crazy
2. The Sun exists because we feel the effects every single day, even the blind feels the heat at daytime and the cold at night and knows something must be causing that, we see the effects and the evidence, we cannot deny it.
3. The moon exists because we feel the effects, apart from the fact that we call all see it,the tidal waves is caused by the gravitational pull of the moon, we see and feel its effects, no-one can deny it.

4. The last one is a little tricky because there is no way to verify that there was a first cause, that's obviously why we see a fragmentation of beliefs, so is the same with your God, no evidence that can be undeniable, that's why people still argue about who it really is or if it exists at all.

So until you provide an undeniable evidence like that of the sun or the moon, the existence of your God would remain a mirage and holding such beliefs like it doesn't exist would not in the slightest be irrational, don't you agree?

butterflyl1on:




This guy you are bloody. In fact you are a precision trained assassin. In fact you cut with wicked slashes and impeccable accuracy.

I just dey tear laugh here

budaatum:

So, to you, an atheist rejects things that are actually there like the sun and the moon? Show me one atheist who is as you describe please!

We've been on this before and you are unwilling to see how irrational and deficient the definition of atheism is . I'm actually showing this to donnffd like I've done to you before .

As an atheist , you are not saying that the entities like The Universe , Moon , Sun , First Cause that have been deified or seen as God/god don't exist or need to be proven to exist , but you are rejecting the deification of these entities .

The donffdd's talk is the one of a materialist not an atheist . Many mistake materialism for atheism and that's the problem . If you want me to rebut materialism using idealism , I'd be glad to .

KingEbukasBlog:


We've been on this before and you are unwilling to see how irrational and deficient the definition of atheism is . I'm actually showing this to donnffd like I've done to you before .

As an atheist , you are not saying that the entities like The Universe , Moon , Sun , First Cause that have been deified or seen as God/god don't exist or need to be proven to exist , but you are rejecting the deification of these entities .

The donffdd's talk is the one of a materialist not an atheist . Many mistake materialism for atheism and that's the problem . If you want me to rebut materialism using idealism , I'd be glad to .

Your evidence to show that Yahweh the God that you believe and subscribe to exist apart from ancient Jewish mythology, fiction and folklore is what?

donnffd:


Then you are obviously a theist or a deist atleast...

@bolded....ding ding ding

WE SEE THE IMPACT ON OUR ENVIRONMENT....

now tell me, what physical impact have we seen of God's existence?

I am neither a deist nor an atheist. I have no label. If you must tag me, then maybe "free-thinker" will suffice.

To your question: You don't understand my point. My point is without the invention of microscope, the arguments on microbes will vary. Now any person can pick a microscope and say for sure what it looks like.

I don't know for sure the physical impact God has on the world. My thoughts on the existence of God run wide. Until we invent that "microscope" nobody can say for sure. If you look throughout human history and records, you will see the repetition of a supreme energy and eternal consciousness in all cultures. My position is instead of saying God doesn't exist because there is no definite proof, let's think and investigate

KingEbukasBlog:


We've been on this before and you are unwilling to see how irrational and deficient the definition of atheism is . I'm actually showing this to donnffd like I've done to you before .

As an atheist , you are not saying that the entities like The Universe , Moon , Sun , First Cause that have been deified or seen as God/god don't exist or need to be proven to exist , but you are rejecting the deification of these entities .

The donffdd's talk is the one of a materialist not an atheist . Many mistake materialism for atheism and that's the problem . If you want me to rebut materialism using idealism , I'd be glad to .

You are merely attempting to paint the atheist into some sort of antideist, an adeist, I suppose but you need to understand what I am saying, instead of painting what I say into what you think I'm saying!

Whether you deify the moon and the sun is irrelevant, they do exist! And an argument about whether they are gods or not deserve the same attention given to those who deify a stone, or a teapot.

The argument for a first cause or causer is however rather different and twofold. First is the claim that a non-existing entity exists, the second is that it is a god. I, as an atheist, refute both claims, and not only the second, as you so blindly wish to claim.

I have bothered to present my position on a first causer in another thread.

Atheism is not a worldview

KingEbukasBlog:


We've been on this before and you are unwilling to see how irrational and deficient the definition of atheism is . I'm actually showing this to donnffd like I've done to you before .

As an atheist , you are not saying that the entities like The Universe , Moon , Sun , First Cause that have been deified or seen as God/god don't exist or need to be proven to exist , but you are rejecting the deification of these entities .

