If you want to terrify an atheist, ask a question.
Questions are the atheist’s, Freddy Krueger.
It doesn’t need to be a difficult question.
Any question works.
Including questions that the atheist asked you!
That’s right!
You don’t even need to think up an original question!
Just copy and paste the atheist question….
…then watch them flee!
Christians fear no question.
Christianity is an anvil.
The atheist hammer asks:
How does a being outside the universe interact with the universe?
The anvil’s response is:
A being powerful enough to create the universe has no trouble interacting with it.
The Christian hammer asks:
How does a universe create itself from nothing?
The atheist’s anvil shatters.
Godless “reason” explodes into millions of glittering fragments.
The heathen is wise to fear questions.
Atheism is a glass anvil.
Questions are a bright light exposing the countless weaknesses of godlessness.
Humanist philosophy is of no use to human beings.
Godlessness poisons everything.
Atheists are cowards.
I’ll prove it.
Human beings believe many things that cannot be tested or proven.
Respond in the comment section with “Agree” or “Disagree” and identify yourself as “Theist” or “Atheist”
I can hear the agnostics screaming, “What about us? What about us?!!!”
We don’t need to hear from you agnostics.
(There is no reason to respond with, “I’m not sure if I agree or disagree.”)
I predict there will not be a single atheist who agrees.
Not one.
The atheist response (if there is one) will be to rephrase the statement or…
…ask a question.
Everyone who agrees with my statement will identify as a Theist.
Let’s see if I’m right.
55 Responses
I’m a theist and I agree. But you don’t have to ask questions of an atheist to get blocked. I got blocked by someone I thought used to be a friend the other day because I made the claim that not all Christians are dogmatic, and that I felt that he was being accusatory in the ensuing conversation where I made no foundational claim.
Around here, getting blocked is a badge of honor. Congrats, Jasmine! Welcome to the club!
“Human beings believe many things that cannot be tested or proven.”
Sure. Agreed. But what’s the point of the question? Has anyone stated the opposite?
Yes, Ron.
Your atheist pals deny this all the time.
Any guesses why that might be?
Pals? How did you conclude that? I like hiking and long bike rides. Does that make everyone who enjoys those activities my pal, as well? Or can you cede that sharing similar views on one specific topic doesn’t automatically lead to unanimous agreement on all others?
I can’t (and don’t) answer for others; only for myself. However, I agree that denying humans can hold unfounded beliefs seems an untenable position given the preponderance of evidence in support of that proposition.
See, JB? He just answered that “humans CAN hold unfounded beliefs.” Not that HE, personally, (or ALL humans) hold beliefs which can’t be tested/proven…
Maybe he just misunderstood the question. Or maybe he’s doing exactly what you predicted and CHANGING the question, on purpose. I don’t know.
Sorry. “MY” atheist pals deny this all the time.
And I should have said, “ALL humans believe things that cannot be tested or proven.” This includes MY atheist pals who are fond of saying every belief they hold is supported by evidence.
Notice the question isn’t whether SOME human beings believe things that can’t be tested or proven. He’s asking whether ALL human beings believe many things that cannot be tested/proven.
Do you still agree?
Is your question focussed on the “all humans” part, ot the “many things” part, or both. I have no way of stepping into the minds of others, but would agree that all human beings hold to some unspecified number of untested/proven beliefs.
“I would agree that all human beings hold to some unspecified number of untested/proven beliefs.”
Oh, okay, then! Most Atheists insist that everything (literally EVERYTHING) they believe is based on tested/provable data…
If you’re willing to agree that you, personally, hold at least one or two beliefs that can’t be tested/proven, then you’ve met JB’s challenge.
Just one or two?
lol… I readily concede my personal count is probably much higher than that. And I would be very skeptical of anyone who maintains all their beliefs are founded on empirical evidence.
Yikes.
How do you avoid the slings and arrows of the other atheists? Have they heard you utter this heresy?
The usual examples by Theists are “I believe the sun will rise in the morning.” Or “I believe my heart will keep beating to get me through the week.”
Out of curiosity, what other things do you believe that can’t be tested/proven?
No worries. I was kicked out of club atheism around the time ‘atheist movement’ decided that only atheists who were willing to embrace their collectivist identity politics without waiver or reservation were welcome amongst their ranks.
As for examples of things I believe but haven’t verified:
– my date of birth (I must rely on the testimony of others because I have no recollection of the event.);
– I was raised by my biological parents;
– the repair shop that services my vehicles is honest and competent;
– Elvis died on August 16, 1977, as reported;
– my neighbors are trustworthy;
– crosswalk buttons have no direct influence on the timing of light changes;
– the Apollo 11 moon landings actually occurred;
– there’s a high probability that life exists in other parts of the universe;
– the 2016 U.S. election results accurately reflect the tabulated vote (within the bounds of error).
I could list many more, but that should give you an indication of where I’m coming from.
…the crosswalk button thing… Totally!
Then you’ve proven me wrong, Ron.
Gold star for you!
I wonder if he’d be willing to share one or two examples of things he personally believes which are untestable/unprovable.
I am a Christian and I agree. In fact, science and Philosophy both attest that we cannot KNOW anything before we first choose to Believe something. Also, I love your comment that atheism is a glass anvil. Brilliant!!!
And happy thanksgiving to you and your family.
No, Ark.
