Posted on 07/28/2013 8:22:20 PM PDT by Patriot Politics
A Question for Atheists: The Book of God's Existence Atheists maintain that rejection of faith is superior to practicing faith. However, despite this commonly held view, one may at least force an atheist to admit he/she is capable of practicing faith. Simply ask this question:
Suppose there exists a book simply titled "The Book of God's Existence" which, using formal logic and reasoning, proves the existence of God. However, if one who does not already believe in God reads this book that person is doomed to eternal damnation. Many prominent and vocal atheists have read the book intending to prove it wrong, but in each case they immediately become depressed believing their fate in Hell is assured.
You, as an atheist, are not convinced that the book is correct. In fact, you're almost certain that it can be proven wrong since you discover it is simply a modified ontological argument and have successfully found logical fallacies in numerous other similar arguments. What do you do?
There are only 3 valid actions that an atheist may take:
Refuse to read the book, but continue to deny God's existence. Refuse to read the book, but accept God's existence. Read the book. Each action requires a display of faith, either in God or one's self. Here's why:
1. If they respond with "I wouldn't read the book, but I wouldn't believe in God either" they express a blind faith that the book is fallacious without examination of its contents and in direct conflict with the evidence that every atheist who has read the book believes in God--even those who were most vocal about their non belief.
2.If they respond with "I wouldn't read the book, but I would believe in God's existence" they express a blind faith that the book is correct without examination of its contents and accept the testimony of those who have read it as correct without any real proof to validate their claims. Most importantly, however, they also express a faith in God.
3. Unfortunately, this is the choice most atheists would make. If they respond to the question with "I would just read the book" they express a blind faith that their intuition of the book's fallibility is correct without any evidence. Further, they show a faith that the testimony of all the atheists who read the book is misguided despite the fact that each person who read the book was a strong atheist before, most likely including others that had also successfully refuted other ontological arguments. However, the greatest faith they place is in their belief that they will not be damned to Hell for reading the book without assurance.
Final Thoughts
In the end, each person is "granted a measure of faith" (Romans 12:3) by God, and an atheist is no different. Despite the claims that they will not express any faith, they are quite capable of doing so in many different situations. This question is simply a thought experiment to point out that they are indeed capable of faith.
Arguing with an atheist is like wrestling the mud with a pig...after awhile you realize the pig enjoys it.
It really is, but just imagine if you could prove that even logic loving atheists must have faith. They may not lose the wrestling match, but it would at least pin one arm down!
Your question relies on multiple interpretations of the word “faith.” For example, in the first instance, it’s faith that the book is wrong; in the second, that the book is correct. Normally, “faith” means belief in the existence of God, or, more generally, belief in a proposition that is supported by neither direct evidence nor logical reasoning. Nearly everyone, including atheists, believe that *something* is true, or false, without having direct evidence or a sound logical reason to believe it, irrespective of their belief in God. Trying to show that *even atheists* have faith, when the faith is that the book might be wrong or right, is not to say that, therefore, they have faith *in God.*
An agnostic says, "I'm not at all sure about the God thing." -- I can understand that position.
An atheist says, "No way, no how. I am 100% certain that there is no God. It's true that I cannot prove a negative, and I have no real evidence of any kind -- but I know for a fact that God is a complete myth."
That's an expression of faith. It's pure emotion and nothing else. Every real atheist says that, and they all sound stupid when they say it.
I don’t have enough faitth to be an atheist.
Pray for America to Wake up
In a word...no. Let's look at it:
Suppose there exists a book simply titled "The Book of God's Existence" which, using formal logic and reasoning, proves the existence of God. However, if one who does not already believe in God reads this book that person is doomed to eternal damnation.
That's one heck of an assumption to start out with.
Many prominent and vocal atheists have read the book intending to prove it wrong, but in each case they immediately become depressed believing their fate in Hell is assured.
Why are they damned, since they now presumably believe in God?
You, as an atheist, are not convinced that the book is correct. In fact, you're almost certain that it can be proven wrong since you discover it is simply a modified ontological argument and have successfully found logical fallacies in numerous other similar arguments. What do you do?
Since I have discovered this, I must have already read the book, yes? How else would I know?
There are only 3 valid actions that an atheist may take:
Refuse to read the book, but continue to deny God's existence. Refuse to read the book, but accept God's existence. Read the book. Each action requires a display of faith, either in God or one's self. Here's why:
Since I already know that the book consists of a modified ontological argument, I must have already read the book.