The donffdd's talk is the one of a materialist not an atheist . Many mistake materialism for atheism and that's the problem . If you want me to rebut materialism using idealism , I'd be glad to .

you are the one with the mistake and it comes back to definitions...

Atheism is not a belief system, it is a response

You: There is a God that exists, his name is jehovah
Me: How do you know he exists?
You: i can't tell you, i just know he does
Me: I dont believe you then.

That is atheism in a nutshell...

Infact the word Atheist shouldn't be a thing, there is no word for Aunicornist, Asantaclausist, or Atoothfairist...its actually theists who produced that name because they felt so insulted that a group of people would reject their precious sacred beliefs.

donnffd:


I am sorry but your point here seems to be missing, i don't get it

Are you saying my definition is irrational or the belief is? which is it?

If its the former, than its either you don't understand what irrational means or you don't understand what definition means

If the latter is the case, then i am glad to treat it accordingly:

1. The Universe exists because we are in it, if there is someone who denies that fact, then that individual is either crazy or super crazy
2. The Sun exists because we feel the effects every single day, even the blind feels the heat at daytime and the cold at night and knows something must be causing that, we see the effects and the evidence, we cannot deny it.
3. The moon exists because we feel the effects, apart from the fact that we call all see it,the tidal waves is caused by the gravitational pull of the moon, we see and feel its effects, no-one can deny it.

4. The last one is a little tricky because there is no way to verify that there was a first cause, that's obviously why we see a fragmentation of beliefs, so is the same with your God, no evidence that can be undeniable, that's why people still argue about who it really is or if it exists at all.

So until you provide an undeniable evidence like that of the sun or the moon, the existence of your God would remain a mirage an
d holding such beliefs like it doesn't exist would not in the slightest be irrational, don't you agree?

An unnecessarily long post .

You are not an atheist simply because you deny or reject the existence of the First Cause .

donnffd:


you are the one with the mistake and it comes back to definitions...

Atheism is not a belief system, it is a response

You: There is a God that exists, his name is jehovah
Me: How do you know he exists?
You: i can tell you, i just know he does
Me: I dont believe you then.

That is atheism in a nutshell...
.

That is not atheism please . 'Jehovah' is a religious conception of the First Cause , impugning this is not atheism . I've explained what atheism is , you can now stick to your irrational worldview if you wish .

"Atheism is not a belief system" - donnffd
Same old nonsense. At least you believe it.

KingEbukasBlog:


That is not atheism please . 'Jehovah' is a religious conception of the First Cause , impugning this is not atheism . I've explained what atheism is , you can now stick to your irrational worldview if you wish .

You've explained what YOU feel atheism is. But the thing is reality has NOTHING to do with your deluded opinions.

dalaman:


You've explained what YOU feel atheism is. But the thing is reality has NOTHING to do with your deluded opinions.

If you were logical , you would have rebutted my definition of atheism . Atheism does not deny the existence of entities who have been deified like I have clearly shown , it rejects their deification . Now Sir D , rebut this , let me see . But of course you won't . You gona go round and round till you abandon the argument

KingEbukasBlog:


We've been on this before and you are unwilling to see how

KEB please be educated


Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

And please, if you will, move your argument to the thread you created for it so as not to derail the discussion of this thread.

UyiIredia:
"Atheism is not a belief system" - donnffd

Same old nonsense. At least you believe it.

Sir, this is fallacious.

One doesnt believe in atheism. One is an atheist because he/she does not believe. Is this hard to understand?

KingEbukasBlog:


If you were logical , you would have rebutted my definition of atheism . Atheism does not deny the existence of entities who have been deified like I have clearly shown , it rejects their deification . Now Sir D , rebut this , let me see . But of course you won't . You gona go round and round till you abandon the argument

Your definition of atheism is ridiculous and silly, so why should I rebut something that doesn't make sense na?

No where is atheism defined he way you defined it, so what am I to do with your lone opinion?

superhumanist:



Sir, this is fallacious.

One doesnt believe in atheism. One is an atheist because he/she does not believe. Is this hard to understand?

There is no way that you can seperate atheism from belief as long as it is named. As long as atheists have REASONS for not believing those REASONS ARE BELIEFS having to do with atheism and therefore atheism can be defined as a belief. Why do you atheists not get this?