You didn’t follow the rules so I removed your comment.
No point in hearing from you when you can’t admit you speak with order and meaning, eh? Just sent your meaningless statement to spam.
That goes for both Ark AND “Array” right?
LOL!
Poor Ark. He thinks we’re going to let him participate in this discussion, as long as he says “agree.”
Unfortunately, he still hasn’t said that his comments contain meaning and order, so I don’t know if “agree” should mean anything to anyone in this thread…or if it’s just five random letters strung together by a sack of chemicals with a computer.
He didn’t confess to “atheist” either.
Surprise!
It really is like dealing with a wily six-year-old!
Luckily, I have lots of practice…
Your six-year old is charming.
That’s the primary difference between them.
Agreed.
(I’ll go ahead and take the liberty of blasting that last comment into spam, also. Poor, poor Array.) LOL!
Your six-year old says all kinds of ordered, meaningful things too.
That’s another difference.
It’s true. The Universe is FULL of meaning and order. 🙂
My six-year-old is fearfully and wonderfully made.
So is Diggety-Dug-Dig.
He’s covered it up with pride and bitterness.
LOL! I just read the comment you sent to spam!
He lied to “prove me wrong”!
An atheist lie does NOT prove my prediction wrong. It just affirms atheist dishonesty.
Your six-year old is smart enough to understand this.
That’s another difference.
Technically, you didn’t say “No Atheists will HONESTLY agree with this statement.”
So–take that, JB! I bet you feel stupid!
You need to spam his last comments.
I got the first one but missed the second.
He’s a quick little whipper snapper! 🙂
I’m going to post this poll to Facebook. Maybe there will be some honest atheists there…
I’ve never once felt stupid talking to him.
Not even close.
I feel a little mean sometimes… He obviously has problems.
But I’m not sure how to deal with the issue of pride other than to call it out and mock it. (LOL!) So, here we are! The ball is in his court. If he just says the Universe contains meaning and order, we can move on.
Atheists cannot bring themselves to agree with Theists about ANYTHING.
Tildeb was fighting with me yesterday about non-belief being the ‘default position’ for human beings. He finally ended the conversation with “polar bears are magnificent”. Stubborn, stubborn, stubborn…
These are the self proclaimed “rationalists”.
They’re afraid. They know Atheists who agree with Theists about one or two things often end up following that path to full-blown Belief in God.
It’s better if they just type random letters into comments and don’t take the risk of thinking.
Agree, theist.
I used to know an atheist who would certainly agree with your statement, but he is very unlikely to be reading your blog. He was honest enough to admit that his own atheistic position was a belief that can not be tested nor proven.
Thankfully, he doesn’t read this blog!
Agree-Theist
Aseity, interesting choice of discussion.
Although, I don’t think “aseitic” is a word. I think “an ‘aseitic’ being” would best be phrased “a being who is a se” or “a self-existent being”. That would be my first critic to JZ. Secondly, to say that the universe derived from God (who is a se) is not the same as saying “Everything is God and God is everything”. Thirdly, I would challenge whoever this blogger was quoting to research the relationship between God and time. The phrasing does seem to conflate God’s non-essential, intrinsic attributes with God’s relationship to His creation- which is what this author is criticizing. I’d recommend William Lane Craig on these topics (aseity and time) Fourthly, “That is why this world, Creation, must then be artificial. It is (it has to be) wholly and entirely separate from the aseitic being.” That is false- we are not saying that Creation is a se, we are saying that God is. He is causally prior to the universe.
Of course, to rebut this, you’d have to stray away from verification-ism.
Finally, I am a theist who’s epistemology is more sophisticated than epistemological naturalism.
whose*
An apostrope’s reputatation to denote possession made me use the wrong homophone in a rush.
Zande is a theist who lacks the courage to admit it.
With his fascination with Buddha and Krishna on our long- winded conversation together, and his “Everything is God and God is Everything” remark, I’m guessing that he is a pantheist.
People (like Ark) who ask the question “which god?” seem to conflate God with abstract objects. That way they can have an anti-realist view on platonism, where remarks like “there are many gods” but “gods do not exist” aren’t contradictory in their worldview.
John Zande seems to have both “the Universe” and “God” as abstract objects as well. It seems that he’s saying “ If God is a se, then He cannot be in the Universe, ( the assumption is because the Universe is a se as well).
So, I think if the “atheists” broadened their knowledge on Platonism, they’d know the differences among God, abstract objects, and concrete objects.
But it is more fun to say that Ark is a polytheist than to try to explain the difference between a theist’s “God” and Plato’s “abstract objects”.
Agree but I’m not sure if I’m a theist or not. I’m in a period of doubt and deconstruction and feeling lost at the moment. Your blog has been helpful, John.
I am always happy to provide snark and condescension to anyone searching for the truth.
I have been checking your blog today – hoping that an atheist would accept your challenge and chime in. The silence is telling.
There will not be a single atheist who agrees…
You do have your Sam Harris bunch that claim for there to be an objective Good without God’s existence. I’m not sure which of the atheists’ approaches is the least consistent.
I stand by my prediction. :}
Agree. Theist.
You’re 4 for 4 now.
I agree – I am a theist
I agree. I am a theist. You’re right so far.
Agree. Theist.
Hard to disagree. Also, I like the anvil/hammer metaphor.