If they respond to the question with "I would just read the book" they express a blind faith that their intuition of the book's fallibility is correct without any evidence.
In this instance, the atheist has simply expressed his willingness to examine the evidence, and has not necessarily made a judgement as to the the book's fallibility in advance.
Further, they show a faith that the testimony of all the atheists who read the book is misguided despite the fact that each person who read the book was a strong atheist before, most likely including others that had also successfully refuted other ontological arguments.
You never said how many atheists have already read the book. 10? 100? 2? In any case, the fact that many other people have drawn a conclusion about it doesn't make of necessity mean they're correct (or incorrect, for that matter).
However, the greatest faith they place is in their belief that they will not be damned to Hell for reading the book without assurance.
Why would someone base their actions upon the threat of something they don't believe exists (their soul) ending up someplace they don't believe exists (Hell)?
This thought experiment is, I'm afraid, fatally flawed.
An insomniac agnostic dyslexic stays up all night wondering if there is a dog.
Of course they have faith. They have faith that what they see and touch and the here and now are real and both are all that exists. That their consciousness, what we call “soul”, is nothing more than the result of electrochemical processes in a human brain. They can believe whatever they like. Most people on earth a thousand years ago probably believed the earth was flat and and the stars were pin holes in some black firmament. It did not make it so. I believe when the water tight bag of meat, bone, organs, and feces their consciousness peers into this world through gives out they will be in for a major surprise.
But, of course atheists express a simplistic religion-like faith that cannot be proven by facts. Just ask them about global warming.
It proves that some people are sophists. The argument presented here is utterly bogus and absurd.
If presented with this phony choice, I would take a fourth course of non-action; I would give the proposition the robust horselaugh it deserves, proving that I have faith in humor.
No, they don't. The atheist position is the one you describe as "agnostic". Talk to some real atheists, why don't you.
Why don’t you just ask me about “globull warming”?
I’ll give the question the robust horselaugh it deserves, proving that I have faith in humor, once again.
Of the few Atheists I know, they are mostly arrogant and self-centered.
If you’re an Atheist reading this, think about it. You believe there is nothing after this life and no God, naturally you’re going to center your life around yourself as you are the only thing you’ve got, and your days are numbered. Naturally you’re self-centered. Maybe family centered.
Faith is a foreign concept.
I think the arrogant part comes in as a defense mechanism. All those Christians/Jews, I know better! But I’ve always thought behind every arrogant Atheist there is a person masking a pain/emptiness that God
could take away. Of course they couldn’t or wouldn’t ever admit to such a thing.
Probably not every Atheist is like this, but those I’ve encountered are.
A hypocrite is a man who writes a book extolling atheism and then prays that it sells well.
(old joke that Woody Allen wrote when 16)
That's an expression of faith. It's pure emotion and nothing else. Every real atheist says that, and they all sound stupid when they say it.
Some atheists say that, that's true...but there are also atheists who say, "I have no belief in the existence of any deities, but I do not explicitly assert that they do not exist." That is not an expression of faith, but rather an expression of a lack of it.
I say that you’re right. God is. The most powerful words that He ever uttered were to Moses who asked what Name he should convey to the Hebrews as to Who their Deliverer was.
“I AM WHO AM.”
The Lord then said to Moses, “Tell your people that He Who Is shall deliver them out of the land of Egypt.”
I don’t think atheists believe they have NO faith in ANYTHING. Faith is a belief in something they haven’t totally proven. For example they believe in cold fusion or warp speed space travel, even though they aren’t totally proven or understood.
This is a nice try but atheists are masters at rationalization. Rationalization is the second greatest human drive. If they don’t attack your argument, they attack how you’ve said it, or they attack you personally, or they attack the way you are spreading your argument, or there’s always something to object to.
They still have to explain what their factual basis is for their beliefs though. Lack of evidence doesn’t mean non-existence. What if God wants people to believe in Him without having to see Him personally?
How do they explain the atheists who have never set foot in churches, never had any Christian upbringing, that have had been clinically dead, and are revived after brain death, and recount being in the most awful place they’ve ever been, with fire and heat and pain and seeing others there in pain and torment? And that talking with others realize that the place they actually went to, was Hell?
Atheism is a faith itself because one has to have faith in order to believe in nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.